[zimpenfish]

I've got the 7A 35mm f/1.2 in M43 which is pretty nice for a walkaround lens.

I'd probably opt for the 50mm f/1.2 since it's 1/3 the price of the f/1.05 (£90 vs £260 for the M43 mount) if I didn't already have double-digit number of 50s in PK mount that I use with an adapter (and they're surprisingly good for 30-50 year old lenses.)

(I've got a 7A 10mm f/3.5 that I've not really got around to using much but now the UK is heading into Fake Summer, there's more light to make it useful.)

[hdndjsbbs]

Worth pointing out that there's a 2x crop factor on M43, so the 50mm M43 is effectively a 100mm. I agree that 35mm on M43 is a nice walk around length, it's a little longer than a full frame 50mm already.

[niccolove]

And keep in mind crop factor applies to aperture too! A 50mm f1 on M43 in equivalent to 100mm f2.

[wao0uuno]

If you're thinking about the depth of field then yes. Exposure wise f1 is f1 no matter the sensor size.

[niccolove]

I think that actually it applies to exposure too? Because a M43 sensor is going to be "half" the size of Full Frame, which means that the pixels will have 1/4 of the area, so you need 4 times the light to have the same amount of noise per pixel, i.e. two stops of light... but feel free to correct me here, I only have double checked the math on the depth of field part of it.

[wao0uuno]

Yeah kinda. Amount of light per area is the same but smaller sensors have smaller pixels that have worse SNR. This means the sensor receives the same amount of light per area but still needs to boost the signal more because of smaller pixels. I believe that if a full frame camera and MFT camera with the same pixel pitch and lens existed it would get exactly the same SNR and exposure. So basically with smaller sensors DOF is increased, exposure remains the same, SNR gets worse.