>>3558950>If I want more DOF on my FF, I can stop down.Oh, so you eliminate the exposure "advantage" FF has over MFT and you're left with higher resolution you don't really need. Congrats.
>If you want less DOP on your MFT, you can do nothing.I have literally *never* wanted less DoF than I get with MFT. My Voigtlander 0.95 is such overkill I really never use it, and even my Oly 1.2 primes are almost always at f/2. I think I have fewer than 500-700 images shot shallower than 1.8, out of over 45k work-for-hire images and 20k odd personal images over the last 2 years I've been shooting MFT.
When I shot FF, yeah, I shot 1.4 a *lot*. I also look back over those images and think it's hilarious how stupid a blurry ass mess of random abstract colors looks behind literally any subject. If you want some fucking retarded swirling mass of blotchy color just put up a backdrop you fucking bokeywhore retard. That's my assessment.
Also, I have the EF metabones x.71 speedbooster and I could shoot any Canon wide aperture glass with even better performance than on FF, but I literally never do. I tried it for awhile and I just didn't fucking care. I do use it with my Canon tilt-shift. That's it.
>If you want more light without more noise on your MFT, you can do nothing.
I can use artificial lighting, like an actual photographer with a brain. O-oh, you mean shooting all those super popular high action 1/200 "street" shots of random retards walking around at night that literally fucking no one cares about or has ever paid money for. Well darn.
Guess I'll quit photography.
