>>4200270Full frame can potentially collect more light if you're willing to sacrifice DoF, but most importantly ancient full frame as you described often has worse dynamic range (more noise) than modern crop.
>lose a lot of dynamic range with puny pixelsThat's a myth.
>Is larger than a typical micro four thirds camera. Here is the SL3, which is only 1-2mm larger in every dimension, with the smallest canon lens. And a full frame sony.SL1 is even smaller.
>not worth touching except for poorfag cinema. Most people do not need or want any video shit beyond 4k30p with good colors out of the box.Wrong. It also offers many useful photo features.
>No, not really. Mirrorless makes it cheap to adapt most stuff, EF is holding its value and even getting more expensive because it works on RF and is preferable to a lot of RF lenses.An EF adapter is like $10, $15 tops for most mounts. It's always manual focus though. Some mirrorless mounts get AF adapters. For manual focus ones, they're typically more expensive than EF because they need more material to make them. And the sorrow of mirrorless is even worse on adapted glass than usual.
>No equivalence sperging desired. Is it smaller? Yes. Can your camera get smaller? No. The body is twice the size.At that size range it literally doesn't matter.
>You are a flat earther tier schizophrenic. By extension, it can be assumed that EVERYTHING you say is wrong. You aren't even a photographer.Typical glownigger tactics, labeling everyone who questions things mentally ill. And I'm not saying you are a glownigger yourself, you have been conditioned to their tactics already, that's all.
>>4200271I like how you cherrypick and post a passport special (50mm f/5.6 equiv) to cope. Also SL3 is bigger than SL1 and PXLMAG gets their scale wrong all the time.
