Yepp. I mean pixelsize. For example a 5DC has diffractions >f13...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
When you add all those things together, IMO most folks would be better off with a DSLR, using live view for those rare occasions when an EVF provides an advantage. And IMO most of the folks who are really better off with mirrorless (the folks who only use short lenses) would do just as well with a fixed-lens point-and-shoot.
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.
Just thinking out loud, but what do people think of the likelihood that Canon will condense the current 50L and 50 f/1.4 into one L option with a f/1.4 aperture?
Fuji's advantage over the µ4/3 proposition is that their larger APS-C sensor and optimal in-camera data processing result in very good image quality up to ISO 6400 while µ4/3 are good only up to ISO1600.
I think Fuji has already realized that they are better served by sticking to their APS-C X-mount platform, where they can deliver on those unique value propositions as long as CaNicon keep on feeding APS-C photographers with second-rate equipment.
In the mean time they can work at converting more and more DSLR customers to mirrorless by releasing more top-class lenses and improving further the performances and specs of cameras to come.