>>4404948Confident idiots
Stopping down reduces aberrations but increases diffraction.
If aberrations are still larger than the pixels at f5.6 and shrink by f8, your lens can still get crisper, it will just never resolve fine detail. On micro four thirds this is very common because the pixels are so small, a lens with sub-pixel aberrations would be insanely expensive. Hence, panasonic charging you idiots $1500 for a giant f2.4 equivalent prime.
A 20-25mp micro four thirds camera loses a lot of fine contrast at f5.6. Just like a 20-25mp full frame camera loses a lot of fine contrast at f11. There is NO ADVANTAGE. As far as DOF and diffraction are concerned, they do the same thing just with different numbers written on the lens.
This is what equivalence is actually about. Equivalence doesn't include ISO though. It does "theoretically" if you are peeping noise (or god forbid, calculating the SNR) of the full sized image the sensor shits out, but larger/more pixels gather more information so a 20 to 61 mp FF at ISO 800 will still have better quality than any micro four turds at ISO 200.
>>4405011>Micro fool turds gets more depth of fieldNo, you're just forced out of the option of using less. DOF and diffraction limits remain the same.
I love how every fucking micro four thirds thread is its fanboys insisting that it does anything better than larger sensors (ie: free DOF, "more intense light") and starting a camera flat earth argument
>No, you fucking retard, that's not how lenses work.>YES FOOL FRAMER! YES! MICRO FOUR THIRDS HAS MORE DOF AND MORE INTENSE LIGHT! SNOY CONSPIRACY KILLED SUPERIOR OLYMPUS!>>4404980Yes, megapixels are image size
You can say "wwwwelll a 20mp m43 should be treated as a 5mp camera!"
Well, a 20mp FF downsampled to 5mp would maintain a massive lead in image quality by having less wrong with it to begin with.
It is not as good as a real camera. It never will be.
It's just cheap and small as long as you buy slow lenses.
