>>3983411Literally no one is getting mad at people for using mft cameras anon. What they're doing is correcting misinformation that some mft/crop users try to spread, and this greatly upsets those that are being disingenuous to protect their feelings of insecurity about using a worse performing piece of equipment.
aperture equivalency is real.
larger sensors (with equal quality lenses) perform better for noise and resolution.
like for like, mft lenses tend to be larger, heavier, more expensive and worse performing.
I'm not mad, i'm not arguing, just making sure you, as a new photographer, has the right information.
Oh, and anon, you seem to have forgotten to use periods at the end of your sentences.
>>3983407you may think, subjectively, the fuji shot looks cleaner, I would say the sony looks better, and it also measures better for noise, if you check the dynamic range of both cameras at iso 400 (dynamic range being signal to noise ratio minus base noise), the sony hits 9.73, and the fuji 9.18, and this difference of .53 of a stop actually rises to 1.3 stops by iso 636
There's no point arguing over raw images with differing baked in noise reduction methods when there's hard data out there to quantify the difference between the 2.
