Diffraction limits in megapixels for the different formats:
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleIm...TABLA3.jpg
Again - a 2 f-stop difference. There is no free lunch in MFT land.
And I still love my own 12-100mm f/4 PRO - also because it's way superior in terms of corner resolution and vignetting compared to these crappy 24-240 Canon/Sony lenses. I do not have to think of IQ - I just have it here. That applies to many MFT lenses. Many FF lenses have a great center performance and dismal borders - combined with sky high price tags. I just don't want to bother. Needless to say there's also the size/weight advantage. While in theory, FF lenses of similar "equivalent" speed could be as small, they just don't exist so that debate is purely hypothetical. Where is the FF equivalent lens of the Leica 100-400mm or Olympus 300mm f/4 IS for instance?
Conversely, you can ask how many people really buy something like a FF 85mm f/1.4? 0.1% of the FF users? 0.5%? For the vast majority it'll remains a lens illustrated in a catalog. No more.
The really relevant question isn't equivalence. It is whether you need more than MFT. I do not believe that 80% of photographers need more than MFT. Of course, everybody is free to buy whatever they want.
So as always, all things in the universe have their place and there is a place for MFT as there is one for FF. There's even one for APS-C, too. ;-)
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleIm...TABLA3.jpg
Again - a 2 f-stop difference. There is no free lunch in MFT land.
And I still love my own 12-100mm f/4 PRO - also because it's way superior in terms of corner resolution and vignetting compared to these crappy 24-240 Canon/Sony lenses. I do not have to think of IQ - I just have it here. That applies to many MFT lenses. Many FF lenses have a great center performance and dismal borders - combined with sky high price tags. I just don't want to bother. Needless to say there's also the size/weight advantage. While in theory, FF lenses of similar "equivalent" speed could be as small, they just don't exist so that debate is purely hypothetical. Where is the FF equivalent lens of the Leica 100-400mm or Olympus 300mm f/4 IS for instance?
Conversely, you can ask how many people really buy something like a FF 85mm f/1.4? 0.1% of the FF users? 0.5%? For the vast majority it'll remains a lens illustrated in a catalog. No more.
The really relevant question isn't equivalence. It is whether you need more than MFT. I do not believe that 80% of photographers need more than MFT. Of course, everybody is free to buy whatever they want.
So as always, all things in the universe have their place and there is a place for MFT as there is one for FF. There's even one for APS-C, too. ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji