>>3910115>I take photos of chickens, why do I need good gearWhy are you here getting upset over people with good gear then?
Do you go into professional kitchens and yell at them that you don't need good food because all you eat is hungryman ready meals? That's pretty retarded you fucking weirdo.
>How could you tell if it had noiseWhy are you more concerned about what p thinks at 1000px than what clients with full size exports would think?
>You just want to shit on peoplePeople that project their insecurities over their gear and try to persuade other, normal, people to try to make the same mistakes as you have, look where it's left you, up to your knees in chickenshit on a neverending carousel of shit gear and angry outbursts on chadian poopoo sniffing asmr bulletin boards.
>>3910112So I looked this up, closest I could find was olympus' 7-14mm f2.8, which is still a stop slower equivalence than the FF options, and it's just as expensive, but let's see how it stacks up.
Oly 7-14mm f2.8 (14-28mm f5.6 equivalent)
$1300 - 534g
Tamron 17-28 f2.8 for FE mount
$900 - 420g
Nikon z 14-30 f4
$1100 - 485g
Sony 16-35 f4
$1300 - 518g
Pana 16-35 f4
$1500 - 500g
Canon 14-35 f4
$1600 - 544g
So out of all 4 of the major mounts, all the FF options are at least 1 stop faster, they are all lighter with the exception of the canon which is 10g heavier, and they are all very similarly priced to the Olympus, ranging from $400 cheaper, to $300 more expensive.
Sorry, but what are you gaining with mft except shite image quality and zero resale value (making them MUCH more expensive to own long term). Still waiting on that mft setup that's a third the price and weight of full frame...
