>>4199348>There is a limit to how long of a lens you can buyThere isn't. You can purchase infinitely longer lenses. The only limiting factor is your desire to work to afford them.
>This is also you trying to win an argument. There are ultra wide angle lenses for crop.But there is a limit here, you can't make a lens too short until we invent curved sensors. There's a lack of high quality rectilinear UWAs on extreme crop sensors for this reason. Retrofocus designs present their own challenges. The current widest on MFT is 15mm equivalent. Full frame has 8mm rectilinear lenses.
>Do not in any way impede cropped reach...That depends on if you are a surveillance spook or an astronomer who simply needs to know if something exists, or if you want to use it multiple ways artistically. Astronomers wouldn't care that much if sensor magnification revealed more coma, if it revealed the visible spectrum of a new star. However photographers might.
>There are FF shooters who pick up a crop body for that exact reason because the crop body is cheaper than a high rez FF body or a new lens.So exactly what I'm saying, it's just an alternative way to achieve higher magnification with different compromises.
>I find it odd how you keep trying to downplay crop camera reach though,Is it downplaying? I ask simply:
Reach from what? 100mm to 200mm? With crops you lose cropping potential, you've already cropped, you reach 200mm and that is it.
>as if you do need to defend the one camera you own.I have a 36mp full frame and one of my lenses could be exchanged for a 20mp micro four thirds and an adapter or an additional lens easily. I just find 16mp APS-C crops sufficient, and this reach debate hilariously stupid, because camera body magnification requires swapping camera bodies, which from an artistic standpoint totally changes color science and lens rendering mid set.
