[wim]

Sorry, then you have the wrong lenses.  -_- Of course it depends what you call "optimal results" but sharpness in the middle has to be there from wide open otherwise it's a bottom of a bottle, no lens. For some pictures nothing else than sharpness in the middle is the right thing, so stopping down will mot improve the result if I want nice blurr around.

 

And I doubt very much after looking at some resolution results for µ 4/3 lenses, that it's enough to stop down one f-stop for the same "optimal results". Compare the RAWs, then we'll talk again. I agree with most of your explanations, especially your view about equivalence, but please don't try to make µ 4/3 better than it really is (which is already pretty good) 

 

Whether I have the wrong lenses, JoJu, is a matter of opinion. Personally I think I own many great lenses. A few not so great ones, as in, standard type zooms, but other than that they are all great lenses. As to blur, it depends a lot on how one shoots. I tend to get close, which means that F/1.2 is great for focusing, but not necessarily great to get enough DoF with the blur .

 

I generally shoot with primes, certainly on FF (only 1 zoom lens for FF), and with MFT it depends on what I am carrying it around for, but again it is mostly primes I shoot with, which are all great wide open, even though I have a nice range of good to excellent MFT zooms, which are great even wide open, e.g. Panny 7-14 F/4, Oly 12-40 F/2.8, Panny 35-100 F/2.8. The FF primes tend all to be better stopped down a little, except the 135 F/2, which is as good as it gets from F/2. However, I often need more than F/2. I find myself shooting at F/2.8 and F/4 or even smaller apertures just to get enough DoF. Do note that DoF tables are generally overoptimistic, as the human eye is sharper than the standard used for DoF, namely a CoC of 0.030 mm for FF, while in reality acuteness of the human eye at the viewing distance and resolution for the standard use really requires a CoC of around 0.010 mm. In addition a sensor has a completely different sharpness pattern in the DoF field than film has and slightly smaller apertures make it look more like film.

 

BTW, MFT is better than most people think it is, actually . In addition, I was comparing to my old 350D and 400D, I didn't say anything about FF sensors. I don't know whether you ever shot with MFT or not, and if not, do yourself a favour and give it a try . You might be surprised . I was, and that was with a used Panasonic GF2 when I started with MFT.

 

Kind regards, Wim