Dear lord, stop with the damn equivalence talk. The OMD is not supposed to match a full frame sensor. Why must we talk about this every time. We know.
It also magically only comes up with m4/3 and somehow never with APS C except maybe in passing.
I\'m not going to buy two systems to enable shallow DOF instead of just getting a faster lens for my camera, so all this equivalence crap is irrelevant. Why don\'t we constantly compare our FF light gathering ability against medium format or even 8x10? I mean, it\'s not as good, right, so let\'s mention every time that f/1.4 on FF isn\'t really f/1.4 when you compare it to large format?
Not to mention that the argument is completely useless at base ISO. You\'re going to be shooting at base in good light pretty much regardless of aperture, so what\'s the point in bringing it up on certain lenses? It\'s a limitation of the system at base ISO that people are aware of. We get it...there\'s a little more noise on a smaller sensor from the same generation as a larger one. Thanks for the insight.
Where it matters is high ISO, where you\'re using the faster aperture not for shallow DOF, but for extra light gathering ability. Here, m4/3 and FF are essentially a wash unless you WANT the shallower depth of field, which often isn\'t the case. I can shoot at 17mm and f/0.95 at ISO 3200 while you might need 35mm, f/2 and ISO 12,800 to get the same depth of field. Guess what? The OM-D at 3200 SMOKES the D700 and 5D II at 12,800, and is even better than the 5D III at ISO 12,800.
So, where\'s all the big talk about how m4/3 is superior at high ISO for equivalent DOF? Oh, we conveniently forget this \'equivalence\' then. Why? Because it doesn\'t matter if you are owning a certain camera system.
Micro 4/3 is not intended to be equal to full frame in every way shape and form. It\'s intended to be a very high quality system that is small. While this lens is pretty heavy, it\'s still pretty small for a very fast lens. Look at it in the system, like you do for EVERY OTHER CAMERA.
