Is a crop sensor really all that bad?

>>4420001 (OP)
Yes

Crop sensors demand sharper lenses and increase photon shot noise at every ISO. They’re a specialized compromise for high framerate telephoto photography and being poor. Unless you’re a 120fps supertele shooting fag never spend FF money on crop. The size differences are5 even noticeable IRL except in lenses for bugs and birds.

>>4420001 (OP)
Not if you're not a reality scanner. I prefer crop sensors

>>4420005
>coping failed painter
lol if you could draw you could stop being a bitch and accept that cameras are literally reality scanners

>>4420001 (OP)
A better camera is like having more colors and fineliner widths in your gay art set but you don’t actually need more skill to use them. They’re already used for you.

>>4420001 (OP)
Bad? No. Just not as good. There are trade offs to going with a larger format, size, weight, price, but the closer the formats are the harder it is to justify the smaller one. If we're talking medium format and 1 inch then they're two entirely different things and hardly comparable, they have different purposes and you could easily justify having both. But full frame and APS-C? These days full frame bodies and lenses can be pretty damn small and cheap relative to the past and without some of the downsides that some (not all) of the full frame DSLRs had (like worse AF and slower burst shooting). Also many manufacturers who offer full frame aren't putting as much effort into crop as they used to, you don't have as many crop only lenses to choose from (you'll be better off going third party for that) and don't have as many options for bodies and they can be lacking in features.

>>4420049
>Bad? No. Just not as good
There are basic assumptions based into this statement

one of the advantages of crop sensors is that they start to exhibit noise sooner than full frame sensors, which means they need to give up less stops of dynamic range to have noise appear in your image, given though, that they generally start with fewer stops to begin with

a lot of times it can look the same
but bigger sensor can help in more challenging shooting situations

>>4420051
>advantages of crop sensors is that they start to exhibit noise sooner than full frame sensors, which means they need to give up less stops of dynamic range to have noise appear in your image
Could you clarify why this is a good thing?

I forgot to mention that the one advantage of smaller formats that generally still holds is the reach, given an appropriately sharp lens. You can almost always match the reach on a larger format but once you start getting into the really long focal lengths getting that extra 50% (or 100% with 4/3s) can end up costing a lot of money, size, and weight. It's the main reason why I upgraded from one of the 24mp to 42mp bodies, I can put it into crop mode and turn my 500mm into a 750mm while still getting a very usable ~18mp. Similarly I can get a bit more versatility out of any of my other lenses if I only wanted to carry one, I can make my 50 an 80, my 135 into a 200, extend the reach of my 16-35mm to a 50mm.

>>4420061
>Could you clarify why this is a good thing?
because I want noise in my images and I don't want to add fake noise because it always looks kinda fake. So being able to have noise in my images without giving up massive amounts of DR is a nice thing to have.

>>4420049
There are no real tradeoffs

It’s just less. Period. Crop sensors are subsets of larger sensors. You have everything but that last stop of ISO, those extra microns of pixel size, that bit of sharpness, etc.

A crop sensor is only ever less.

And less has benefits.
Less sensor means it can be read out faster.
Less sensor costs less money.
Less sensor needs less focal length for a given FOV.
Less sensor needs less lens magnification to take the same macro snapshit.

But generally its just LESS, not just as good.

>>4420062
If you have more noise you are still giving up the DR sorry. No free lunch. Your pixels are smaller. They count photons less accurately. The overall area is less therefore more quantum noise. There is more apparent noise at every ISO and less latitude.

It’s really mostly pixel size which is why a 20mp DX DSLR can beat an a7rv at shadow recovery

>>4420062
>crop is better if you want worse IQ
you know you can get the same increased noise on FF by reducing exposure and reading ISO?

>>4420065
You’ll still get a slightly better image especially if its a huge jump (ie: d850 vs om5) under shitty indoor lights

>>4420067
Not if reduce exposure and raise ISO enough

>>4420069
Or, you can crop in with shots from the D850

>>4420069
"Equivalently" the huge sensor will be a bit better and by the time you’re way, way up with ISO it might even be worse

>>4420071
Can we see an example of image of how you use this approach to your benefit?

>>4420072
I deleted my d850 vs olympus test, sold both, bought a zf and a d750, compared them, deleted the tests, and only kept the d750 sorry sis you’ll have to embark on your own journey

Maybe if we recognize each other somewhere else i can send you some cat pictures

>>4420001 (OP)
I sometimes wish I had bought into APS-C instead of full frame.

The camera bodies are cheaper and the lenses are half the size and price generally. Image quality is basically the same unless you're shooting at f1.4 etc (background blur).

>>4420076
i get the same results out of a $100 lens on ff as i do out of a $500 lens on crop.

>>4420062
I suppose that's a fair justification for you, but it's still objectively worse.

>>4420063
>Less sensor means it can be read out faster.
That used to be the case but I don't think it really applies anymore. Like I said manufacturers are putting even more into their full frame bodies these days and they're usually the fastest. It's not like the days when you had to choose between a 1D and a 1Ds, you just get an R1.
>Less sensor costs less money.
Similarly, the price difference isn't as large as it once was. The cheap crop bodies aren't as cheap as they used to be and with full frame becoming more mainstream there are cheaper full frame bodies. Plus there's a lot of bargain used options available. More expensive sure, but full frame is no longer limited to people who earn money from photography.
>Less sensor needs less focal length for a given FOV.
Not sure why you're trying to present that as an advantage. Wider lenses are more difficult to produce, combined with needing them to perform better due to the higher demands of a more pixel dense sensor.
>Less sensor needs less lens magnification to take the same macro snapshit.
This one is fair. Although with most macro lenses generally being 1:1 it's probably better to think of it as you can a closer image (I want to say more magnification but I know someone will call me out on that) with the same lens. However this only applies if you're pushing things close to the limits, if you'd never go above 1:1.5 on the crop body then you're not gaining anything. And that's just assuming the same resolution, if the full frame body was higher res then you can crop down a bit and lessen the gap.

>>4420080
>what is the used market? cheapie crop sensor = still has better eshutter than most ffs that aren’t z8s and a1s
>what is prime lenses down to 14mm on mft being ok enough without being pricey oversized shite?
I use ff because its better but please

>>4420001 (OP)
Crop excels in crutches. Best FPS and IBIS for your dollar. Most focal length for your dollar.

Full frame chads will still laugh because you have bad timing, shaky hands and can’t get closer

>>4420081
My point with mentioning used full frame bodies wasn't that it's cheaper than crop, just that it's far more affordable than it used to be. Price is no longer a reason not to go full frame unless you're super poor or you're just fairly poor but also need the latest AF performance and fastest burst rates. Of course crop will always be cheaper, but a shitty old P&S from two decades will be even cheaper yet I'm not recommending that instead.
>>what is prime lenses down to 14mm on mft being ok enough without being pricey oversized shite?
So because you can't imagine a use for going wider than 28mm equivalent no one needs it? And again I'll ask, what is the advantage you're presenting for needing a shorter focal length for a given field of view? Size? Barely any different going from APS-C to full frame. Yeah 4/3s might be a bit smaller (the lens at least, a lot of the bodies are still bricks) but it still won't be pocketable and you're giving up a lot of image quality.

>>4420074
okay nophoto, nice larp

MFT is fine this board is just autistic. That said I wouldn't spend a lot of money on any gear, but that goes double for MFT.

>>4420001 (OP)
ITT: full frame cope and failure to demonstrate why spending twice is justifiable when there is zero real world difference

>>4420162
in order to get micro four thirds within smelling distance of FF image quality, you need to:
>stick to the more expensive 20 and 25mp models
>almost never go over ISO 800 and ALWAYS use flash if you can help it by 400
>only use the absolute best lenses, what mft people call acceptably soft is dogshit compared to mid 00s FF DSLR glass
>stick to panasonic bodies despite worse AF due to lens compatibility issues and most of the sharpest lenses being panasonic
>use topaz AI or lightroom AI NR on every single photo, you're bottoming out at a very shitty ISO 800 equivalent with no actual DR gains at the lowest ISO
and then before you order all that shit and commit to flash photography life you say "fuck it" and order a nikon zf and the 24-70 kit zoom for less, because it smashes everything but a theoretical $2000 olympus with a $2500 12-35 f2 PRO zoom and isn't even that much bigger irl no matter how dramatic the pxlmag screenshots look

>>4420176
This is mostly FUD. Oly cameras are better for stills. They don't have compatibility issues, Panny bodies aren't great with Oly lenses but not vice versa.
Oly and Panny both have very sharp lenses, the PL 200/2.8 goes toe to toe with the Oly 300/4, and the Oly 17/1.2 and 45/1.2 are probably the sharpest in the system. Saying you need Topaz for mft is as true as saying you need it for ISO 400 FF, makes no sense.

I took this pic wif muh APS-C camura

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAXCamera ModelPENTAX K-7Camera SoftwareK-7 Ver 1.13Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2025:03:29 19:49:15Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/6.7Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating2200Exposure Bias2 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length80.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1728Image Height1152RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastSoftSaturationLowSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View

>>4420136
MFT is the first notch up from a phone in terms of total IQ. As long as an appropriate (read: not thousands of) amount of money is spent, there is no problem.
The retardation is muh equivelance and spending $2000 on basedPRO lenses just to proclaim you've got an f/3.2 lens.
>>4420162
>spending twice [as much]
Show me on this snoy where the foolframe touched you
>>4420206
No matter how good any m43 lens is, I can get a 20 year old 70-200 f/4 from Cannignon and it will wholly and uncomprimisingly btfo it for less than $500. The only real argument is "muh reech" and "muh grams", which is *certain* circumstances, are valid arguments.

>>4420258
>As long as an appropriate (read: not thousands of) amount of money is spent, there is no problem.
I've been looking a lot at mft cameras lately and it is starting to become a weird inverted pyramid scheme. The companies no longer make entry level cameras because they can't. The used market is flooded with older mid-tier and flagship cameras for ~$400 so they cannot release an entry level or even mid-tier cameras that would be worth buying compared to used offerings anymore. So Olympus and Panasonic can now only release $2000 flagship cameras that sell to true believers and boomers. They eat the production costs, upgrade again in 2-4 years when the next body releases, (even though every one of them swears up and down they had the same camera for the last 10 years and they will never upgrade) and the machine continues to run.

I think it only makes sense to buy them around that $400 mark, because then you are genuinely getting the value that is promised by the system and they do close the gap in terms of image quality compared to the available options in that price range.

>>4420206
You mean iso 800 ff. Most mft cameras have a real base iso of 200. Only the FF priced and sized panashits go to a real 100 and even then full frames bigger pixels btfo equivalence faggotry. The overpriced g9ii can only catch up with apsc at certain shutter speeds.

And you’re using a brand more notorious for bugs, glitches, and breakage than snoy with shittier af than fuji

And you spend more than top end apsc money on mft. Worse colors worse sharpness worse noise worse everything.

You will now bring up some literally meaningless shit like video mode crop factors. If video sharpness mattered you wouldnt use mft!

>>4420265
Fuck no. $400 is d750/5dIII or d500 or even stolen a7iii off facebook market money. $250 is the fool turds cutoff.
>inb4 muh crutches

Spending $400 is a big deal, even if you’re "rich" ($20/hr single wagie living below their means). Spending it on a toy camera that is neither pocketable nor good because you can’t handle a 5lb object (more like 2lb for non birdfags) screams soi. Not as bad as being snoy, but still.

>>4420265
>So Olympus and Panasonic can now only release $2000 flagship cameras that sell to true believers and boomers. They eat the production costs, upgrade again in 2-4 years when the next body releases
Which embodies why the mount system failed. Despite the high ratio of retards per capita here on /p/, the volume of people buying these $2k turds are not enough to keep the business model afloat anymore.
M43 is good as a used, $200-500 investment where the user's only goal is "better than a phone" and has physical controls, AND they subscribe to the "muh blob" newsletter where the mere mention of grams incites erections.
>>4420290
>Spending it on a toy camera that is neither pocketable nor good because you can’t handle a 5lb object (more like 2lb for non birdfags) screams soi
NTA. I will argue that cost-efficent point and shits have their place, but agree that the value/dollar cutoff is not very high.

>>4420293 (You)
Speaking of, now that I thought of it, the mere existence of a robust, fully stocked used market is honestly the bane of most non-flagship developments from every manufacturer at the moment. The only real reason to buy anything in the last 6 years has been the mirrorless pivot, or if you're a pro that needs cutting edge.
Every other slot on the market is filled by a competent if maybe slighly old camera that can be had for pennies on the bennies.

Makes me see how warranty and software support really are there just to push you to keep buying more current technology; a 5DII with a 70-200 f/4 would set 60% of photogs which is 20 year old tech.

>>4420294
Snoy is out of the question which leaves mirrorless (r6ii, r5, z5ii, zf, z6iii, z5ii) or a DSLR. Seems fine. Mirrorless is vastly superior to DSLRs for sports/events. Case closed. Sales made.
>old mirrorless?
Not reliable or very good
>sony?
Breaks, bad colors

>>4420001 (OP)
An APS-C ILC is just cope FF, no real advantages ever, just crutches. Only price *when new*, which is irrelevant, because buying new electronics is for stupid cucks. It's always been in the same size/weight/price class for smart people unless you bought ewaste ie: canon rebel. Even when a company tries to make aps-c good, it's fuji or sony so it still sucks.

APS-C/APS-H point and shoots on the other hand are GOATed because you can fit significantly better than phone IQ in your pocket. Smaller than m43.

m43 has two use cases, exactly two, and that is low budget low weight macro and wildlife. The autofocus isn't very good and the image quality is ass, but as long as you aren't one of those retards buying all the penis-licker vario scammar noctitroons while coping to the tune of "fool frame is just as bad" (false) you can take good ID photos of birds and bugs for under $1000 without being a "birdwatching guy". For everything else? It's a meaningless size/weight/cost difference, you're just being a vain pussy. You can only get significant weight savings by cratering IQ and versatility with f4-f8 equivalent chinkshit lenses, in which case you might as well buy a point and shoot or stop being a pussy and use a real camera.

I just bought a used Canon R5 after having fiddled with an R7 since it launched close to 3 years ago as my very first system camera. Thankfully the R5 is cheap now that the R5II has been on the market for a while, but so far the experience has been somewhat underwhelming.

>>4420326
HR FF cameras are underwhelming. They’re at near crop pixel pitches so you need to manage shutter speed/camera shake like your focal length is 1.5x longer, stick to high end lenses, and either keep the ISO down, switch to mraw (in camera pixel binning), or apply somewhat lengthy processing techniques in low light. NR->downsample->sharpen.

Most people don’t need them or want them as much as they’ve been told to want them.

>>4420309
The sad part about these f2.8 pro lenses is they are the same as very cheap third party and entry level ff mirrorless stuff

They are technically superior optics, but for tiny micro four thirds pixels the results are the same

>>4420351
oh wait nvm mraw and sraw with improved noise are only a nikon thing now lol sorry canucks

The smaller the image area the less compromises you have to make. APS-C sucks because it's not meaningfully different than FF, while MFT actually is small enough to make things like the 12-100 f/4, ultra tiny autofocusing macro lenses, super sharp 20mm f/1.7, etc possible. Oly is broke now though so they just repackage old lenses or fit FF designs on their bodies and Panny is all in on L. But the principle remains: smaller lenses and sensors = worse IQ but less compromises. See GFX for ultra high IQ if you can put up with zooms only doing 2x, macro lenses only going to 0.5x (and being soft and shitty beyond that with tubes), shit eshutter and AF and more. Meanwhile MFT has affordable ultra high fps, 0 blackout, animal detect AF, stacked sensors at a price FF can't do.

>>4420363
>24-200 f8
Already mogged by apsc 18-135 type lenses. Compares poorly the the nikon 24-120 f4.
>muh super small 40mm f3.5
Would be mogged if anyone wanted that shit. See: ff mirrorless 28mm f2.8/26mm f2.8 pancakes. No one actually cares about a half inch of lens, they dont fit in normal human pockets anyways. They’d rather have aperture or quality.

And then you go straight to what its really about: crutches. Meaningless crutches. The best wildlife photography on earth was done without that shit.

>>4420365
You're missing the point entirely, I'm not even saying MFT is worth it or whatever. I'm saying a FF 12-100 constant aperture zoom is not possible. MFT has way better pancakes than FF. Macro FF is huge and heavy compared to MFT. Meanwhile FF can't keep up with GF image quality but trades IQ off with flexibility.

>>4420363
>micro four thirds has no compromises!
>except for 4x worse image quality and having to spend just as much to barely cope
>uhhh the fool frame 105mm f2.8 macro is too heavy my arms are shaking. i wont be able to open my soilent today….
At least ur lolympiss can miss focus at 120fps. imagine having to press the button at the right time. couldnt be me. lol.

>>4420368
A 24-200 f8 is very possible. It’s just that no one fucking wants it. Nikon made a 28-400 that varied down to f8 and no one bought it. All the lenses like that are apsc kit zooms because again, no one really wants a 24-200 f8.
>way better pancakes
An f3.5 with buzzy focus is another thing thats possible on ff but its just that no one wants it. A 40mm f2 is only slightly bigger. Who cares?
>macro is so big my arm!
If you cant handle an ff 100mm f2.8 macro you should seriously see a doctor
>muh dx medium format is even better so ff is a cope too
Yes, a cope that wipes the floor with fool turds at everything but having 200-600 f8-12 zooms (imagine diffraction wide open).

>>4420370
>>4420369
My point isn't to defend MFT, it's just to point out this is all on a spectrum. All of these arguments apply for FF to MF as well. It's just about picking what you find acceptable. Not everyone is arguing against you in your stupid format wars.

>>4420371
Its not really a spectrum. FF is barely any bigger and easily wipes the floor with MFT for not much more money. MFT is not a system for dedicated photographers. It was meant to be a glovebox/backpack system for non photographers bringing cameras just in case. A nikon 180-600 looks huge onlime but in use its not much. A nikon 24-120 f4 seems crippled compared to a 24-200 f8 but 120 to 200 is like, leaning forward or taking a few steps. And APSC already has smaller faster lenses with that range.

When olympus and panasonic started releasing all these stupid f2.x equivalent pro lenses and FF sized bodies and the fanboys began justasgud coping it totally died, because it lost sight of that. Hyper fast FPS zero blackout everything detect copes do not matter. Almost all photography can be easily done with a 10 year old DSLR.

How it started: point and shoot
How it’s going: please give us $1700 for this em5iii with slightly different autofocus

>>4420372
>not using a 20 year old 4/3rds DSLR

other than the lack of dynamic range its fun to use

old dslrs seriously cant handle cpls otherwise their metering + af gets wacky

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern748Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 14:08:17Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length45.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessSoft

>>4420378
Looks like everything lame about old digital with none of the cool

Powershot s95 > 4/3

>>4420371
>All of these arguments apply for FF to MF as well
The only thing MF has going for it is resolution, and very few people will benefit from 100mp. It's significantly more expensive than FF, the bodies are massive and don't come close with AF performance and burst rates, the lenses are slow so a FF body with a faster lens often has a shallower depth of field and can make up for the sensor performance beyond really low ISOs, and you just don't have as many lens options to choose from.

>>4420378
am i crazy or is there some insane banding going in here. is this truly the power of 4/3?

>>4420378
(i ran out of zoom for that pic btw, this is a sooc jpeg here)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 14:17:24Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length45.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormal

>>4420383

its some insane banding probably from the cheap cpl and maxxed out zoom

>>4420381

i mean its from 2005

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern684Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 14:16:34Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft

>>4420385
The D200 and k10d mog this

>>4420386
>snoy sensor vs kodak greatness

next vintage camera is a konica minolta maxxum 5d, supposedly different colors than the snoy a390 i have

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern748Focal Length (35mm Equiv)86 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 14:28:47Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/3.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.6Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length43.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessSoft

>>4420388
pic looked better with less saturation but desu its a pearl white wrap

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 8.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Color Filter Array Pattern748Focal Length (35mm Equiv)80 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2025:04:05 14:26:19Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeLandscapeGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHard

>>4420001 (OP)
No. Crop sensors have been good enough for a decade+. I do not believe affordable 8x10 sensors will happen any soon anyway.

>>4420395
good enough has always been a cope phrase

>>4420397
The opposite. Good enough means you actually have needs and opinions about your work, specmaxxing means your hobby is gear.

>>4420412
The essential meaning of good enough is stopping short and accepting mediocrity because you aren’t able to achieve better with a reasonable course of action. Perhaps you aren’t actually a photographer, and spending more for even nicer pictures is not reasonable for you because your camera just stays in your backpack in case you see bigfoot. Perhaps you are broke. Perhaps you are disabled.

Just good means you have what you actually wanted.

And ironically, gear hobbyists usually go with crop sensors because they can afford more lenses and still ooh and aah at specs. if it were not for micro four thirds people being argumentative i would have never learned shit about the technology of gear but i always knew full frame just looked better. thanks to gear hobbyists i learned why full frame just looks better. thank you cropbros!

>>4420414
Its a horseshoe
>gear hobbyists: micro four thirds is just as good in theory if you look at this chart
>photographers: full frame looks better
>gear hobbyists: the gfx100s is better in theory if you look at this chart

>>4420375
i liked the older bodies that were basically point and shoot but also let you reassign every fucking button on the camera four different ways and actually use the non-PASM spots on the dial that nobody actually uses, but people (idiots) got too confused by MySets and unlabeled Fn buttons so that went the way of the dodo

>>4420295
>>sony?
>Breaks, bad colors
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I've used all mirrorless brands and Canon has the worst color by far (even worse than old Sony colors). And yes, Sony colors used to be bad, but not anymore. Any camera released after the A7IV has great colors (not quite as good as Nikon's but not that far off).

>>4420487
The a7iv on have neutral and inoffensive but totally lifeless colors. It’s basically a more corporate fuji. Nowhere near nikon.

>>4420488
I said made after Sony A7IV

>>4420495
And i agreed. The colors still suck.

>>4420496
>The colors still suck.
No they dont.

You dont even have a Sony. Poorfag.

>>4420503

I'm really lost on if I messed up getting mft
The images I've seen from mft cameras are high quality and I'm only doing this for hobby photos, not professional
I'm using it but then in the back of my mind I wonder if I should've got a full frame, but the times I've tried full frame it didn't seem any different but my mind is abuzz

>>4420786
Why? It sounds like you've tried full frame and didn't really notice a difference. If it bothers you so much buy a full frame camera and commit to shooting both systems for 5 months and then sell the one you like the least at the end of it.

I don't know why people act as if you can't have multiple cameras or just try both

>>4420789
I'm on minimum wage so I didn't want to make the wrong decision
I think it's just a personal thing, I can never commit and when I finally buy something I always felt like I picked the wrong one

>>4420792
5D classics can be had very cheap.

If it makes you feel any better I sold all my full frame gear and I'm getting m43. I've been exclusively using a point and shoot camera for the last month with a 1/1.7" sensor and, which is substantially smaller than mft, and I think the image quality is fine.

It sounds like you don't understand your own requirements as a photographer. You'll never be able to be satisfied until you do.

Also if you can't afford to be wrong on a purchase, that feeling is a sign you spent too much on your setup relative to your financial situation.

>>4420792
You'll always have a case of grass is greener.
Even if you bought the most expensive, modern full frame camera, you'd go "well fuck, I wish I had a lighter more compact camera, I don't like taking this blob on family picnics."
I bounced around for a bit, I think everyone does, but MFT isn't sufficent for me. You'll likely need to bounce around as well.
MFT is fine as a first camera, but I would avoid investing heavily on lenses until you're convinced you'll never swap systems.
That's kind of one reason APS-C has a leg up over MFT; you can always go full frame and keep all your lenses since it's the same mount.

>>4420792
>I can never commit and when I finally buy something I always felt like I picked the wrong one
ebay sellings fees are 13%. Consider that your rental fee. Sometimes you can sell for a bit more than you paid, sometimes less.
Once I started looking at things as rental fees, it became much more swallowable.

>>4420806
>Once I started looking at things as rental fees, it became much more swallowable.
This. Once you realize you can always sell the gear you bought for a significant portion of it back the actual loss in changing gear is not huge

>>4420487
pure cope

>>4420801
>you'd go "well fuck, I wish I had a lighter more compact camera, I don't like taking this blob on family picnics."
Actually you achieve enlightenment
>i dont need to have a camera ready all the time, most photos arent worth taking, and i’ve been withdrawing from social interaction to take 1000 identical photos
Put a FF with a 2-105 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 zoom in your pack and enjoy life instead of snapshitting every tree and rock. It’s not like you’re hunting bigfoot right? Jfc people who have their shitty camera out all the fucking time are annoying. Get your leicontax xpro-7c out of my face bro.

Micro four thirds definitely has its place for casual birdwatching and bug catching. FF setups for those are genuinely huge and use $2000+ lenses, even if a -600mm f6.3 zoom is better than a -600mm f11 equivalent zoom, that is dumb money for mere springtime birdwatching snapshits unless you are very well off and very dedicated to birding. Also FF makes focus stacking macro a bit harder without a tripod. The framerates are just too low. Say what you will about olympus missing focus 59 times a second but high FPS is good for computational photography and getting news/wikipedia grade macro snaps.
Note: huge $$$$ equivalence cope micro four thirds setups are even dumber than FF.
>my giant $4000 camera needs to be a few inches shorter but also have much worse image quality. Muh heckin grams.
Go cheap and tiny or go full frame. Cheap and tiny is good enough. Its micro four thirds, no amount of money will make it a z8. IE: a cheap 100-300 on a cheap em1ii and dont be a gearfag about it. It would be a whole setup for half the cost of buying a -600 for FF mirrorless. Using an OM1 wont make the pictures better. Its still 20mp m43.
https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2024/01/panasonic-lumix-100-300mm-f4-56-at-kl.html?m=1

>>4421604
>enjoy life instead of snapshitting every tree and rock
>people who have their shitty camera out all the fucking time are annoying
trvke.

>>4421604
>Put a FF with a [24]-105 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 zoom in your pack and enjoy life instead of snapshitting every tree and rock
I'm starting to agree with this sentiment more as the years roll on. Taking photos of *everything* is exhausting for yourself and the people around you.
Prime lenses and "zooming with your feet" can only go so far, and you'll miss more shots and take longer to prepare when relying on anything other than a decent zoom.
Yes, you're losing IQ because a prime is theoretically better at the correct FL, but if you have to crop to hit the right composition, your IQ goes out the window stuipd fast.

Friend of mine was missing lots of interesting shots because he'd have to swap primes on the fly then still crop because he had his 50mm instead of like his 100mm.

>>4421653
Primes are good travel snapshit lenses, but they limit which compositions are going to be good so most photos do end up as snapshits. if you ever look at any famous film photographers contact sheets, they're mostly fuckups and throwaways.

>>4421655
just zoom with your feet, fat ass

>>4421658
>Just zoom with your feet into the middle of a road/lake
>zoom with your feet off a cliff
Nah

Primes are the fountain pens of photography
>w-w-well its more refined and pure
>so what if i cant write on that paper? it's not even good paper, and i will save my very important and premeditated writing for later because i am le artiste.
>Sir, please just sign the receipt.

>>4420009
The most interesting use of a camera is to not make a literal image of consensus reality.

>>4421658
>has 50mm prime because muh heckin film-era focal length
>misses neat photos of animals, sports, landscapes. Has no ability to mess with background compression. Relies on cropping in post to achieve compositions that are even remotely decent
>ZOOM WITH YOUR FEET BRO
>inb4 it's a two hour walk to get the composition of the mountains right
>inb4 can't zoom out with your feet when in tight spaces
>inb4 stop down to f/8 anyway because it's sharper

Primes are great for the exact situations that demand them. But fuck off with this zoom with your feet mentality. They exist as a backup lens and a low light option 90% of the time

>>4421660
but that's what we have drawing for

>87 replies
>9 images
>nothing but baseless shitflinging arguments

ALL of you are retarded.
the one you have with you.
(pic unrelated.)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone 12 miniCamera Software18.3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)23 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2025:04:03 19:51:18Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.4Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness0.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length1.55 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width4032Image Height3024Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio1.8Scene Capture TypeStandard

>>4421660
>reality: (¬_¬ )
>reality, blurry: (0▽0)

>>4421670
>pic unrelated
>thinks this qualifies as a winning argument
The polish shitnigger's sticky prevails because some 4th world faggot measures his bandwidth in kilobits

>>4421670
HAHAHA DO ITODDLERS REALLY

>>4420001 (OP)
Yes. Anything less than medium format is bad.

>>4420001 (OP)
No but it mucks up the perceived focal length with most lenses

>>4420326
>>4420351
HR FF is fucking awesome if you make big prints. Also great for extreme cropping, i.e. squeezing out more reach. So if you regularly make 16x20 and larger prints, they're great. If you regularly view on a monitor, make 8x10s, and only occasionally go larger...it's overkill. Most people don't need 45mp and up. 20-24mp with good glass is more than enough.

>>4420001 (OP)
they're perfectly fine please stop making this thread

>>4420001 (OP)
the difference is pretty negligible unless you exclusively want lowest noise possible when shooting in literal darkness

i shoot m43 and ff, my snoy sits on the shelf 90% of the time because i ended up selling all my autofocus lenses and it only gets used when i want to shoot with vintage lenses now.

>>4422302
One of the nice things about full frame is it's much less demanding on the lens sharpness (at the same resolution) so it's more enjoyable using shitter lenses, which most vintage stuff is. And also you of course get the original field of view, which is nice because not only do old lenses not go very wide but you also don't crop out stuff like vignetting and swirly bokeh/cats eyes. And finally you usually get larger and sharper EVFs. It really is one of the ideal use cases, and you can pick up a first gen A7 super cheap and not be sad that the AF isn't as great as a newer body.

>>4420001 (OP)
yes, micro four thirds is turbo shit most of the time and you have to force yourself to cope. it's only tolerable if you have the time to adjust and run AI NR on every batch of raws and spend almost as much as you would on FF and end up with about as much size and weight for 4x worse everything.

if you literally can not bother to bring a tripod for macro focus stacking or a big lens for birdwatching it's ok, in the same way a compact car is ok if you live in the city

>>4422302
>i shoot m43 and ff, my snoy sits on the shelf 90% of the time because i ended up selling all my autofocus lenses and it only gets used when i want to shoot with vintage lenses now.
I'm pretty sure I've seen your pictures and no offense but i'm not trying to be you

Standard M43 shot

>>4422382
>I'm pretty sure I've seen your pictures and no offense but i'm not trying to be you

unlikely

>>4422431
You never post photos? Sad

>>4422429
You have to get closer and never use an ISO above 800, even with AI-ds

>>4422434
The issue with my shots is the sigma lens, what a waste of money that lump is. I think the lesson is use native glass especially on mirrorless

>>4422439
No the issue is you're not getting closer

micro four thirds is shit but not this shit.

>>4422256
My crop camera has a 40mp sensor and top of the line FF cameras are like 60mp these days. We’re at the point where sensor size doesn’t really matter anymore unless you really need that extra stop of light.
I bought crop for smaller glass so I would go out more and shoot without having to carry a fucking brick of a camera with me.

>>4421670
this photo is so muddy and blurry and sloppy just please buy a real camera

>>4422634
>all lowercase
>no photo

>>4422632
no photo tho xt5 faggo? we know that camera in particular looks exactly like 24mp ff (until iso 6400+ but thats pretty good) except the colors are a tiny bit lifeless. still way better than sony. overall an ok but slightly overpriced camera that sorely needs a firmware update to get the XM5s autofocus.

40mp fuji is really unusual for crop sensors because xtrans is biased against chroma noise, and the added blur it introduces is negated by high resolution sensors. most crop sensor cameras like the panasonic gh7, canon r7 and sony a6700 are noticeably worse than fuji in low light.

>>4420001 (OP)
>Is a crop sensor really all that bad?
Yes. I preordered the D800 with its, amazing at the time, FF 36MP sensor, moving from DX to FX and never regretted it. I took the most amazing photos with that thing. I feel so heartbroken that it's too outdated AF and ISO wise to compete with the big dogs anymore, and nikon doesn't support the D lenses with the screws. I haven't used it in a long time, but I literally tossed my DX stuff in the trash. It's that big of difference. So many photos were saved by photoshop and cropping that 36mp to get that perfect framing and composition.

>>4422779
>I took the most amazing photos with that thing
Awesome, could we see one or a few?

>>4420001 (OP)
Example... nikon has two crop censor cameras in production. They are for specific people, either you're taking photos of birds as a hobby, or poor and can't afford FF.

I am a poor birder. If i had the money for a FF and a bazooka 600mm lens, I would get that, but I have a used d500 and d7500 with a prime 300mm and 200 - 500mm, I really don't need anything more.

>>4422779
D800 is 13 years old tech. Modern crop sensors are quite competent and good enough for most. Really no reason to overspend on FF gear if you’re not a professional. Shooting with lighter gear is usually more enjoyable too.

>>4422780
>Awesome, could we see one or a few?
D800 135mm F2 DC, unedited besides the size thing for 4chan. Most of my photos look like this, but portraits of people that I wont post to 4chan for privacy reasons. I might do a comparison later of the 135 on the d800 and on my a7iv. It really did step up my photography game. Especially framing, where the crop makes the difference.