Man tries to humiliate FF users, and succeeds!

[RichA]

I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.

In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always amusing.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63314725

[nospam]

In article <fcd96c8f-62d1-42e4...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better
> (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF
> images that you can spot.
>
> In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always
> amusing.

high end audio is extremely amusing because it's complete bullshit, and
some people are stupid enough to believe it.

there are differences between ff, aps and m43, but they're small enough
that it doesn't normally matter.

[Bill W]

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 16:43:35 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>
>In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always amusing.
>
>https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63314725

But who was humiliated? No one claimed to be sure, and all seemed to
be good natured guesses.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <fcd96c8f-62d1-42e4...@googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...

>
> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>
> In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always amusing.
>
> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63314725

There shouldn't be any visible difference if you shoot at base ISO in a studio setting (i.e. a scene with limited dynamic range).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[nospam]

In article <MPG.383b417b5...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> There shouldn't be any visible difference if you shoot at base ISO in a
> studio setting (i.e. a scene with limited dynamic range).

there definitely is a difference (it's physics), but many times, it
requires pixel peeping to see.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-11-16 19:43, RichA wrote:
> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.

FF tries harder, in essence. APS-C has sharpness advantage only because
the sensor is better "sweet spotted" v. FF.

For that matter MF lenses from Leica would fare even worse in such a
comparison.


--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-11-17 05:38, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <fcd96c8f-62d1-42e4...@googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>>
>> In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always amusing.
>>
>> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63314725
>
> There shouldn't be any visible difference if you shoot at base ISO in a studio setting (i.e. a scene with limited dynamic range).

Dynamic range is not in the plane.

[RichA]

On Sunday, 17 November 2019 09:26:22 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2019-11-16 19:43, RichA wrote:
> > I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>
>
> FF tries harder, in essence. APS-C has sharpness advantage only because
> the sensor is better "sweet spotted" v. FF.
>
> For that matter MF lenses from Leica would fare even worse in such a
> comparison.

I've always heard that, larger format lenses aren't as good optically as smaller format lenses, but as far as recent lenses go, I've not seen any real tests between the two.

[Alan Browne]

Depends on what variable of "good optically" you're looking at.

[Savageduck]

On Nov 17, 2019, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<T6adnSgN7I86N0zA...@giganews.com>):

> On 2019-11-17 15:10, RichA wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 November 2019 09:26:22 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> > > On 2019-11-16 19:43, RichA wrote:
> > > > I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was
> > > > better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties
> > > > in the FF images that you can spot.
> > >
> > >
> > > FF tries harder, in essence. APS-C has sharpness advantage only because
> > > the sensor is better "sweet spotted" v. FF.
> > >
> > > For that matter MF lenses from Leica would fare even worse in such a
> > > comparison.
> >
> > I've always heard that, larger format lenses aren't as good optically as
> > smaller format lenses, but as far as recent lenses go, I've not seen any
> > real tests between the two.
>
> Depends on what variable of "good optically" you're looking at.

The problem is, ideal test conditions seldom replicate shooting, and lighting
conditions in the field away from the studio and controlled lighting.
Ultimately it is going to take well matched pairing of a capable camera, and
quality glass along with a photographer’s understanding on how to deal with
variable lighting conditions. All regardless of the sensor size provided the
sensor has not been pushed beyond its performance envelope.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

That's actually the solution: Stop worrying and take photos with what
you have where you have it.

[Neil]

My personal experience with MF, 35mm FF, and a variety of digital
formats is that there is no comparison in quality between the best
larger format lenses and any of the others.

To make comparisons even more difficult, for some reason, even the
terminology to describe the differences in performance don't correlate
well.

--
best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

How is one supposed to make a useful judgement on a computer monitor ?
Well, maybe a 4K one ....

geoff

[Incubus]

On 2019-11-17, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-11-17 05:38, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <fcd96c8f-62d1-42e4...@googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>>>
>>> In any case, just like with high-end audio, this kind of thing is always amusing.
>>>
>>> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63314725
>>
>> There shouldn't be any visible difference if you shoot at base ISO in a studio setting (i.e. a scene with limited dynamic range).
>
> Dynamic range is not in the plane.

It's in the size of each sensor element, which is larger with FF.

[Incubus]

They are larger and require more glass thus more expensive and heavier.

[Incubus]

Indeed, if the test were a portrait photo taken with a large aperture one would
notice a difference without having to zoom in to pixel level.

[RichA]

Tiny computer monitors should go the way of the dodo.

[RichA]

Yes, but are they "by rule" still inferior to smaller-format lenses? If you compare them, which would provide a more highly-resolved, more accurate representation of a target, assuming the sensors shared the same pixel-count? It may not be possible to make a larger format lens as well-corrected as a smaller format lens, but if both resolve past the ability of the sensor they are in front of, it doesn't matter.

[Incubus]

I would have thought, based on physics and all else being equal, larger format
lenses would be better. However, the size of the mirror has an impact on the
distance of the rear element to the sensor, and this is where I believe the
problem lies. Simply put, a larger mirror requires more clearance and this
makes certain types of lens more difficult to design.

[nospam]

In article <ef4bb979-daa1-46df...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Tiny computer monitors should go the way of the dodo.

they did.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <qr3pa1$l9d$1...@dont-email.me>, incubus...@gmail.com says...

> I would have thought, based on physics and all else being equal, larger format
> lenses would be better.

Why would larger format lenses be better?

[Incubus]

On 2019-11-20, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <qr3pa1$l9d$1...@dont-email.me>, incubus...@gmail.com says...
>> I would have thought, based on physics and all else being equal, larger format
>> lenses would be better.
>
> Why would larger format lenses be better?

For users of cameras with smaller sensors, they will have sharper corners, less
vignetting and less visible distortion. When comparing equivalent "crop" and
full frame lenses, the tolerances will be much tighter in the "crop" lens when
it comes to alignment because the elements are smaller.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <qr5m15$bam$1...@dont-email.me>, incubus...@gmail.com says...

Now it seems you are writing that the smaller format lenses are better. Not sure
what exactly you want to say.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.38410174d...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Why would larger format lenses be better?
> >
> > For users of cameras with smaller sensors, they will have sharper corners,
> > less
> > vignetting and less visible distortion. When comparing equivalent "crop"
> > and
> > full frame lenses, the tolerances will be much tighter in the "crop" lens
> > when
> > it comes to alignment because the elements are smaller.
>
> Now it seems you are writing that the smaller format lenses are better. Not
> sure
> what exactly you want to say.

using the sweet spot of a larger lens avoids aberrations at the edges.

however, that assumes all things are equal, which they never are.

[Incubus]

On 2019-11-21, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <qr5m15$bam$1...@dont-email.me>, incubus...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 2019-11-20, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In article <qr3pa1$l9d$1...@dont-email.me>, incubus...@gmail.com says...
>> >> I would have thought, based on physics and all else being equal, larger format
>> >> lenses would be better.
>> >
>> > Why would larger format lenses be better?
>>
>> For users of cameras with smaller sensors, they will have sharper corners, less
>> vignetting and less visible distortion. When comparing equivalent "crop" and
>> full frame lenses, the tolerances will be much tighter in the "crop" lens when
>> it comes to alignment because the elements are smaller.
>
> Now it seems you are writing that the smaller format lenses are better.

You have inferred wrongly.

> Not sure
> what exactly you want to say.

You can always ask for help for any parts you don't understand.

[Alan Browne]

It comes down to how large a print you can make from so many mm^2 of
film. With the best 35mm lenses you can go further than with the best
MF lenses.

To be sure, if the ultimate target is to make a 36x24 inch print, then
the MF lens will outshine the 35mm lens in sharpness and contrast.

But if the goal is to "blow up" a film image X times (v the size of the
film frame) then the best 35mm lenses will do better.

That is the simplest illustration of it.

[Alan Browne]

For a given dimension sensor 'element', the DR is not in the plane.
That was the intent of the statement. IAC, the 'claim' of the subject
relates to linear frequency, so the DR argument is just ... well, noise.

[Alan Browne]

It really comes down to what overall properties you want the lens to
have and the fact that a larger film or sensor surface forgives optical
deficiencies in spatial frequency. Since all that spatial f forgiveness
is there, then other optical properties can be improved. In engineering
terms: tradespace.

[Neil]

I'm not getting what you're referring to. For example, how does one
"...blow up a film image X time..." VERSUS the size of the film frame?
If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more detail
will be in the enlargement.

There is a lot of chatter about "sharpness and contrast", but there are
other important image variables such as gradation, detail, and resolution.

I have yet to see a digital image that compares with the best MF film
images, even from MF digital cameras from Leica, Hasselblad, etc. The
reason is simple: the gradation, resolution and detail are just not
comparable to film.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-11-23 14:25, Neil wrote:
> On 11/22/2019 12:53 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2019-11-17 20:38, Neil wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2019 3:10 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 09:26:22 UTC-5, Alan Browne  wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-11-16 19:43, RichA wrote:
>>>>>> I got them all, even though I don't use FF, but not because one
>>>>>> was better (therefore FF) than the others, but because there are
>>>>>> subtleties in the FF images that you can spot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FF tries harder, in essence.  APS-C has sharpness advantage only
>>>>> because
>>>>> the sensor is better "sweet spotted" v. FF.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that matter MF lenses from Leica would fare even worse in such a
>>>>> comparison.
>>>> I've always heard that, larger format lenses aren't as good
>>>> optically as smaller format lenses, but as far as recent lenses go,
>>>> I've not seen any real tests between the two.
>>>>
>>> My personal experience with MF, 35mm FF, and a variety of digital
>>> formats is that there is no comparison in quality between the best
>>> larger format lenses and any of the others.
>>>
>>> To make comparisons even more difficult, for some reason, even the
>>> terminology to describe the differences in performance don't
>>> correlate well.
>>

AAA

>> It comes down to how large a print you can make from so many mm^2 of
>> film.  With the best 35mm lenses you can go further than with the best
>> MF lenses.
>>

BBB

>> To be sure, if the ultimate target is to make a 36x24 inch print, then
>> the MF lens will outshine the 35mm lens in sharpness and contrast.
>>
>> But if the goal is to "blow up" a film image X times (v the size of
>> the film frame) then the best 35mm lenses will do better.
>>
>> That is the simplest illustration of it.
>>
> I'm not getting what you're referring to. For example, how does one
> "...blow up a film image X time..." VERSUS the size of the film frame?

Yes. That's the enlargement ratio.

eg: a 24 x 36mm (35mm) image blown up to make a 8 x 12 inch print would
be enlarged 8.5 times.

> If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more detail
> will be in the enlargement.

Yes, but if the line frequency of the lens is less than another lens,
then that will affect the detail. With that in mind re-read AAA and BBB
above.

[Neil]

On 11/23/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2019-11-23 14:25, Neil wrote:

[...]

>> If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more
>> detail will be in the enlargement.
>
> Yes, but if the line frequency of the lens is less than another lens,
> then that will affect the detail.  With that in mind re-read AAA and BBB
> above.
>
>

Line frequency has nothing to do with film (or digital), is is an
optical factor of a lens. However, the difficult and controversial line
frequency of "the best" lenses is ambiguous. What lenses?

Forget about Nikon and Canon, they are not MF lenses, nor are they "the
best" 35mm lenses. What's more, many recognize that those two companies
(among others) use completely different methods to arrive at line
frequency values.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-11-23 22:33, Neil wrote:
> On 11/23/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2019-11-23 14:25, Neil wrote:
> [...]
>>> If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more
>>> detail will be in the enlargement.
>>
>> Yes, but if the line frequency of the lens is less than another lens,
>> then that will affect the detail.  With that in mind re-read AAA and
>> BBB above.
>>
>>
> Line frequency has nothing to do with film (or digital), is is an
> optical factor of a lens. However, the difficult and controversial line
> frequency of "the best" lenses is ambiguous. What lenses?

"controversial"? What controversy? You measure. It is.

Lf most certainly is the factor at hand where sharpness and contrast are
concerned. A lens passes a maximum linear frequency (which typically
drops off centre to edge) and film records a maximum linear frequency.
ie: some films record higher LF than others. Take the film out of the
equation (for comparison) and record the same scene with a 35mm lens and
MF lens. Returm to AAA/BBB in the preceding.

Since the MF film is larger it has a larger number of line pairs it can
record (not f) overall across the scene.

Why blowing up an image of a scene to some arbitrary large size will
look better from a MF image than 35mm, but blowing up X times from a
35mm image will look sharper than X times from MF. (For better quality
lenses of course).

I've avoided mentioning aperture in all this, and it too has a role to
play. Thus when you get into enlargement factors, depth of field of
different lenses, and so on, the whole thing gets beyond compare.

> Forget about Nikon and Canon, they are not MF lenses, nor are they "the
> best" 35mm lenses. What's more, many recognize that those two companies
> (among others) use completely different methods to arrive at line
> frequency values.

I didn't bring brand into this.

3rd party measurement use the same method regardless of lens.

And that said, I don't see how an objective (pun intended) measurement
at one company would differ from another - though they can muddy the
waters in their favour by choosing different lp f than a competitor in
order to show "better" or obfuscate "lesser" behaviors.

[Neil]

On 11/24/2019 9:21 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2019-11-23 22:33, Neil wrote:
>> On 11/23/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2019-11-23 14:25, Neil wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more
>>>> detail will be in the enlargement.
>>>
>>> Yes, but if the line frequency of the lens is less than another lens,
>>> then that will affect the detail.  With that in mind re-read AAA and
>>> BBB above.
>>>
>>>
>> Line frequency has nothing to do with film (or digital), is is an
>> optical factor of a lens. However, the difficult and controversial
>> line frequency of "the best" lenses is ambiguous. What lenses?
>
> "controversial"?  What controversy? You measure.  It is.
>

The controversy is in the different methods used by different companies
to present line frequency. I would very much like to see an objective
comparison of all "the best" MF lenses by an independent source. Know of
any?

--
best regards,

Neil

[nospam]

In article <qreoss$qoa$1...@dont-email.me>, Neil <ne...@myplaceofwork.com>
wrote:

> >>>> If one blows up a film image, the larger the film frame, the more
> >>>> detail will be in the enlargement.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but if the line frequency of the lens is less than another lens,
> >>> then that will affect the detail.  With that in mind re-read AAA and
> >>> BBB above.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Line frequency has nothing to do with film (or digital), is is an
> >> optical factor of a lens. However, the difficult and controversial
> >> line frequency of "the best" lenses is ambiguous. What lenses?
> >
> > "controversial"?  What controversy? You measure.  It is.
> >
> The controversy is in the different methods used by different companies
> to present line frequency. I would very much like to see an objective
> comparison of all "the best" MF lenses by an independent source. Know of
> any?

most of the lens review sites will have all sorts of test results.

[Alan Browne]

There used to be photodo. But they don't seem to have them anymore.
Haven't been to that site in over 10 years.

[nospam]

In article <4pydnVesINU1YkfA...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> "controversial"?  What controversy? You measure.  It is.
> >>
> > The controversy is in the different methods used by different companies
> > to present line frequency. I would very much like to see an objective
> > comparison of all "the best" MF lenses by an independent source. Know of
> > any?
>
> There used to be photodo. But they don't seem to have them anymore.
> Haven't been to that site in over 10 years.

they were bought and the site turned to shit.

the old reviews might still be available in the wayback machine.

try these:
<https://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses>
<https://www.opticallimits.com> (previously photozone.de)

there are probably others.

[Alan Browne]

Photozone! Wow. There's a name from amnesia lane.

[Neil]

On 11/24/2019 6:25 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2019-11-24 18:05, nospam wrote:
>> In article <4pydnVesINU1YkfA...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "controversial"?  What controversy? You measure.  It is.
>>>>>
>>>> The controversy is in the different methods used by different companies
>>>> to present line frequency. I would very much like to see an objective
>>>> comparison of all "the best" MF lenses by an independent source.
>>>> Know of
>>>> any?
>>>
>>> There used to be photodo.  But they don't seem to have them anymore.
>>> Haven't been to that site in over 10 years.
>>
>> they were bought and the site turned to shit.
>>
>> the old reviews might still be available in the wayback machine.
>>
>> try these:
>> <https://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses>
>> <https://www.opticallimits.com> (previously photozone.de)
>>
>> there are probably others.
>
> Photozone!  Wow.  There's a name from amnesia lane.
>
>

Not a single MF lens on that site and not one of what I would consider
"the best" 35mm lenses are there. It's merely a collection of reports
without the uniformity of method that an independent lab might provide.

To re-focus the point at hand, your claim was essentially that the line
frequency of MF lenses was below that of 35mm lenses. That is not my
direct experience with both types.

--
best regards,

Neil

[nospam]

In article <qrgsel$dup$1...@dont-email.me>, Neil <ne...@myplaceofwork.com>

wrote:

> >>>>> "controversial"?  What controversy? You measure.  It is.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The controversy is in the different methods used by different companies
> >>>> to present line frequency. I would very much like to see an objective
> >>>> comparison of all "the best" MF lenses by an independent source.
> >>>> Know of
> >>>> any?
> >>>
> >>> There used to be photodo.  But they don't seem to have them anymore.
> >>> Haven't been to that site in over 10 years.
> >>
> >> they were bought and the site turned to shit.
> >>
> >> the old reviews might still be available in the wayback machine.
> >>
> >> try these:
> >> <https://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses>
> >> <https://www.opticallimits.com> (previously photozone.de)
> >>
> >> there are probably others.
> >
> > Photozone!  Wow.  There's a name from amnesia lane.
> >
> Not a single MF lens on that site and not one of what I would consider
> "the best" 35mm lenses are there. It's merely a collection of reports
> without the uniformity of method that an independent lab might provide.

when did hasselblad start making 35mm lenses?

> To re-focus the point at hand, your claim was essentially that the line
> frequency of MF lenses was below that of 35mm lenses. That is not my
> direct experience with both types.

give examples.

[Savageduck]

On Nov 25, 2019, nospam wrote
(in article<251120191313327361%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<qrgsel$dup$1...@dont-email.me>, Neil<ne...@myplaceofwork.com>
> wrote:

<<Snip>>

>
> > Not a single MF lens on that site and not one of what I would consider
> > "the best" 35mm lenses are there. It's merely a collection of reports
> > without the uniformity of method that an independent lab might provide.
>
> when did hasselblad start making 35mm lenses?

The better question should be, when did Fujifilm start making lenses for
Hasselblad, and how long has Hasselblad been own by DJI, the Chinese drone
maker?
<https://www.hasselblad.com/history/xpan/>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

Good for you.

[Alan Browne]

And here I am a Hasselblad owner (older stuff to be sure) and a DJI
drone owner (2) and I didn't know about that! (I did know, of course,
that some cameras on some DJI drones are hassie).

[Savageduck]

On Nov 26, 2019, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<7badnYjbqsT9W0DA...@giganews.com>):

> On 2019-11-25 14:18, Savageduck wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2019, nospam wrote
> > (in article<251120191313327361%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
> >
> > > In article<qrgsel$dup$1...@dont-email.me>, Neil<ne...@myplaceofwork.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <<Snip>>
> > >
> > > > Not a single MF lens on that site and not one of what I would consider
> > > > "the best" 35mm lenses are there. It's merely a collection of reports
> > > > without the uniformity of method that an independent lab might provide.
> > >
> > > when did hasselblad start making 35mm lenses?
> >
> > The better question should be, when did Fujifilm start making lenses for
> > Hasselblad, and how long has Hasselblad been own by DJI, the Chinese drone
> > maker?
> > <https://www.hasselblad.com/history/xpan/>
>
> And here I am a Hasselblad owner (older stuff to be sure) and a DJI
> drone owner (2) and I didn't know about that! (I did know, of course,
> that some cameras on some DJI drones are hassie).

Hasselblad had been in financial trouble for some time and was bought
outright (100%) by Ventizz Capital Fund (Swiss/German) in 2011. In 2015 DJI
acquired a minority share in Hasselblad from Ventizz, and sometime in 2017
DJI is rumored to have acquired the majority share in Hassie.

Did you think that DJI was going to use Sony cameras when they could just
print their own Hasselblad name & Logo on whatever they whipped up in
Shenzhen?

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[RichA]

And they aren't. I've used a lot of FF lenses on m4/3rds and virtually none of them are as good as the best m4/3rds lenses.

[nospam]

In article <e3b87806-4472-4905...@googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> And they aren't. I've used a lot of FF lenses on m4/3rds and virtually
> none of them are as good as the best m4/3rds lenses.

then you did something wrong.

[Alfred Molon]

In article
<0001HW.238E03A706...@news.giganews.com>,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

> Hasselblad had been in financial trouble for some time

Are they profitable now?

By the way, if it goes on like this, in a few years there will
be only a handful camera manufacturers left.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 19:56:07 UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article
> <0001HW.238E03A706...@news.giganews.com>,
> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
> > Hasselblad had been in financial trouble for some time
>
> Are they profitable now?
>
> By the way, if it goes on like this, in a few years there will
> be only a handful camera manufacturers left.

'Proper' camera will become a niche market, simialr to quality hi-fi products , which almost everyone had a setup which included a tuner, equaliser, amp, casstte deck and tunrtable and a large pair of speakers.
All pretty much replaced by a smartphone for the majority.