Should I switch from Lumix Micro Four Thirds line to Sony AR7 II?

[ipcmlr]

​Please show me an equivalent 11-24mm lens (FF Field of view) in MFT Format comparable to Full Frame........... You simply cannot achieve the extreme wide field of view, dof and asa of a full frame sensor in MFT format.

You mean the $3000 canon 11-24mm f4?

Has there been a lens on s35 that has the equivalent 11mmmm fov  on full frame?

You can get an olympus 7-14mm f2.8 for $1500.

[64mulford]

Should you switch from 4/3 to Sony? Hard to say. It's certainly tempting looking at the specs. 

I was was once a full frame user but switched to gh2 years ago. It's video features and small size really appealed but I did struggle for a while. I missed my full frame look and low light. But I stuck with the format. I've invested in all the fastest native lenses like the 42.5 f1.2, 50mm f1.4, 75mm f1.8 etc and it's really opened my eyes to the potential of m43 sensors. Now im using these lenses on gh4 which sensor-wise is a huge improvement over the gh2. I now don't see the need for full frame at all. I have all the shallow Dof I need and low light preformance is great, all without a speed booster which must be amazing (not being able to use a speedboosters is my only regret by choosing native lenses).

Anyway, my point is I think with technology advances, m43 sensors in time will be able to produce very clean images at high iso which really leaves no reason to go back to full frame for me. I'd say stick with m43 and the lenses you have invested in. 

[richg101]

Sony Full frame cameras might be marginally more expensive, but the huge availability of full frame lenses from a bygone era make glass investment a lot cheaper - particularly on the wide end.  Anyone who wants to prove me wrong...  show me the m4/3 equivalent of the £650 contax 35mm/1.4 on full frame.  There aint one!

 

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Sony Full frame cameras might be marginally more expensive, but the huge availability of full frame lenses from a bygone era make glass investment a lot cheaper - particularly on the wide end.  Anyone who wants to prove me wrong...  show me the m4/3 equivalent of the £650 contax 35mm/1.4 on full frame.  There aint one!

 

 

The SLR Magic 17mm is pretty dope.

[Mattias Burling]

Im a total vintage lens hoarder and therefore see the appeal of Sony in front of Canikon.

I've had the A7 and really enjoyed it with cheap glass. 

But honestly, in that respect Panasonic kills the A7x.

Anybody want to prove me wrong, show me the FF equivalent of thousands of nice small, compact, well built ,fast, and cheap primes streching all the way from 8mm Kowa to Fujinon 5mp 25mm.

For me even m4/3 is to big. S16 is where it's at :)

[ntblowz]

If money is no object, go for it!

But remember filming is not all about camera , my friend's lighting kit cost way more than A7R II.. (Those ledolights are so much awesome..) but they make huge difference to cheap lights.

[richg101]

The SLR Magic 17mm is pretty dope.

​on paper its an f1.7.  (or t1.6), but in practice shooting 4k on the gh4 it equates to the same dof/fov as a 40mm/f5.6 on full frame.  not as wide and 4 stops deeper dof than the 35mm/1.4 zeiss.  all in all a boring lens with little capability to separate in and out of focus subjects.  

[ipcmlr]

​on paper its an f1.7.  (or t1.6), but in practice shooting 4k on the gh4 it equates to the same dof/fov as a 40mm/f5.6 on full frame.  not as wide and 4 stops deeper dof than the 35mm/1.4 zeiss.  all in all a boring lens with little capability to separate in and out of focus subjects.  

How did you come up with the 5.6 depth of field?

[Julian]

I'm curious about that too. I'd think it would be f/4? (f/1.7 x cropfactor 2.4 = f/4).