Thread 4425551

What are your favorite M43 lenses anons?
Don't harass me for not shooting FF thank you and have a nice day.

I personally shoot with:
Lumix 20mm f1.7
Helios 44-M4 f2.

>>4425551 (OP)
Buy an ad, chud.

>>4425553
What? I'm just curious what people shoot. Why would you even call me that?

i would tell you except you made another fucking gearfag thread instead of using one of the existing gearfag threads, quite likely because of some built in schizo bullshit that made you add the second line
t. em5GOD

>>4425558
I added it since I've seen people making fun of M43 as a bad system and I don't like the hate personally. I'm sorry If I broke some unwritten rules about how to post or what to post, I'm just a new guy who's interested in photography that's all.

>>4425551 (OP)
>Helios 44-M4 f2.
Baby's first vintage lens.

>>4425559
>people making fun of M43 as a bad system
As people should. It IS a bad system for actual photographers. It's a phone-tier camera system designed to be fashion accessories and provide telephoto ability. It gets completely mogged by APS-C, is the same size, same cost, and is all but an abandoned mount with the modern releases focusing so heavily on video because there;s nothing for them to offer to photographers anymore.

If it works for you, sick. But don't delude yourself into thinking it's a good system.

>>4425551 (OP)
The only good m43 lens is a dead m43 lens

>>4425601
Haven't seen a single photographer on here that benefits from full frame. You could be using m43 and your photos would remain as mediocre as they are now. Happy for you to prove me wrong with some pics tho :)

>>4425606
i shot 4/3's and it has unusable ISO over 400

otherwise its fine. so yes full frame giving you the ability to shoot in the dark is a massive feature

>>4425606
>butthurt bait thread
>tries to start the "nophoto" routine
Checks out. Your next reply will undoubtedly continue it since you likely think no one has caught on yet.

>>4425606
>I don't like your photos, so you dont deserve to own a nicer camera than me!
i dont really care about you. i dont take photos for you. i dont take photos for people who browse instagram on phones. sorry. you don't mean anything to me.
>BUT YOU WASTED YOUR FUCKING MONEY REEEE YOU HAVE TO BEA TOP TIER ARTIST AND A PROFESSIONAL TO OWN NICE THINGS! YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU DONT BENEFIT FROM IT YOUR PHOTOS CANT LOOK SLIGHTLY NICER YOU DONT DESERVE IT YOU HAVENT EARNED IT!
no, i need to be an adult man with a job to own nice things, and i am one. imagine that. i know you're an underage homosexual without a job but you should probably fix that.

>>4425606
>M43 is great!
>"No it's kind of shit actually"
>p-p-prove me wrong, chud. Post a photo.
Sorry mang but the onus is on you to defend your claim, not I to go through the effort just so you turn around and tell me whatever I found isn't good enough for your abitrary tastes.
Also see: Any photo with shallow DoF, and any photo that has ever been taken in poor lighting that isn't just a smeary blurry shit stain.
You can use google, I believe in you.

>>4425606
Like anyone would waste their photos on a communist like you. You’re worth less than an instagram engagement bot. You literally say that if you dont like peoples pictures they should own shittier cameras. You know that’s basically paraphrased from marx, and forms the basis of most leftist attacks on personal liberty, power, and wealth?
>you dont need a good gun, you arent a soldier serving the party
>you dont need a good camera, you arent a party approved journalist or artist
>you dont need a good car, you arent a professional driver. more than 50hp is only for breaking the law and running from the law. in fact you shouldnt even be in full control of the car.
>you dont need a large house if you have no tenants.
>you dont need land if you are not using it to benefit the party
let me guess you agree with all of these?

Micro four thirds is unjustifiable unless you simply cant justify the cost and inconvenience of food FF birding/macro gear, and only because FF has a lack of shitty consumer grade lenses like a 120mm f5.6 macro or a 200-600 f8-11. If they existed they could be the same size, price, and quality as their 4/3 equivalent but basically no one exists in the chasm between real camera users and phone users, besides a small handful of thirdies who can barely afford used 4/3 and already settled for aps-c DSLRs stolen from tourists. Which is why olympus basically went out of business and panasonic switched to stumbling around with ff mirrorless sans worthwhile autofocus.

>>4425637
>Food ff

I like my 60mm macro a lot, I use it for everything. My 12-45 is hit and miss, maybe I'm using it wrong or shouldn't have a UV filter on it or maybe it's just a dud but it's never felt that good. On paper it's excellent though, small weather sealed standard zoom that can do macro. Tbh my first three lenses were the 60, the 40-150R and the 12-45 and I think it's the ideal kit for what I do (wish the 40-150 went to 200 and was sealed though). I do own the 300 f/4 and it's excellent but overpriced, even used (how I got it). I like the 20mm f/1.4 indoors for my cats, the bokeh is smooth and it's fast enough. Take my advice with a grain of salt I'm just a noobie with disposable income who likes having light and durable telephoto and macro.

>>4425661
Post cat pics.

>>4425661
the 12-45 is meant to be their sharpest standard zoom

orympiss qc strikes again

The 40-150R is very good for being like 100$. Got one to mess around with tilt shift photos of suburbs that my family enjoys. The PanaLeica 15mm f1.7 is pretty good street/EDC lens. The OM 20mm f1.4 is pretty good as well. It has chromatic abberation and isn't overly corrected so it has great contrast and really pops. The OM 12-100 F4 is a very cool feat of engineering and has pretty good optics for how crazy it's range is. I personally don't really like spending that much on a M43 lens though. I buy M43 to get cheap gear I can trash that's like 95% of the quality of my nikon full frame.

>>4425610
>>4425613
>>4425630
>>4425634
>>4425635
>waahhh you're probably this political group i dont like
>no photos
Ok so you just proved me right. You could be using your phone and it wouldn't matter because you would still be making 0 dollars with your photography and 0 people would care about your shots. GG EZ :)

Why are all mft users so insecure and weird?

>>4425665
>Post cat pics.
I know it's impossibly unlikely but if someone traces my kitty to this site I'd just kill myself on the spot. Have a bird instead.

>>4425689
Cute shot, the architecture really adds to the tilt effect. What lens was this?

>>4425692
>”Your next reply will undoubtedly continue it since you likely think no one has caught on yet.”
Called it. You must think we're as stupid as you.

>>4425661
it's probably the filter

>>4425698
looks like ff iso 25600 with nr turned off. i cant believe people pay thousands for this shit.

>>4425696
>arguing the meta and playing semantics
truly the words of the intellectually raped

>>4425699
I know my skills make you feel inadequate but you won't ever improve if you don't take any photo

>>4425695
Stupid site still has the exif disabled. It was the 40-150 f4.0-5.6R with the OM-1. There's this mountain in the middle of phoenix that overlooks a bunch of suburbs and I was going to do a little zine where I sat up there and get some really long distance candid shots. It kind of worked but it was a lot more waiting then I thought it would be and the heat wafting off the pavement was starting to distort the images. I'll probably pick it up again in couple months when it cools down again.

>>4425699
Eh for a cropped picture on a camera you can get for 900$ used that's not that bad for the price.

>>4425716
Nah you can get a Z6II for $900 and blow that away (same AF chops sadly)

>>4425689
>24-200 f8
>feat of engineering

>>4425718
Yeah but an equivalent lens is going to be way more on Z mount

>>4425719
Lol with super flat optics. Looks like your wife's chest

>>4425719
>f8
It's f4 tho

>>4425832
F8 that I own it.

>>4425718
Lol I think you haven't spent much time using M43 if you think the noise is that different on a FF. It's like maybe a stop better in low light. The autofocus and stabilization is much worse on the z6ii.
I feel like everyone on this board is basically arguing about cameras that are all mostly the same in the end. I guess gear faggotry is a way to pass the time but it's pretty funny. Like watching an Indian cricket match riot.

>>4425692
>Multiple cases of empirical evidence that M43 is bad presented
>Complains because politics was mentioned
>Repeats single (1) argument that all comments must be presented with photographic evidence or nothing said counts
>Brings up making money when 95% of board users are hobbyists
>Deluded into thinking he's right for no apparent reason, when the overwhelming majority of the community thinks he's an annoying fag
Oh. Wait. Guys. This anon is a Jew. That explains things.

>>4425835
>95% of board users are hobbyists
There is a reason for that lol. It's not choice.
>UHM ACTUALLY CHUDDY, EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL
Lmfao, I'm the jew am I? Interesting.

>>4425836
>Continues to assert that to do anything you should be making money off it.
Calm it rabbi, go count your sheckles

>>4425836
Not sure if you've ever experienced this before, but sometimes when you switch from hobby to professional it can suck a lot of fun and joy out whatever that hobby was. Making actual money with a camera is usually boring and soul sucking work. More power to yah if you love shooting weddings or high res pictures of watches.

>>4425835
I also dig his nonsensical reply here >>4425700.

>>4425834
it is 2.5 stops worse, the lenses are inferior, the autofocus has never been much better than fuji and it only had a few better crutches for some time
basically a scam for disabled people
>oh no 3kg instead of 2.3kg and the lens is 5cm longer im dying
>at least i have my video crop factors. hey babe did you notice my 4k120 is slightly sharper?
>no i did not because micro four thirds 4k looks like heavily cropped ff 4k. and dont call me babe, im not real. you have schizophrenia and are talking to yourself. everyone is staring.

>>4425836
>It's not choice
It is. I shot 3 weddings. They loved it, even when I used micro four thirds. I quit and turned down 4. It's not worth it. I already have a job, weddings are miserable and actually pay significantly less than my cozy middle manager position, and the only real path upwards in photography requires that you travel to diverse liberal shitholes and interact almost exclusively with liberal do-nothings who are only rich because whoever owns the media liked them.

Or be a photojournalist which is the same thing but you don't have to pretend to like it.

>>4425698
that looks like pigshit and i have an olympus e5 and still love the camera

>>4425882
>actually pay significantly less
Friend of mine did those professionally.
He would shoot half of the photos for client and other half for himself for his personal collection. Would pick girl or two on the wedding that where of special interest, did lots of photos with them and then when he came home he would jack off to those photos.
So money is not everything anon.
pic unrelated, 18€ aliexpress M43 lens kek.

>>4425551 (OP)
Panasonic 25mm 1.7 or Panasonic 15mm 1.7 for walk-around.
Olympus 300mm f4 for birds.

I don't like any m43 zooms.

>>4426010
>600mm f8
i wonder how much that costs
>$2699
no hanks ill stick to full frame
4x the quality at 1/2 the price

>>4425551 (OP)
My most used are the Panasonic Leica 25 & 42.5 mm, and the compact Olympus 12 mm for wide-angle shots.

Having gone the route of aps-c to full frame I am now more open to m43. I just think they are neat, but I wish they were able to produce something like the Pen F, that is something tiny with an EVF, but it seems like it is impossible because of the energy requirements.

I've been shooting MFT for over a decade, it's been awesome. You'd be hard pressed to find a bad lens.

>>4426071
i was like this too but none of them actually fit in a pocket and i don't like birds, so i lost interest

>>4425661
Which zoom, in your experience, do you think works best for macro? If you didn't have a dedicated macro which zoom would you pick?

>>4426592
Honestly one of the strengths of the system is how close lots of non-macro lenses get. The 12-45 does 0.5x, which appears like FF 1x, but it's at 12mm iirc. The Panny 14-140 focuses quite close too, maybe 0.5x but it's slower and less sharp than the 12-45. You could try a raynox 250 too.

Same ones that always get spammed.
Panny 12-32
Oly 40-150R
Oly 17 1.8
Leica 25 1.4

>>4426076
old ass olympus 17mm f2.8

>>4425551 (OP)
since my EM-10 M.III somehow ate my kit and 40-150 flat cabbles I'm having to use a Pentax 50mm 2.4 with it

>>4425551 (OP)
Oly 20mm f1.4 and Panny 35-100mm f2.8 are my most used lenses out of the five I own.

>>4425551 (OP)
A camera shop in my city is selling a brand new GH5 for 740 eurobucks.
Is the GH5 worth it in 2025? I’ve read the video quality is solid except for the DFD autofocus, it's weather sealed, built like a tank and it’s got a 20MP mft sensor.
Thoughts?

>>4429596
look for a cheaper one.

>>4425834
m43 is 2 1/2 stops worse than good ff (ie: z6ii sensor), 2 worse than a normal ff (ie: d750, canon) and the autofocus on a z6ii as bad as it is, is better than 90% of m43 bodies, step up $500 to a zf/z5ii and it loses even harder. wouldn't spend more on it than necessary, ie: good if you insist on mirrorless gimmicks and cant afford a Z 180-600 or Z 105mm f2.8 macro because there's a cheap m43 equivalent-ish setup for half the price of the lens alone, pretty bad otherwise. just stop being a pussy and use a DSLR. m43 loses its luster if you move past indoor cat photogaphy and realize it's a crappy camera that still doesnt fit in your pocket.

>>4429603
Anon, FF DSLR macros and telephoto zooms are just as good as affordable m43 versions, especially when you realize the m43 versions are already at f5.6 or f8 wide open, kind of soft, and will only develop more diffraction smearing after that, and the DSLR versions are as sharp wide open at f2.8, f4.5, etc, and tack sharp stopped down once and dont really diffract until f11. Why would anyone use micro four thirds, besides attempting handheld focus stacking?

>>4429613
>EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro
$400 Used
625g
Very sharp wide open, deliciously razor sharp at f/5.6-8
>M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro
$400 New
186g
Sharp enough wide open. Very sharp at f/4

M43 is a meme, but I think this might be the one single time it's not entirely btfo'd by anyone and their T6i+kit zoom.
I'm also conveniently ignoring the Oly has the performance of f/5.6 wide open, and can't really stop down past f/4 (f/8) without diffraction smearing the shit out of everything anyway.
>but ren kockwell says diffraction makes all lenses equal when shooting at macro apertures
That would be true if this was 1987. A cropped full frame shot would still end up being better overall, and also welcome my name is focus bracketing how do you do.

>>4429596
Brand new? Go for it. Awesome hybrid with great ergonomics, and cheaper than the inferior G97.

>>4425610
>unusable ISO over 400
That's not true at all. MFT & APS-C offer similar high iso performance - anything up 6400 should be great. Both look like crap compared to full frame.

>>4429895
You have to ETTR autistically

Crop sensors try to hide it with tone mapping but shadow tonality is ass if you have small pixels on a small sensor.

>>4429897
small sensor photography really is ideal for soulless, non creative autists
>human spot meter and gear shopping expert: skill issue!
>creative person that doesnt know what a DAC is and expects the kit lens to be as good as any other lens: This camera is broken i am buying a new one

>>4429895
>somehow the smaller sensor is just as good as the bigger sensor
The age old cope

>>4429603
>a cheaper one
Which model is better than the GH5 at that price point? I don’t want to buy used gear and I’m looking for an hybrid and weather sealed camera.
I plan to get the Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II and the 25mm f/1.4 II too (both brand new and weather sealed), plus a Slik tripod and Lowepro backpack.
Total budget is under 2000 eurobucks (and everything has to fit in that budget)

>>4429962
>2000 eurobucks for a phone sensor
>penisonic charges $540 for a 50mm f2.8
oh my yahweh this is terrible

listen what you need to do is pick up a canon r8 for <$1000, the kit lens, and some f1.8 prime with IS, and then never buy anything else except for spare batteries and lighting gear

>>4425694
I've seen that bird.

I was looking for a P&S but a tiny m43 body with a pancake might fit the pocket too. Anyone here have a kit like that?

>>4429991
Yeah, it didnt really fit in my pocket comfortably and the only worthwhile one without a viewfinder bump is $1k so might as well buy an actual pocketable camera like a ricoh gr

>>4429994
Ah I see, what camera is the 1k one?

>>4429973
>2000 eurobucks for a phone sensor
Less than 2000 for a weather-sealed camera, two weather-sealed lenses (50mm f2.8 and 200–600mm f8 equivalent), a decent tripod, and a backpack. All brand new.
>Canon R8
Not even weather-sealed, and it’s 1445 euros body-only at the same shop. Are you retarded?

>>4429591
>Oly 20mm f1.4
I didn’t even know this existed. I can't pay that much for a 40mm prime. Is it much better than the 17mm 1.8?

>>4425713
Is that from camelback?

>>4430013
The 17mm f1.8 has a lot of copy variation so you might have a soft copy. That being said the 20mm f1.4 is definitely sharper than even a perfect 17mm f1.8. It's definitely noticeable without pixel peeping but it's not a huge improvement outside of shooting in high res mode. I wouldn't say it's worth an upgrade necessarilly. The 20mm f1.4 is cheaper used though. If you watch you can find a used version for a bit over 400$

>>4430013
dont fall for the meme. it's mft, there's no point in upgrading it.

that 40mm f2.8 is somehow optically worse than nikon's plastic 40mm f2 anyways

>>4429997
>muh weather sealing
The manual says not to expose it to rain. Sometimes (panasnoy, fujifail) the weather sealing is a marketing gimmick.

Non weather sealed cameras will also survive rain because rainwater isn't exceptionally conductive and cameras are usually screwed together tight enough for minor exposure.

>>4429591
>20mm f1.4
Based. One of the most underrated primes in the system imo. I've shot some great contextual portraits and hi-res landscapes with it.
>>4430013
I got mine during black friday for 420 bucks.
>>4430043
>weather sealing is a marketing gimmick
Nope.
OM-1 and A7C owner here. Never had a single issue with the Olympus, even in heavy rain. The Sony had its sensor full of dust particles after a windy day on the beach (paired with a non-weather-sealed lens).

>>4429997
If you need weather sealing and those focal lengths, assuming it’s for street and nature shots, you’re not gonna find anything cheaper. I had the GH4 for 8 years and it was one of the most reliable tools I’ve ever owned. Super comfy to use and never had a single issue.

>>4429991
If you don't mind giving up an evf the Oly EPL6 is small enough to fit in some pockets

>>4430090
>The sentence:
>Sometimes (panasnoy, fujifail) the weather sealing is a marketing gimmick.
>The response: *ignores sometimes panasonoy fujifail*
How much does OM system pay you

Did they at least give you a cruise ticket

>>4430486
>panasnoy, fujifail
You're right, redditspacing boy. I didn't read the brands you mentioned. Please don't downvote me.

>>4430500
Post a photo of your cameras with a timestamp

>>4429997
And it will last longer than the Canon too

>>4430038
it's not just copy variation, the 17 1.8 does a LOT of software distortion correction (aka the devil's work) and you lose a massive amount of sharpness outside of the center just from that

>>4431561
>M43
>RF
>Relying far too much on digital lens corrections
>Predator-handshake-meme.tiff
inb4 powerpoint presentation-tier slide animation to different meme format
>M43 relies on digital lens corrections because they can't design a lens big enough to overcome the issues thanks to mount size restrictions
>RF relies on digital lens corrections because the salaryman dropkicks at Canon said we want smaller lenses to appeal to everyday faggots
>We-are-not-the-same-meme.jxl

>>4431562
>M43 relies on digital lens corrections because they can't design a lens big enough to overcome the issues thanks to mount size restrictions
i mean. everyone's favorite 12-40 is similarly wacky at the wide end but then at 25mm on it's less than 1% distortion in either direction. most of the similar primes- the pannycake 20, "leica" 25, panasonic 15, etc- are similar to the 17 if just a little bit better and rely heavily on software, but then the little olympus 25 1.8 is similarly less than 1% distorted in raw so they just didn't give a fuck the rest of the time, it's clearly possible with the tiny mount and lenses

>>4431565
>12-40
Aren't most semi-competent lens designs around that focal range pretty much the same in that regard?
Pretty sure every standard-zoom ever has gone from barrel to pincushion distortion with a spot in the middle that's good. Nowadays either the tele or wide end is also good meaning you're often only dealing with fucked distortion on either the wide or tele end.
>primes
Maybe I should have rejiggered the meme-comment to just be about Olympus lenses instead of m43 together. My brief stint in M43 was solely Oly lenses and adapted vitange soviet shit.

>>4431565
whats the point? jerking off to gimmicks that marginally improve 1/100 building corner photos and "equivalence" that says in theory if no one looked too closely a full frame camera might take a photo that could feasibly pass for micro four thirds if it were not directly compared to a micro four thirds camera taking a photo in the same situation, and the FF photographer were not allowed to lower the shutter speed, use shallower DOF, or edit much for some reason?

>>4431639
That's a lot of words to say you only theoretically take photos

what is the camera industry doing????

>>4431561
Fair point. I also think it's got kind of a mediocre formula. Lots of better options out there as long you don't exactly need 35mm fov

>>4431657
nothing out of the ordinary. nikon has always made the best cameras with the widest selection of high quality, fairly priced lenses. meanwhile fujifilm just copies nikon and panasonic makes cameras out of spare dishwasher parts.

>>4431657
the sigma lens is kinda a disingenuous lens to use here, since it's an old DSLR design that has jjust essentially had mirrorbox length grafted into it for mirrorless. the others are native mirrorless designs. not really the same.

>>4431671
L mount lenses are just overcorrected and have flat rendering

>>4431678
it bothers me that this thing lines everything up based on viewfinders rather than anything else. easiest way for them to do it i get it, butt when talking about lens sizes, its misleading. if you line them up from the mount, it's a sizeable difference.

>>4431687
Panasonic cameras are just oversized from being made out of left over dishwasher parts

>>4431657
Sure if you like dead pixels and flat images

>>4431721
We're talking about nikon here not olympus

>>4431721
https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/comments/zvh9nx/psa_if_you_see_wrongstuck_pixels_in_your_raw/
Looks like every camera has hot pixels

Snoy hides it with star eater instead of just letting you remap them or use hot pixel NR on raws, at the cost of erasing stars

>>4431748
My R5 is horrendous in that regard.

>>4431660
Curious how you forgot to mention Canon, as Canon has been ass-raping Nikon since the release of the EOS-1, and still continues to do so.

>>4431832
Don't you kno that Canon is being btfo'd by snoy in corporate contracts or some shit. Shurley that means the leader in camera technology for the last three decades is ogre and you should submit to the glorious infinite DoF and Muh Gramsᵀᴹ.

>>4431832
Canon released a $5000 full frame camera with apsc dr and their lenses snap in half now

Did you mean getting laughed at by nikon for minmaxing fps and video codec wank while forgetting how to make a lens cover full frame without corrections

>>4431898
Its because canon stopped being the leader after the d750 came out.
>well for sports-
and then sony came out

Recently got the Panasonic Leica 15mm at the recommendation of this thread. Very happy with the purchase! Renders color nicely and in better light I have found it to be pretty poppy. Just wanted to thank whoever suggested it.

>>4432973
Cheers, I find the PL lenses to be really beautiful as well.

Recommendations for a weather sealed zoom lens?

12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II vs OM Pro 20mm f1.4? I have the 20mm already but it always seems soft

>>4433107
Weather sealed on Panasonic or Olympus?
>>4433124
They complement each other well. The 2.8 zoom is heavier and a bit bulkier. If 2.8 is enough I'd go with it, if you like primes I'd go with the 20, though you probably have a bad copy or are doing something wrong. My 20mm is very sharp.

>>4433124
oversized overpriced shit like this is why everyone mocks mft and mft users cope

they added weather sealing to the 17mm f1.8, get that instead of being a wanker
>muh f2.8 equivalent fast prime muh f5.6 equivalent fast zoom

lens sharpness on mft does not matter it all looks equally shit regardless

>>4433159
>The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm F1.8 II Lens will be available beginning in late February 2025, at a suggested retail price of $549.99 (US)/$769.99 (CAD).
micro fool turds

>>4433160
Is the price literally them justifying their R&D? It's like they expect to sell 100 units tops
Also,
>$550 USD for a 35mm f/3.5 lmfao
That's 50 year-old film lens capabilities

>>4433163
>That's 50 year-old film lens capabilities
based

>>4433163
>R&D
Adding O rings to a series of tubes that get screwed together by chinese toddlers requires R&D?

>>4433168
This *is* OM system we're talking about

>>4433159
>ask about a lens
>get schizobabble

>>4425713
I now also want this lens.
> 250 Euro new
> 125 Euro on mpb
What's the catch? (yep I'm new to this)

>>4434260
It's used.

>>4433159
They hated him because he told the truth

The kit zoom is enough. You werent shooting low light action anyways lol.

>>4434288
>samefagging

>>4425606
None of the lenses I want to use exist on M43

>>4433124
Imagine an $800 40mm 2.8 prime being soft kek

>>4434329
It still bothers that many many years ago MFT was marketed and peddled as being lighter and cheaper (only to produce kek) since less glass. Then we gut fucked in the ass with this rubbish

>>4434282
How do you need to use something so it loses half value?

>>4434330
It could certainly be lighter and cheaper, see picrel, in a classic case of “let me guess, you NEED more”, the gearfags won out and they stopped making the tiny cameras. Blame the boomers shooting birds in their backyard, since they’re the only ones pouring money into four turds.

>>4434361
Same way a new car loses 30% of its value the moment you drive off the lot. Depreciation is a bitch.

>>4434416
>The gearfags won out
If only you would have listened to full frame chads
>Micro four thirds should be $500 tops, 400g tops, and no larger than a ricoh GR, because sensors smaller than full frame arent real cameras. For anything that doesnt fit in a pocket get a REAL camera, kid.
The LX100 was the only truly good idea in the system, hampered by panasonic quality (some reviews claimed it was a lying 2mp camera).

Good thing canon is here to save it... after the japanese gave up on photographers, and started marketing only to vloggers.

>>4434417
When I was looking for a camera, I had an impression that Mpb has no qualms selling bodies pretty close to msrp, so it does surprize me that they sell lenses in supposedly "excellent" condition with 50% discount. But maybe that's just how things are and there are just too many used lenses on the market or something.

>>4434416
I blame Americans who just grow too large on their basedbean diet and cannot.operate small cameras. When I found out Oly sells their small E-P7 everywhere except America, it just clicked.

>>4434424
Small cameras died off because they are designed by asians with ignorance towards western society

The japanese man wears a coat any time he is not home. It helps, that it actually rains a fucktonne in japan. The japanese man is also still on web 2.0 because rushing to change a perfectly functional internet would be disrespecting the wisdom of his elders. This significantly shifts what is convenient.

The western man never wears a coat. He wears jeans, with pockets too tight to fit a ricoh GR comfortably, or slacks, in which cameras fall sideways and tilt forwards. He also expects smartphone integration. Take this into account, and realize why the western man is not going to spend $500-1000 on a camera he's not going to take with him more often than a DSLR or FF mirrorless.

>>4434424
americans who still like photos instead of selfies and vlogs are buying the fuck out of the ricoh gr otherwise its all used dslrs because this is true >>4434428

i am not wearing a coat to fit these "pocketable" (not pocketable) cameras like the e-p7 and x100vi.... those are for girls and their purses, and they already have phones with horrible AI skin smoothing and a direct line to tiktok. if i have to use a strap i might as well use a better camera.

>>4434419
If MFT fit the sub thousand market exclusively and did so with an emphasis on weight and size, they might actually be successful. The fixation on video bullshit (for panasoynic) and max reech PRO f/1.4 [f/2.8] lenses (Olympus) is stupid as all fuck and shows that neither really know what they want it to be.
They want it to make money but the window for a mirrorless small-sensor format that has a chance to be a valid alternative to APS-C/FF is gone. They had 5 years or so before mainline manufacturers moved away from DSLRs and even then they couldn't convince any pros that ISO 800 in bright daylight was acceptable.

They could have just marketed themselves as an easy entry point to real cameras and away from smartphones. Like really, if it was basically a P&S but ILC that'd sell like hotcakes.

>>4434430
But that's what Oly sells? On their Euro website, OM-5 kit is about 1000, E-P7 and E-M10 kits are about 700 (discount prices, whatever)

>>4434436
1000 is enough for 2 m6ii’s
3 d750s (not pocketable means not pocketable and when youre average height 5’11-6’2, fuck grams who cares)
Or even a fuji xm5 kit and an extra lens
And about the size of a $1000 used, weather sealed, full frame a7c, it would only matter if you always had a coat pocket free
The 17mm f1.8 with weather sealing is $500
So is a 40mm f2.5 g with weather sealing

Micro four thirds is too shit for the pricepoint and some gimmicks that might improve some landscapes sometimes. It just doesnt fit any purpose other than coping and being em5ii levels of poor anymore.

Buy a used gm1 and cope

>>4434442
>when youre average height 6’2
>grow too large on their basedbean diet
Just all the way to my original point.

>>4434447
>actually average men are too tall
crop cope at its finest

were stop noticing things and consoom and stop caring and consoom not soi enough for you

>>4434436
Not smaller or better than the xm5, a6600, etc.

A larger sensor improves every photo and equivalence doesnt even work. M43 gimmicks bring some photos close to aps-c sorta.

>>4434436
Even $1000 USD is too much. I mean like, their top of the line whatever can sit up top there but in the same vein that Canikkon sells $8000 cameras that nobody normal buys, an EM1 shouldn't really cost more than that. Their mainline offerings should sit around $400-800 new if they wanted to actually carve out a portion of the market. I reckon a sizable portion of the "Buy used DSLR kit from 10 years ago" market would instead buy a new MFT if it were the case. Yes they'd have to rejig things to bring the price down.

For $1000 I'm buying an R8 on sale (don't do that though), or at the least an R10 kit.

>>4434460
>Not smaller or better than the xm5
The body is not smaller. Oly has small zoom lenses though (and image stabilization).

> But your 700 Euro camera has a smaller sensor than my 1000 Euro camera what about that
Yeah I guess.

>>4434463
For $1000 im buying an a7iii, and samyang 45mm+75mm kit. M43 is for impoverished nature nerds only because of the cheapie em1ii+75-300+60mm macro meme.

>>4434465
olympus has small f8-12 zooms and a stabilization gimmick that might improve some landscapes maybe (but not as much as a $12 pocket tripod)
>inb4 nuh nuh nuh pickskel shift
disappointing every time, lots of weird digital artifacts just to pixel peep the lenses various as of yet unseen optical issues with 0.5um virtual pixels

olympus had a nice pancake kit lens, but i dont wear a coat everywhere so if it doesnt fit in a pocket i might as well get a better sensor - a7c+28-60, ezpz to shoot at iso 100 all day

>>4434466
As much as I love to say snoy, I can't help but agree with your core sentiment.

As an aside, I don't even get the "muh grams" argument; I was one-handing a 1.2kg setup last night for like 3 hours. All I needed my second hand for was to steady the thing when doing low shutter speeds. And I guarantee there are anons here that have hauled bigger loads for longer hours.
>inb4 I hike up massive mountains all day every day and every gram counts
I bushwalk all the time and the biggest source of weight should be the water you are carrying. I truly don't understand how an extra 500g of camera equipment matters.

>>4434260
The catch is that it if you shoot against a brightly lit background like a sky you will get some CA. Thruthfully it's more than fine for landscapes or portraits if you wait until its like 100$ new. One of the best lenses on MFT for value.

>>4434493
You don't know what you're missing. t. hiker who used to "not worry" about pack weight and do (max) 12mi/4000ft days, now regularly exceeding 20mi and 6000ft. Grams turn into kgs real quick. I still prefer an ILC but you have some FF options that are as light as MFT in 2025.

>>4434495
If i was larping as spec ops or lewis and clark i’d cut the bullshit and use an rx100 kept in a waterproof mini case instead of gambling on OM marketing

>>4434493
Snoy is unironically good, we just shit on it to troll people

>>4434504
Not me I genuinely think snoy is shit. They are joyless machines

>>4434513
>t. blew 3k on fujiworms and coping hard

Can we adapt micro four turds lenses onto a Nikon Z fullframe body?

>>4439324
DO NOT disrespect the grandest of all lenses with the most inferior of all sensor sizes.

Love the oly 30mm macro, especially for the price. I like the fact that for critters you get a glimpse of their habitat in the background. Can be difficult to get a portrait of them though because of the short focal length, but with patience you learn how to approach them.

Love the oly 30mm macro, especially for the price. I like the fact that for critters you get a glimpse of their habitat in the background. Can be difficult to get a portrait of them though because of the short focal length, but with patience you learn how to approach them.

>>4441277
Really nice.

>>4434416
My second lens. It was particularly bad.

what do you think of adapting the NIKKOR 300mm f4 AFS (2000s) for m4/3? Would a teleconverter work with it (the lens is normally compatible with it) And, what other alternatives would there be for getting into wild life on a budget (adapted or native). Thanks

>>4444736
I haven't heard good things about adapting lenses to mft with autofocus. Grab a Panasonic 100-300 or Olympus 75-300, the latter isn't much more expensive than an AF adapter. It's not a good lens at 300, but it can work for wildlife if you're ok with only shooting in abundant, great light. I hope you have a pdaf body too.

>>4444834
I was just asking because I say this guy adapt it:
https://youtu.be/4vqtYXdE9UM
Looks pretty good no? Its still a professional prime lens after all compared to the native zooms you mentioned. Yea the AF wont work but that lens has an internal focus mechanism and apparently does manual very well and quickly. Could be a nice compromise. That guy apparently got it cheap because the AF was broken. But yea, need to be lucky to find a deal like that to justify adapting over going native I guess

>>4425606
I have 15k euro in RF gear, I take pictures of birds and rocks which I don't even post online (I dont care about the opinion of the plebs and I dont plan of trainig AIs for free).
I plan on buying more in the future.
What are you going to do about it ?

>>4445885
post the RF 800mm f/5.6 when you grab it

>>4445885
I don't care what you spend your money on, I'm stating an objective fact that cameras like that are lost on you. It's like giving an orang utan an abacus.

>>4425606
>>4445930
>you dont deserve nice things because i dont like your photos
why would i care about the opinion of some loser who probably jerks off to cartoon horses, cartoon children, or cartoon trannies? there is a 100% chance of at least one of those being true about you.

better cameras take better looking photos
i like them
your opinion is irrelevant

now, go back to what your "type" was doing before the internet, and accusing manlier, handsomer, richer men than you of having small penises because you cant afford a sportscar

>>4445932
Dont bring up chad and his stupid dicklet car please. Chad is a fucking gearfag and a sportscar is lost on him. He has never race in lemans. He has never lapped the nurburger ring. He doesn't fucking deserve it. Chad should be forced to give that money to charity and buy a corolla. Everyone who shows off or thinks they "need" some expensive shit needs to keep their fucking head down and know their fucking place. I hate rich consoomers.

>>4445932
I didn't say or imply anything about 'deserve'
Learn to read nigger.

>>4445935
like it or not, us normal people can read between the lines. you're just another spreadsheet analyzing specs autist who needs to justify everything as a "need".

here's a new word for your vocabulary:
want.

now go type up some weird woke right jew hating seethe and post ugly /pol/ memes to pretend a grown man with a job wanting things is "bad"

>>4445935
It is what you meant, however.

Also, whenever I see a corgi I kick it, and whenever I see a husky I throw my drink at it. I hope this helps.

>>4445933
>nurburger ring

Amerifat moment.

>>4425606
Would you mind sharing an example of pic that benefits from full frame?

I have not messed around with m43 that much, but the 17mm f1.8 seems to be pretty crispy.

>>4446007
There's a lot of copy variation with the 17mm f1.8 so just try to get one made in vietnam and not china. It's a good lens but it does have a decent amount of distortion so it's not great for landscape. I use it for shooting street all the time though and some of my favorite shots were taken on it.

>>4445937
Cool, you can't read. Glad to see that's the hill you double down on. I love arguing with retarded americans, it's such an eZ win everytime.

>>4446114
They really are a piece of work
>>4445937
>t. Ken Wheeler

>>4425551 (OP)
15mm PanaLeica
12-60mm Panaleica

>>4446143
Hell yeah brother, the 12-60 is a great size/range/speed tradeoff and the 15mm looks great and is also pretty compact.

>>4446143
"Equivalence cope" lenses are a joke

Just sell the micro four turd and buy a nice fuji or a6700

>>4446162
The 1.2 Leica range is hardly a cope

>>4446163
>paying enough for an f2.4 prime to buy an entire full frame setup with a faster lens
lmao micro four cucks

>>4446162
Also why would someone downgrade to the two worst brands in the market? I wouldn't even buy a Sony stereo for my car.

>>4446165
Ironically, lumix and olympus have a higher failure rate than sony. Despite the tough guy marketing, olympus micro four thirds cameras are plagued with flimsy builds and failing buttons/screens.

>>4446167
Sony is still worse when it comes to user experience and general design.

>>4446168
You have clearly never used an olympus menu, or a lumix camera. They're worse than snoy. people put up with them because they're cheap and the small slow lenses are good enough for non-artistic photography.

Didn't your friend huskyfucker buy an olympus and have it instantly freeze?

>>4446165
Fuji cameras are generally well made. There's maybe 4 forum threads about broken ones, and lots more threads about non weather sealed fujis doing well in rain.

Meanwhile, olympus...

>>4446169
Not only I have used them but it always amused me that Fuji copied their gimmicky art filters and called them film simulations.

>>4446171
>Fuji cameras are generally well made
Shill

>>4446172
Not even close

>>4446173
Seething blobknob

>>4446176
The thing that's not even close is the look of film and the look from a "film Sim"

>>4446181
>all these happy people enjoying their fujifilm cameras are wrong
>they should agree with me, the mentally ill /pol/turd, and use shittier cameras
what a sad life you lead. being angry that happier, nicer people than you are enjoying their cameras instead of lugging a blob around. could it be, sour grapes?

>>4446184
My grapes are tastier than your fallen rotten ones, because for one I get the joy of reflex and for two I dare to shoot film instead of worrying about the cost while paying north of 2k for a crappy worm-infested kit. And I shoot Kodak, not Fuji crap. The only Fuji worth a damn is Velvia and they got mostly rid of it.

>>4446188
>I dare to shoot
>I shoot
liar

Any recs for a weather sealed decently small zoom? Currently eyeing the 40-150mm

>>4446930
The f/4? The 2.8 is not small for a mft lens. I don't have the f/4 but from what I can tell it is a good lens. It does not work with the tc which makes it not worth it to me, but if the range is enough it seems ideal. It and the 12-45 f/4 are the same size and weight as the 12-100 f/4 iirc, but with more range and the 12-45 does better macro.

>>4446930
7-14 f4, 12-60 f3.5-5.6/12-32 f3.5-5.6, 70-300 f4.5-6.3 II

the "mft justified" trio. if you buy anything but those, the olympus macros, and the 20mm f1.7 you might as well get a job and shoot full frame.

>>4446064
I'm kinda tempted to buy the new weather-sealed OM version of 17mm f1.8 and make my em5 a poorfag's X100

>>4449432
>f fucking 6.3

>>4449457
don't bother, you lose the cool focus clutch and the actual lens is the same otherwise so it's still the same shitty, blurry, CA out the ass, massively distorted 17mm as always.

>>4449432
>the sole reason to use m43 is budget.
Nonsense. I could buy a medium format camera, but I still use m43 because it's decent image quality in a compact package.

>>4449465
Sounds like they are trying to scam people with such a shitty lens. Why is most of m43 like this?

>>4449470
Because Panasonic is 90% in the full frame bed with Leica (and videographers) but wants to keep the licensing for the Micro Four Thirds Mount Ecosystem in their pocket, and Olympus literally went broke and got bought by an investment firm after the Yakuza made over a billion US dollars in Olympus assets mysteriously vanish in a setup dating back to the 80s.

>>4449470
Because 4/3 is a false economy.

>>4449470
To compete with Canon's f/11 supertele, duh. They're aiming at the low cost flyer.
>>4449550
Mirrorless as a whole is.

>>4449465
>>4449470
>f fucking 6.3
Cool an f/13 equivalent zoom. ISO 6400 performance in broad daylight.

>>4449553
I looked it up and it seems it doesn't exist unless it's the old Four Thirds lens that can be adapted to MFT.

>>4449483
>a yakuza conspiracy is why olympus died
it was actually because their cameras sold poorly due to not being competitive with canon sony and fuji, and despite the "R CAMERAS R TOUGH!!!! WE HAS THE WEATHER SEAL!" marketing, they were renowned for being extremely unreliable and the actual IP ratings they earned were essentially worthless. They could have sold off any division, including the medical division that got the company sued after they literally inflated people to death, but they sold the camera division because they were simply unable to develop a camera that was a real world competitor instead of a spec sheet gimmick competitor only big photography nerds could squeeze some better than aps-c quality out of.

Just google any olympus model + failed/broken
And then do the same thing with a nikon

Olympus sold way way fewer cameras than anyone else and had way way more people complaining about broken shit

Panasonic's reliability track record is slightly worse (on full frame too) hence why despite every panasonic sanctioned influencer claiming every panasonic that comes out is better than sony... canon, sony, fuji, and nikon continue to control 90% of the camera market, and panasonic is shrinking as a brand. They're probably next to die.

>>4449581
>be orympiss
>add rudimentary splash proofing
>people believe the marketing and rinse their cameras off in water and shoot in downpours without rain covers
>a bunch of cameras die
>reputation ruined
lol

>>4449581
they literally had one of the biggest corporate scandals with people actually getting jailtime in japan, where such a thing is uncommon. it's not just some made up yakuza conspiracy lol it literally killed the company.

>>4449584
It's become more and more common in the later years. It's what happens when you cook the books to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of stakeholders, just ask Carlos Ghosn.

>>4449584
Maybe they should have sold the medical division that literally killed people. But it was somehow more worth keeping around than the overpriced, underperforming cameras.

>>4449586
retvrn to /o/ and stop shitting up /pee/

>>4449581
Anon this shit dates back to before the IP ratings and before digital period, it was going on since the days of the original 35mm OM System. Everyone kept kicking the can down the road until a foreigner employee noticed and then they tried to shut him up (and failed). It's not a conspiracy, it's actual things that happened and are especially notable because of how rarely that type of thing actually makes the news over there.

I know I'm feeding a reply to the "google X brand broken" schizo but the topic interests me.

>>4449600
Nice "rebuttal" you have there tavarysch

>>4434419
>Micro four thirds should be $500 tops, 400g tops,

I got my em5ii back in 2022 for $350. I wish they are now $250 so I can get another one

>>4449693
Go back to /o/ belarusian cunt

>>4449976
Do you miss me there or something? Such insistence, wow.

>>4425985
>Would pick girl or two on the wedding that where of special interest, did lots of photos with them and then when he came home he would jack off to those photos.
You're projecting anon.

>>4425694
nice birb, annoying its ever so minorly out of focus

Does anyone have tips for a mft astro lens that is very light? Manual focus is fine. I'm planning a backpacking trip that should have some amazingly dark skies and don't want to miss the opportunity, but it will be a strenuous trip and I don't want to carry any weight I don't have to. My current kit is going to be the 12-45mm f/4 pro, the 60mm macro, and a telezoom I haven't decided on yet. I was thinking about swapping the 12-45 for a 2.8 zoom or a wide prime that could also do astro, but they tend to be heavy and I like the 12-45 a lot. Open for any suggestions or tips!

Mindless fool framers cannot fathom the sheer power of having an excellent street photography everyday lens, a perfectly good portrait lens, and a camera body all in the space of a single standard zoom fool frame lens

>>4449581
>the company sued after they literally inflated people to death
wait, what?

>>4454343
>*rear dial breaks*

>>4454343
I’d rather have just one good camera instead of a foolturds and a snoy

>>4454334
EF to MFT speedbooster. Mft lenses are unacceptably slow. Then buy a cheap ef f1.something wide like that samyang everyone likes.

Also consider a cheap mono converted camera to get an extra stop of light

>>4454354
>I'd rather have the wrong camera for every occasion than be intelligent

>>4454354
I've decided this as well

I sold my d750 and m43 and kept the z7. The autofocus is still shit but my dog is moving slower with time and if I ever want to do a gig again I'll just borrow a z8 and 24-70 from amazon, I mean, lensrentals

The very last m43snap with one of the few worthwhile m43 lenses - the lumix 12-60 kit zoom aka snapshit sodacan
>other lenses that make m43 make sense:
>60 macro (i know full frame can have compact macros, but they stopped making them. see: minolta 100mm f2.8)
>90mm 4x macro (ideal reality scanning lens, turn your camera into a chintsy microscope)
>75 f1.8 (lens makers, please bring back the compact 135mm f2.8 for full frame)
>the bargain 100-300 poorfag birders
that's it lol

>>4454357
thats just a snoy problem. you don't need a second good camera if you buy anything but a snoy.

>>4454354
>>4454360
Snoys btfo

>>4454355
I see decent results from ultrawide mft lenses faster than f2? I've read a lot of astro photos have significant post processing though... not that I'm against that. I'll consider but I'd rather stay native for size/weight.
>Also consider a cheap mono converted camera to get an extra stop of light
But I want colors, I'm not doing deepspace stuff, not to mention the bulk. Cool idea though.

>>4454366
astro is long exposure anyways so trichrome that shit

>>4454360
>micro four thirds is only a telephoto system
actually true

>>4454334
I'm gonna go with the Panny 9mm f/1.7, didn't realize how small and light it is! Hope the weather doesn't turn out shit on me.

>>4454387
>astro at f3.5
>micro four thirds
snoy eats stars, micro four thirds gives you extra

>>4425606
>all these replies
>none are pics

>>4454536
Yeah I know /p/ loves to clown on that animal rapist nigga but they're all exactly like him.

>>4425606
>You don't deserve nice gear because I don't like your photos
Commie faggot.

>>4454536
Wasting your photos on a literal commie is the stupidest thing you could do. Do you think you could EVER justify yourself to them? If you have nicer property than they think you deserve, everything you do is wrong unless you can eventually prove you make enough money to impress them and prove you "need" it.

One guy tried and the commie instantly switched gears to demanding legal proof he made money off photography. Another guy tried and got "DO YOU THINK THIS TRASH BELONGS IN A GALLERY?" over and over. There is no win condition other than joining their little cult. These faggots are narcissistic shitheads and can not be reasoned with. Don't give them anything but an insult.

>>4454551
>>You don't deserve nice gear because I don't like your photos
There's that good old American functional illiteracy again. I didn't say deserve, I said you don't benefit from better gear. Hope this helps retard! :)

>>4454554
Even doghair benefits from better gear. Everyone can tell what you really mean.

Whatever you say is a lie, since your main activity is lying to steal welfare, not taking photos.

>>4454568
>Just chucks a sooky, makes up lies, can't read and STILL won't post a photo
KEK

>>4454536
>>4454570
This isnt reddit, retard

>>4454571
>th-this isn't r-r-reddit
Cool, you got any other irrelevant catchphrases to use up after getting BTFO'd ahahahaha

>>4454570
no one would waste a photo on you moop

micro four thirds is inexcusably shit. no one who can afford a real full frame camera can convince themselves it's worthwhile for long.

>>4454575
Except no one could tell whether your photos were taken on full frame, m43, or an iphone because you have no clue how to use a camera. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a photo. Or you could just keep confirming how right I am and how hard you got BTFO'd by continuing to bitch and moan. :)

>>4454576
Look how desperate for attention you are lmao

Now take pride in being responded to so I can laugh

>>4454360
After seeing your Z7 shots, this looks inexcusably bad. Do people really pay thousands for this "quality"?

>>4454578
>I take pride in getting BTFO'd
Ahhahaha look at this cuck

>>4454354
Beyond based.

>>4454582
>Response got shorter and took longer
Gonna cry?

>>4454586
>Timing everything I say
Lmao completely obsesessed. Typical retarded American. And all this because your onions government didn't bother to teach you how to read! Sad!

>>4454589
>forgot to evade the word filter
>thirdie seethe at Americhads increasing, no longer thinking about cameras (not hard cuz he doesnt use them, cuz)
Flustered, saar?

>>4454592
>americhads
Lmao you're brown!
>Still no photo
Oop! Almost got off topic. Almost tried to get out of it? Nice try. But you're still a dogshit photographer. Why don't you sell your gear to someone who knows how to use it since you admitted that your photos are indistinguishable from iphone pics :)

>>4454594
Wow, the more you post the more pathetic you get. Does the welfare bureau in your third world country not allot you enough electricity to charge your snapshitter or something? Have you left the house in the past seven days?

Sad.

>>4454597
>W-w-well you're poor!
Lol not only did they not teach you to read but the only value your jewfucked mind is able to comprehend is monetary. Many such cases. You could prove me wrong by posting a photo but we both know I'm right. I accept your concession :)

>>4454598
You're too mentally ill to share photos with. Without provocation you're just needlessly hostile and keep bringing up racism and jews. There is no possibility of you mounting a productive response. Sorry. Honestly engaging with you is like playing chess with a cat.

>>4454599
>i-i-i can't share m-my photos i j-just c-can't..!
Cope, copium and more cope. So what, you're still responding because you don't care what I think? You want to prove to me that you 'deserve' your gear so badly but you'll do anything but post photos.

this is the most useless thread on 4chan and i hope the majority of /p/ falls down a hole and stays there

i recently bought an olympus em5 as my first camera and i think it's pretty fun!
I guess my favorite lens is the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ since it's the only one I own

>>4454600
not him but you come off as really pathetic. needy and narcissistic at the same time. see a shrink. i wouldnt post photos for you either. you'd probably try to dox me and randomly show up at my house.

>>4456397
12-50 is such a weird old lens. It's nice that it's light and weather sealed though, wish we had more like it and the 60mm f/2.8 macro. Enjoy!

>>4456433
the fact that it was the only megacheap weather sealed lens i could find is actually why i got it, lol
been out in the rain with it a lot.
I'm curious though, what about it is weird?

>>4456449
It's kinda weird because it's almost the same focal length as the 14-42mm EZ and it's like 5x the size.

>>4456402
>not him but
don't lie, you are him.

>>4456573
internal zoom also 10 extra mm of range

>>4456449
It's kinda slow and just old and forgotten about in general. I've heard good things about it.
>>4456749
The extra 2mm on the wide end is important as well.
This isn't me >>4456573
l

got a school photography job and our assigned cameras are micro four thirds (some lumix body and pic rel.) is there any reason for that choice from a business standpoint other than cheaper price?

>>4456872
cheaper price and lower skill floor because the children are forced to use wider apertures

>>4456872
Small body for the small people that are going to use them. Cheaper to insure.
>>4456873
>the children are forced to use wider apertures
>f/3.5 (really f/7.1)
?

>>4456872
No, but it's usually a bad choice to start with. Usually they want all their student photos to be the exactly same year by year so they often keep old gear for waaay too long. I know someone doing school photography and they are using crop sensor canon DSLRs for the individual student shots in 2025.

Where the fuck do i buy a Lumix GM5.

>>4457581
You don't, it's too expensive.
Buy a GX8, a GX85 or a GX9.

>>4456872
My favourite travel lens. Great colours and very versatile.

>>4457723
> Look up GX9 on MPB
> 600-700 Euro body only
Oh cmon, youtube shills must be getting kickbacks from these websites for shilling 10 year old gear. OM is selling its small mft camera for 700 Euro new with a kit lens.

>>4457731
I'd rather buy an EM-10 IV new over a used GX9. It's still going for around 600 body only. Better autofocus, EVF, and way better IBIS. I've owned both and would definitely pick the Olympus if I had to choose.

>>4456872
>got a school photography job
What kind of job?
>our assigned cameras are micro four thirds (some lumix body and pic rel.)
What kind of job?
>is there any reason for that choice from a business standpoint other than cheaper price?
Sometimes, yes.
Usually, no.
For example micro four thirds sensors are much higher resolution than full frame. Might be around the equivalent for 10,000 PPI sensors vs 5,000 PPI sensors, so effectively double the effective resolution. The problem is they're crop sensors. You have a higher pixel density on a smaller sensor and in most cases this is bad. For things like macro at 1:1 scale, however, four turds can actually excel for photographing tiny (and I mean TINY) things that are physically smaller than a 35mm sensor.

So instead of needing a 2:1 macro lens to get ~10,000 PPI, you only need a 1:1 macro to get the same on four turds.
The moment you want to photograph something larger than 36x24mm that advantage disappears and you just run into inferior sensor quality issues (noise,etc).

If you were giving a bunch of retards loander cameras to play around with to learn macro, four turds is the way to go. Anyone really interested will then know if they want to upgrade to the 2:1 or 5x macro optics and carry larger kit for higher IQ. Most probably won't.

>>4425551 (OP)
>>4425551 (OP)
I unironically hit the buy button on this yesterday night, got it from Japan at a decent price

https://youtu.be/Yqe0XQq66BE?

>>4458006
Nice. I got the 42.5 for portraits ostensibly but I seldom use it, it is surprisingly heavy for the size and nailing focus with the thin dof and MF can be a pain. It can focus very close though which is fun, and wide open it looks great though the fringing is insane. Stopped down it's stupid sharp. Wish I got the PL 42.5 or the Oly 45 1.2 truthfully but it's fun now and then.