Photog makes more money with m4/3rds camera than his FF

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

Bigger is better but the best camera is the one that you got with you. I
can bring the M (EOS!) in my everyday messenger without even thinking of
it until I need it. With three lenses: 12/2.0, 22/2.0 and 50/1.8!

See he
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...T100-400-7.jpg

Both are 400mm lenses, but the Panasonic one has more reach.

the 'more reach' is otherwise known as cropping (hence the name crop
factor), which can easily be done with the canon.

either way, there's an image quality tradeoff, although the final
result will likely be better with the full frame slr.

And guess which one you can handhold longer:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...T100-400-6.jpg

a tripod solves that problem.

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , android
says...
Bigger is better but the best camera is the one that you got with you. I
can bring the M (EOS!) in my everyday messenger without even thinking of
it until I need it. With three lenses: 12/2.0, 22/2.0 and 50/1.8!

See he
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...T100-400-7.jpg

Both are 400mm lenses, but the Panasonic one has more reach.

And guess which one you can handhold longer:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-con...T100-400-6.jpg

Soo... I rarely ever uses telephoto lenses but I guess that those that
do would find that those combos depicted are for those days in the sun
and not long hours of dawn and dusk that I find here and around!

Seriously. This is a DxO shootout between the fullframe Canon 5D4, the
halfframe Sony A6500 and the quaterframe Olympus OM-D EM-1m2. Ignore the
scores and click the tab "Measurements" then "SNR 18%" / "Dynamic
Range".

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...us-OM-D-E-M1-M
ark-II-versus-Sony-A6500-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV___1136_1127_1106

or

http://tinyurl.com/lghkx5w

Bigger is better! :-ppp
--
teleportation kills

On 26/03/2017 21:55, android wrote:
[]
Bigger is better! :-ppp

But only for certain values of "better", as I'm sure you know.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 26 Mar 2017 12:36:16 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
There is a lot of truth in that article.

Davoud:
It's meaningless. If people like his photos, then for the
zillionth time, what difference does it make what camera he used?
Isn't it still the case that the best camera in the world is the
one you have with you when opportunity knocks?

And you are much more likely to have with you the camera you can
easily carry.

I.e. the iPhone. Right? It all depends on what you want to shoot, does it
not? A Canon Ixus isn't going to do you much good selling to a sports
magazine if that's the only camera you brought to a football game.

I speak from the heart having recently returned from carrying a
Nikon D750 with 70~200 f/2.8 lens for several hours round a
botanical garden and park.

And that 70-200 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.4 in your pocket, you're going to be able
to shoot images in that garden a m4/3 shooter could only dream of.

Nothing in my pocket ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 26/03/2017 21:55, android wrote:
[]
Bigger is better! :-ppp

But only for certain values of "better", as I'm sure you know.

We are talking sensors here.
--
teleportation kills

On 27/03/2017 12:38, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 26/03/2017 21:55, android wrote:
[]
Bigger is better! :-ppp

But only for certain values of "better", as I'm sure you know.

We are talking sensors here.

Not by the topic title. But if you insist, then, big sensors are
certainly not /always/ better - it depends on the application.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 27/03/2017 12:38, android wrote:
In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 26/03/2017 21:55, android wrote:
[]
Bigger is better! :-ppp

But only for certain values of "better", as I'm sure you know.

We are talking sensors here.

Not by the topic title. But if you insist, then, big sensors are
certainly not /always/ better - it depends on the application.

So the conversation drifted to the basics of what mFT is about. Tiny
sensors. Bigger sensors are better every thing else equal.
--
teleportation kills

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Bigger is better! :-ppp

But only for certain values of "better", as I'm sure you know.

We are talking sensors here.

Not by the topic title. But if you insist, then, big sensors are
certainly not /always/ better - it depends on the application.

for image quality, bigger is always better. basic physics.
for portability, smaller is always better. also physics.

On 27/03/2017 17:38, android wrote:
[]
So the conversation drifted to the basics of what mFT is about. Tiny
sensors. Bigger sensors are better every thing else equal.

Not if you need a smaller camera, for example, or a lighter camera
covering the same FoV. But yes, if small depth of field is required, or
working at the lowest light level. Bigger sensors and their associated
lenses and cameras (meaning full-frame, for example) may be overkill for
many requirements, and having a camera always with you many be more
important than having the ultimate in equipment.

Different folk, different needs.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

On 27/03/2017 17:38, android wrote:
[]
So the conversation drifted to the basics of what mFT is about. Tiny
sensors. Bigger sensors are better every thing else equal.

Not if you need a smaller camera, for example, or a lighter camera
covering the same FoV. But yes, if small depth of field is required, or
working at the lowest light level. Bigger sensors and their associated
lenses and cameras (meaning full-frame, for example) may be overkill for
many requirements, and having a camera always with you many be more
important than having the ultimate in equipment.

Different folk, different needs.

Larger sensor gives you better pictures than smaller ones. Portability
is another parameter.
--
teleportation kills