>>3329349>Did I say that f-stop changes when you change the sensor size? No, I did not.>>3329359>Yes, you wrote just thatHow can you be THIS BAD at reading comprehension? You quoted what I actually said and then invented your own interpretation of it, claiming I said what you interpreted in your head. No, I didn't "write just that." There is a difference and words do matter.
>"[a given example lens] on MFT only gives about the equivalent depth of field as [a given example lens] on full frame">"equivalent depth of field...as on full frame"In what language does this mean "the f-stop changes"??? Not in English.
>Everything on the middle end of m43 lineup is capable of producing decent subject separation, everything in the higher end is producing fantastic dof.I don't think you understand your terms.
>muh misconceptionsState them so that I can address them one-by-one, instead of just throwing these vague accusations at me to snarkily boost your own ego by phrasing them as put-downs.
For example:
>You cannot calculate f stop depths!Oh, really? Then how does this site work:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html>>due to the size of the sensor, photos will have considerably more noise at even low ISOs than APS-C or full frame cameras. >this is just stupidity, I'm not even going to argue with you hereIt's supported by reason and evidence, but hey, if you want to reject reality, then I doubt any sort of "argument" you could put forth would be worth my time to read.
I also find it funny that you go to such extensive lengths as to post your camera info in the filename (although for some reason you've hidden the photo's actual EXIF data), but you're only proving my point by posting a highly downscaled photo.
tl;dr, learn to read, stop misquoting me, and study the basic concepts of your own hobby a little better.
