[Brightcolours]

I actually quoted your post to reply to and then went on to add replies to others as well, which were not quoted, that's all.

 

Whether it is a bad deal is for any propective buyer(s) to decide. Whether you find it a bad deal is irrelevant, especially as you are not a fan of micro 4/3. Besides, as I already pointed out elsewhere, an F/1.4 is an F/1.4, whether it is a FF F/2.8 equivalent or not. I really wonder at times what axes you seem to have to grind with anything that is not to your liking or does not conform to yoru ideas or opinions, to be very honest. I just don't understand your way of thinking.

 

HTH, regards, Wim

You may have written that f/1.4 is f/1.4, but that remains as meaningless as it ever was. F/1..4 merely means focal length divided by 1.4 = aperture size. If the f is different, f/1.4 != f/1.4.

 

f1.4 with ISO 100  Velvia != f1.4 with agfapan APX 400.

Using a different size aperture is just as valid a thing as using a different ISO setting. 

 

A famous Leica photographer said that a photographer only has two tools to determine the look of the image, aperture for DOF and focal length for FOV. To control exposure, that is what ISO and exposure time are for. Another famous Leica photographer only varied aperture to get an adequate exposure. That illustrates well the possible different ways one can look at the tools available.

 

Whether I am a fan of MFT or not is very not important in any way. It does not change a thing. I have had the same discussions about APS-C vs FF, FF vs APS-C, Nikon 1 vs APS-C, FF versus 6x9 MF.

 

Why I said it is a bad deal: mirrorless, and MFT in particular, have been supposed to have a weight and size advantage. With this particular lens, it does not have a weight, nor a size advantage. Nor does it have a price advantage. That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me...