Quote:We will not get on the same line. Two different cameras remain different, no matter what and how you up- or downsample images. In my opinion this is the worst idea to compare systems. Comparing a Minox 8Ã—11mm with a Hasselblad 56Ã—56 mm: What do you gain by sampling up or down until something fits to something else by just putting one of those systems out of it's proportions? You loose the advantages of one system for the benefit of another. There are and always were projects for which one system suits better than another - what good is a tripod based large format camera, when you want to do a reportage and want to remain mobile? How succesful one could blow up a DX-picture, no matter what MP or ISO to get a highly detailed view inside of a church?
Shrinking an oceanliner to the size of a canoo makes no sense at all to me. Different cameras for different tasks, but feel free to go on with equivalenting pears to bananas. I consider that useless and also totally ignoring the idea of creating pictures, it's just a tool. I would not take a watchmakers little hammer to demolish a wall, although it might be possible.
Sorry, the discussion was about equivalence that ----> YOU <----- started.
YOU questioned my comparison with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 & Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 - which I referenced in the review to show the weight issue and high pricing of the Fujinon.
The only thing that I did was to show the validity of my arguments.
The reasons for choosing a mirrorless system go beyond the "equivalence" discussion, of course.
I don't touch the 5Ds R except for doing reviews. That should be clear by now.
PS: If you don't like the 5Ds example - just take the Canon EOS 5D III and compare it to the 7D II. Both have ca. 20mp. The noise advantage (-> speed advantage) of the 5D III should be crystal clear.
And if even that feels odd - just take the Sony A7 II with Sony 70-200mm f/4 G. The Sony lens is more light-weight and cheaper than the Fujinon.