>>4038851The mft lens would need to resolve nearly 4 times as much detail per unit area as the FF one to be as sharp.
It isn't.
If you're under iso 800, the FF again has the image quality advantage.
Op also mentioned he wanted something lightweight and compact, the Sony a7c is smaller and lighter and less expensive than the om1 he just bought.
Oh, also the tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 is also smaller than the Olympus, and only 12 grams heavier, and after equivalence has between 1 and 3 stops faster aperture.
Quick comparison of their performance
Resolution between wide open and f11 (Olympus wasn't tested any higher due to excessive diffraction)
Tamron centre is from 3730-4250 lw\ph
Tamron corners are from 3200-4000 lw\ph
Olympus centre is from 2330-2970 lw\ph
Olympus corners are from 1920-2430 lw\ph
Kinda cringe that the Olympus centre can't reach as high a resolution as the corners on a FF superzoom with a faster aperture and same weight.
I'm sure you're going to bring up vignette
The tamron at f2.8, 28mm, hits -2.1 in the corner, and this drops to under -1.5 by f4.
The Olympus is at -1.8 at f4, I'm honestly confused how they managed to make such a huge, slow lens on a tiny sensor have such bad vignette.
Surely Oly wins at distortion?
At the wide end we have -1.2% and -6.9% (!)
At the Tele end we have 2.3% and 2.2%
Can you guess if I put the only first or second, hint, it lost, again.
So there we have it, if you want a larger, heavier setup with much worse performance that costs considerably more, get yourself an om1 and 12-100 f4.
