06-26-2011, 09:53 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309080505' post='9559']
Those are the actual facts... get an equivalent lens on MFT, and it will NOT be lighter. As my example of the 35mm f2 lens shows. Want me to give more examples?
[/quote]
Depth-of-field is just one aspect though. MFT allows 4 times faster shutter speeds at comparable depth-of-fields (2 times vs APS-C). At comparable megapixels you've a higher pixel density so you need faster shutter speeds anyway but you still have an advantage of about 1 f-stop. This can also be a decisive point.
Anyway, the discussion is sort of pointless. Mirrorless systems are about size and depth-of-field potential is not a priority here. Oly will release a 45mm f/1.8 soon - that's equivalent to a 90mm f/3.6 which sounds reasonably good for me for shallow depth-of-field situations.
Those are the actual facts... get an equivalent lens on MFT, and it will NOT be lighter. As my example of the 35mm f2 lens shows. Want me to give more examples?
[/quote]
Depth-of-field is just one aspect though. MFT allows 4 times faster shutter speeds at comparable depth-of-fields (2 times vs APS-C). At comparable megapixels you've a higher pixel density so you need faster shutter speeds anyway but you still have an advantage of about 1 f-stop. This can also be a decisive point.
Anyway, the discussion is sort of pointless. Mirrorless systems are about size and depth-of-field potential is not a priority here. Oly will release a 45mm f/1.8 soon - that's equivalent to a 90mm f/3.6 which sounds reasonably good for me for shallow depth-of-field situations.