>>4432383>Those 3rd party dslr 150-600 or 100-400s look bad is the thingWhat? Are you nuts? The tamron 150-600 g2 and nikon 200-500 are stellar, and afforadble, each can be bought for less than $800. How is it people so freely bounce between "sterility and overcorrection looks bad" to "these visually sharp lenses with a little glow and smoothness that only shows up on test charts are bad"? Mind you, these lenses are often considered too sharp, while older AF-D lenses render more organically.
The biggest problem with micro four thirds is the massive amount of sterile lenses. Every single image is a deep center crop, so it's only on the really small lenses with small elements that show any amount of character. The big "pro" f5.6 and f8-11 equivalent zooms and "pro" f2.8 equivalent primes use large elements to keep edge aberrations outside of the image circle, and end up the same size as their FF aperture size and FOV equivalents and sometimes larger, because they are essentially APS-C "sony G master" lenses in optical construction in front of an m43 sensor, and what this creates is overly sterile rendering. Even hypersharp sony G masters exhibit more character and organic, life experience-like rendering than many of the "great" micro four thirds lenses.
Ultimately the best way to render and render an image on digital is to use a relatively undercorrected lens and correct for major aberrations like coma, softness, and CA by using pixels that are always going to be larger than those aberrations, rather than using additional glass, because while film can just be enlarged less, downsampling a high res digital scan reduces aberrations worse than using a lower sampling rate to begin with. Also, larger pixels can record finer gradations and come closer to the tonality offered by film. To attain decent resolutions, this requires larger and larger sensors.
