No it's not in doubt - nor a point anyone on this thread has made, I don't think.It's not really in doubt that equivalent m43 lenses can basically always be smaller than FF, though, is it? I mean that's just kind of physics. Particularly for the fast pro lenses where the FF has to cover the whole frame properly wide open - the cheaper slower ones often end up poor in the corners on FF at max aperture, whereas you can generally shoot any reasonable m43 lens wide open all the time and not notice.
(My Panaleica 25/1.4 is slightly longer than my Minolta AF 50/1.4 - which is, to be fair, an unusually compact lens. I can't think of any other comparison where m43 equivalents are larger.)
Rings true; they can’t just abandon a large proportion of their customer base in favour of doing only FF pro gear.Panasonic are making a point of emphasising that they will (apparently) never abandon MFT.
Good News for Micro Four Thirds | Natural Exposures, Inc.
It's one hell of a bulky beast though with monster lenses and an eye watering price of £5,000 - around double that of a Nikon 850!Just thought that this thread does not seem to refer to medium format, while there is a Fuji 50mpx MF camera available for about the price of a D850.
It brings a lot of pixels to the description of an image.
Dual IS is spooky though. I don't shoot much video but when I use the Pana 14-140 with the GX8, so both SuperMegaFantastic OIS and IBIS, I'm slightly disturbed by how steady the result is. Every slight judder seems to be removed.I'm not sure where I'm at with the heavy / light thing. There's two things opposing for me - on the one hand I'm a big fan of lightweight great in general. I travel mostly view public transport, so I'm loving the new breed of lightweight lights, stands, tripods, etc. But on the other hand, when it comes to video, having a bit of weight to the camera really helps to eliminate micro judder and make smoother camera movements in general.
So, while I've gone as lightweight as possible in every other area, I seem to mostly use adapted FF and APS-C lenses.
Yeah I know. I'm just starting to incorporate IBIS into my workflow, and it can be delightful to be honest.Dual IS is spooky though. I don't shoot much video but when I use the Pana 14-140 with the GX8, so both SuperMegaFantastic OIS and IBIS, I'm slightly disturbed by how steady the result is. Every slight judder seems to be removed.
I look at the zebra as being an interface to the part of histogram that I care about tbh.GX8 has a histogram I think. That can help control highlight clipping.
Back in the days the GH5 was an option as it was the only decently hybrid specced camera for video. Today's we have good FF and APSC specs equivalent or better than GH5. So WHY on earth would I ever buy a M43 tiny sensor again? 0 reason. APSC is the new M43, FF is the real deal and a few years from now MF will probably be.
As for portability arguments, the only thing standing for M43, well it does not work with the pocket considering its size. And with the GH5 neither cause the XT3 is better and as portable so this argument is dead. In fact I believe M43 is absolutely dead. People still believing in M43 are the same people who believed in Sony A-Mount being not dead the last 5 years, with Sony keep repeating they are fully committed to it (LOL).
0 reason to use a tiny sensor if it is not more portable. RX100 with 1" sensor is so portable it actually is great and make sense.
GH5, Pocket 4K, all M43 cameras bigger than XT3 are dead.
When the XH2 is here with IBIS and even better spec and ergonomic, I know of no camera in the world below $6K and below FF that will touch it. Then A7S III and Pana S1 as well as future FF will blow anything in the FF territory.
Anyone buying a GH5 vs a XT3 is out of his mind. The pocket has RAW so that's one thing but if you need real RAW stuff for business and work with big equipment just get a proper camera and if it's too expensive change your job.
Seriously, who is gonna spend $2000 in a GH5 now?
That quote could also be captioned "why you should never go on photography forums" - though there is of course way worse unhelpful tech advocacy out there.This is the kind of sentiment that is going around quite a lot at the mo (this from eoshd), and prompted the thread. I don't really agree, but the whole debate has certainly set me thinking (especially as I'm getting ready to buy a GH5S) :
I can't say I'm convinced by that argument.This is the kind of sentiment that is going around quite a lot at the mo (this from eoshd), and prompted the thread. I don't really agree, but the whole debate has certainly set me thinking (especially as I'm getting ready to buy a GH5S) :
IMO Fuji are avoiding direct competition with Nikon & Canon, and continuing in their pursuit of their specific niches, certainly a strategy that they could take...
Fuji are saying they will never go full frame btw - https://petapixel.com/2018/10/23/fujifilm-we-will-never-go-full-frame/
No - I mean apart from the awful Extremely Online tone, peppered with insults and obvious fanboyism, what argument there is rests on the unexamined idea that larger sensors are better full stop. I don’t think that larger sensors are automatically better; they’re better for some things obviously but also have disadvantages and a lot of people simply don’t give a shit. It wouldn’t improve my photography one bit if I was using FF (or MF) rather than m43 because it’s not important for the sort of pics I take. If anything it’s an advantage for street photography and photojournalism to have good DoF at large apertures, for instance - I can shoot wide open at f1.4 at night and don’t have to worry that just someone’s eyelash is in focus.I can't say I'm convinced by that argument.