Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Looks like that chart didn't make it to you, Tom … so - I'll try it again ... here ….

Chart Showing Relative Sizes of Sensors

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Would you in your wildest dream think that someone would say yes to that question? Come on now.

Instead go out there and produce award winners with your FF gear. Use what you need.

User ID

Noooo, no. There is nothing to "don't you see" !

Your math is waaay off. The m4/3 sensor is NOT
one eighth of full frame. It's half. Thaz the math.
Just what about "2X crop" escapes you ? Where
did you come up with an 8X crop ?

OK "half is smaller" that's true, but no need to
grossly exaggerate. And half is still the same
order of magnitude. A half can do nearly the
same job as a whole. NEARLY. Is it inferior ?
By the dictionary, that word applies. But in the
real world, it matters sooo very little and sooo
infrequently that it can generally be ignored.

Bottom line is the 1X is not intended to wow
peepers. It's intended to do its job incredibly
well. You should NOT buy one. Just forget you
ever heard of it. Your digestion will improve !

.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Just as with most things - you have NOT read the entire thread - or you'd have seen the corrections.

USER - don't worry about my digestion. Four grand (with lens) I don't have, anyway …

But if I did, and it was spare, I'd sooner get the Fuji GFX 50R - a MF MILC - for that same four grand!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You can get it for $4000 with lens?

User ID

Well I read most of it, in pieces. It's such a looong thread.
If I missed your corrections, I get 2 demerits. Guilty, Your
Honor. What you choose to do with your hypothetical four
grand is whatever suits your needs ... same as those who
really have four grand [not me] and find the 1X happens
to best suit their needs.

FWIW, I use all three common small formats. I'm not a
champion for any one of them in particular, but I do tend
to defend the "underdog" when he's being kicked [m4/3]
simply cuz kicking a dog pushes my button.

As to overpriced oversized picture making machines, I do
have a Lumix G9. It's no smaller than my FF Sonys, and
that fact really did cause me much doubt about acquiring
it. But the results are remarkable, and it really does open
up useful-to-me possibilities for just $1300. When it was
$1600 it was for me a nonstarter. What a difference $300
can make :-) I have no regrets. It's truly worth way more
than 1300 or $1600 ... but "one-grand-plus" tempted me
much stronger than "too-close-to-two-grand". Mind game.

It's not up to me to question what you might do with a
medium format that can't be done with a smaller format ...
as it's not up to you to question what others can do with
an m4/3 that wouldn't really be improved by a FF format.
Results are results. Numbers are numbers. There's some
connection between them, but it's a rather loose one ...
except acoarst to those folks for whom number ARE the
most important results. Lotsa those folks here abouts.
But I'm NOT pointing any fingers.

.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I did write that, Tom - yes, and made a mistake, and, immediately - corrected it …

It is the 1" sensor, which is 1/8th the size of FF. The MFT sensor is closer to 1/4.

The FF sensor is 864sq. mm. The MFT sensor is 225 sq. mm. Divide the latter into the former = 3.84.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Thanks for putting in your two cents, USER - and for going back in the thread to see the corrections!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

No, Tom … but you should be able to pick one up for $600 or so …

Or … $1500 …

Or … $2500 …

Something like that, anyway …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

The 33-64 is just $2300, the 23 UWA is just $2600, and the 120 Macro is $2700 … that's all I'd need!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

What about the camera?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

The GFX 50R is four grand. The GFX 50S is $6500. The GFX 100 is ten grand.

Why, Tom? … interested?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You called a $3000 camera $5000 because you need lenses. So that $4000 Fuji is more like $8000

tomcat

pitiful

User ID

What I meant was that I have been reading the
thread all along as it grew, but it's so long that
there were some inevitable gaps in what I'd see
... and your correction unfortunately was in one
of those gaps.

And now, I wanna POLITELY disagree again :-)

It is not useful to compare area measure. Only
linear measure matters to the user ..... except
when paying for gear, cuz the price of sensors
is very much tied to area measure, as was the
price of film. Linear for IQ, area for cost.

Double the area of film or sensor will not get you
double the resolution. It gets you only 1.4X the
resolution. All resolution is figgered in linear, not
area [quadratic] calculation. The "area boast" is
a long time marketing ploy dating waaaay before
digital photo. To whatever degree, bigger formats
usually have an advantage. But marketeers write
area measurement into all the ads cuz it renders
bigger more impressive looking numbers. Crop
factors are linear, and they give the true picture.

Oddly enuf, TV screen marketing has not gone
for the area thing. They stick with the diagonal,
which is acoarst linear. Accidental honesty ?

.