>>4016815>For a given lens focal length and aperture equivalenceAnd why would you compare lenses at their base mm equivalence? a 12mm on mft is pretty much 24mm FF. Some random 24mm mft could be heavier than some random 24mm FF. So what. They wont produce the same shot so they might as well be different lenses. This especially applies to telephoto. You cant compare them like that. If you want a 24mm shot, youd have a 12 on mft.
>an mft pic of the milky way will have 2 stops worse noise than FFYeah I said you can expose the milky way to a satisfactory degree with acceptable noise. What is satisfactory and how much noise is acceptable is dependent on you. Youve got about 2 minutes before you get star trails unless you live around the poles I believe. Thats enough for a decent pic. If youre into astro though, nothing beats larger sensors.
>Your eye has lots of bokehYour eyes must be amazing because mine look like f4 max in peripheral. Faster lenses look like a stylistic choice to me, but that's okay, if f2 looks normal to you, that's what you should go for. You can get fast 1.2s and 1.4s on mft that look pretty much the same as f2 equivalent.
>any photographer that did more than holiday snaps would buy into medium formatYou're right about medium format but that's beside the point. All my favorite film pictures were taken on little pens and mjus and k1000's and that look is what most people associate with film photography. The majority of film photos in existence were not taken on big professional cameras and they are noisy but that's okay. That's one of the things that gives them character. I wont abandon that opinion just because its cool to hate what hipsters flock to.
I dont know what you're on about editing, but youre clearly baiting at this point. I just refuted your points so someone doesnt actually think there's any credible opinions in your post other than the fact that FF is more versatile. And I should think so for all the extra money and weight.
