>>4031794>Mft lens makers have access to magical optical glass that's better than anyone elses, trust me :'(Lmfao
This is the saddest mft cope yet.
Mft lenses have to resolve 4 times as much detail per unit area to give matching results to FF, and it doesn't come anywhere near.
>>4031802>Lenses outresolve sensorsHahaha, no, this is the saddest cope
If lenses already outresolve sensors, why would people buy the more expensive lenses with better resolution and sharpness, only a tiny handful of lenses outresolve 12mp on full frame, let alone 20mp on mft, which would need to resolve nearly 7 times as much.
And what about diffraction and CA, which are going to appear 4 times larger, ewww gross.
>>4031822Are you the guy that posted the ridiculously over sharpened mft shot above? How come so much sharpening if your lens outresolves your sensor? Ahahahajajaja
>>4031829>Only mft has a 50-100mm f3.4 (650g) for £1800, FF would be too heavySo you think the lens with a 2x focal range and nearly f4 equivalent aperture is in any way better than a 3x zoom like 24-70 or 70-200, with an f2.8 aperture?
The tamron 28-75 f2.8 is 3\4 the weight, 2\5 the cost nearly twice the effective aperture and ephotozine measured the resolution peaking 50% higher than that mft zoom. There isn't a single metric where the mft lens wins, and by a HUGE margin.
>>4031854Larger and heavier than a 600mm f4*
Ftfy, and I can guarantee the mft design would be the same as the FF one but with a focal reducer added.
>>4031928Jesus Christ that looks awful, unless you're into 2003 HDR effect photos.
>>4031923Look at the halation lmfao, is this what mft users think detail is? Ahhhashshahaha
