Sorry I did not make it clear. I am looking forward to some AUTO, NOT MANUAL lenses from Tamron/Sigma Sony E mount. None on the market right now.
I am looking for or waiting for long fixed focus (around 300 mm) or zoom lenses for my Lumix MFT and Sony A7II FF. Any rumour that Tamron/Sigma are launching them anytime soon? Sony's own lenses are just too bulky and expensive.
Please explain what you mean by viewing magnification?
I agree with you about the large format lenses part. I think the 35 mm lenses represent the pinnacle of lens design technology. We cannot say that the point-and-shoot small digital cameras need or have lenses with even higher resolution and sharpness, because it is not possible or feasible.
I agree with you. I am thinking of using mainly manual 35 mm lenses (Leica and Minolta) on my Sony. I have been using them on my Pany for years already. Cropping issue aside, FF 40 mp gives more detail, better dynamic range etc.
I use Panasonic Lumix GX8 20 mp. Thinking to get Sony FF a7RII 40+ mp - after cropping down to one quarter, if necessary, I still get good quality images.
Anybody can tell me where to buy one on after market?
It comes down to physical law, larger pixel gives more detail and better quality.
If so, you do not lose on resolving power, but 40 mp FF gives much better detail that 20 mp MFT? That is my original question, after cropping the FF image, it is still as good as the MFT? The FF gives you a better image even after cropping.
The MFT sensor's physical size is a quarter of the FF's. In terms of pixel count, it can be equal, half or a quarter, depending on the camera. I am trying to compare a 40 mp FF and a 20 mp MFT. When you crop the FF to half, only 20 mp remains, how is it compare to the MFT full image, which also has 20 mp?
Please tell me how come a MFT lens outperform a FF lens. The difference is on lens size and lens coverage. A FF lens covers 35mm size and a MFT coverage is much smaller. But the resolution power of lens (e.g. different Leica lenses) remains pretty well the same?
Still going back to my real life case between a 40 mp FF and a 20 mp MFT. If I crop the FF image to half, I have 20 mp left. Assuming other things equal, would this cropped image's quality be equivalent to the other MFT camera's full image (which is 20 mp)?
My mistake. Sorry to cause the confusion. Crop factor is 2 for MFT. Sensor size factor is 4 between FF and MFT. Rephrase my question: When it is necessary to crop the FF image to one quarter size, would the image quality be equivalent to the uncropped MTF's? Or the pixel sizes of the two camera systems is also a factor?
Agree. The resolution of lenses in either case is not an issue. 40 mp gives much better details than 20 mp?
Your assumption is correct, that is my situation. I have top lenses in either case. After cropping, would the FF IQ be the same as MFT uncropped?