It's a good system that's fun to use. I have a full frame Nikon but I still reach for my OM-1 most of the time. It's just a cool system that churns out great pics and does everything I need it to do while being like half the size/weight. Anyone else like this compact system.

Micro four thirds people only start their threads with memes, charts, and pictures of cameras and all they can ever talk about is how worse cameras are totally better than better cameras

Never a photo, except, well, once. The whole board laughed. Extra hard, because the rare m43 photo thread followed 8 threads of chart posting and equivalence schizophrenia. And the photos all looked like this.

I am sure there are decent people among you but they post in /dst/. imagine making a thread for a sensor size. lmao!

>another M43 bait thread

i considered buying an ep7 today but people are still charging $500 for baby sensor junk. what the fuck. youtubers have completely destroyed the compact camera market.

I have gotten some of my favorite shots on my G9. The "Yakuza cameras" are kind of retarded though

>>4430569

>>4430570

>>4430571

>>4430569
>>4430570
>>4430571
my god man, scale these down. megapixels are not actual resolution. every digital camera's "real megapixel" number is no more than 75% of the state megapixel number unless testing $500+ prime lenses (FF) on black and white line art. and cheaper cameras and lenses dip down to 50% and sometimes less. it ruins the experience of a photo when it blows up into a blurry mess as soon as you click on it. slap a grain preset on and make it all 50% smaller.

>>4430560
lol first post is the buttblasted schizophrenic compulsive liar that hates mft for some reason and has never posted a single photo to date. nice to see some things never change

>>4430573
Shut the fuck up. I like high resolution pictures cry harder. If anything he should have used another couple megabytes of image quality to take advantage of the file size limits here.

>>4430575
>high resolution
looks like they were upscaled 2x in windows photo viewer

>>4430573
My bad. I forgot to scale them down except the last one

>>4430557 (OP)
I'm a m43 user but I refuse to engage in gear threads and so should you.

>>4430557 (OP)
fool turds is inferior to full frame in every way and i'd rather have one of the crappy nikon mirrorless than another em5 let alone an ff sized meme like the om1

pic related foolturds snapshit at the highest acceptable resolution

>>4430588
Looks like snoy

>>4430588
>pretended his nikon was another camera again award

>>4430569
that's so nice

I'll post some pics from Japan tomorrow

>>4430569
Very nice
>>4430571
Can anyone explain how there's chromatic aberration around the necks of the front gear but it gets better towards the edge? not shitting on the photo, just curious.

>>4430616
>gear
I meant geese.

I posted the BW one in /rpt/
Enjoy the colour version

>>4430569
>>4430570
>>4430571
>>4430572
The goose image makes me sad at full resolution, but these are some nice photos.

>>4430588
liar mft is never this good

>>4430577
Now read the next sentence you actual retard
>If anything he should have used another couple megabytes of image quality to take advantage of the file size limits here.

>>4430644
2mb of jpeg is not going to improve that olympus sooc jpeg tier quality except by minimizing sky banding. dpreviews om-3 sample gallery looks just as awful and is 10mb+ jpegs.

mft is one of those systems where you’re always making a mistake by not shooting raw

>>4430646
>j-just look at these other images on dpreview
mhm howabout.. no! lol
>noo 2 "mb" (I think you meant MB dumb fucker) doesn't make a difference in quality
So are you or are you not a pixel peeper lmfao make up your mind
>olympus jpg bad
Sure are confident spewing absolute bullshit hahaha, little zoomer grow up

>>4430647
why do you m43 people radiate so much small dick energy

>>4430652
Camera size is relative to cock size.
That's why D750/5DIV chads are a foot long

>>4430652
>m-muh dick
Again, grow up :)

>>4430667
2 inch vibes, bruh

>>4430654
D850 = Dick’s 8.50"

Size doesn't matter. What matters is if you know how to use it.

Poor guy
Can't live obsessed like this
it's not healthy

>>4430688
Now with popper DR and exposure

>>4430688
>>4430733
...were these images supposed to prove something?

>>4430560
>snoy shooters malding again

>>4430754
Yes they prove that just because you can get a full frame means you should

>>4430733
holy shit you photographed bigfoot

too bad you didnt have a better tho he’s kind of indistinct

>GX80
>Panasonic 20 mm f1.7
>Olympus 45mm f1.8
>Sigma 60mm f2.8
This is on offer as a kit for €590. What do you think? When I assemble the same kit on mpb it's €700+

>>4430853
>When I assemble the same kit on mpb it's €700+
€790* actually

>>4430853
only the body and 20mm are worth keeping. the other 2 lenses are kind of shit and primefagging is an FF DSLR/medium format meme because it's the only way those systems are portable, and it helps them leverage their full low light/sharpness advantage. i would get the 12-60 f2.8-4 or a long macro lens (ie: olympus 60mm) later instead for more versatility and less gear. it's micro four thirds, there is no amazing quality peak to be reached. the point is to just take "ILC style" photos on the cheap.

you could probably get a gx80 and 20mm f1.7 ii (only ever get the ii, it has better coatings that improve the colors significantly) alone for less, but buying a better 2nd lens would probably end up being more expensive

why do mft peeps feel the need to defend their camera choice even more than film peeps defending their sensor choice?

>>4430915
Some of this shit is really overpriced and oversized for what you actually get out of it irl, equivalence charts and theoretical scenarios aside

Spending $1000 on an mft body/lens adds nothing to anything and its these people who get the most defensive and passive aggressive. Watch out for this:
>i swear in theory in this theoretical scenario where you dont cheat and lower the ISO something my camera with these settings would be just as good as your camera with these other settings and you can't convince me otherwise! Nothing would be different, nothing, NOTHING! Actually, my camera would be better!
When they're that far gone they're not even taking pictures anymore, at least not good ones

>>4430933
So it's like sunk cost fallacy/buyers cope?

You could get an 8x10 setup where you can take 1 gigapixel images for 1000 bucks if you got a little lucky on ebay. Hell, you could make an 8x10 pinhole for a little more than the cost of the film. Not sure how that would fair against most digital tho considering diffraction at f300

>>4430933
It's a full frame cope that bigger sensors lead to better pictures. It's so funny to see a guy carrying a big expensive sony/canon/nikon fullframe with a zoom knowing he's going to end up cropping it down to the size of a MFT shot later negating the whole point. I shoot both formats but I think a lot of people who obsess about full frame are just gear fags who think spending more money will make up for their lack of ability to compose. A fool and his money is soon parted after binging youtube lens/camera reviews for an afternoon.

>>4431073
Bigger sensors lead to better pictures. That's why ansel adams used bigger cameras and micro ofur thirds went out of business.
>but according to my charts, and by $1200 panafeica noctitroon, and the equivalence, and...
Lol gearfag

>>4431073
What are your thoughts on the multiple well-documented threads full of freakouts by MFT shooters? For a guy who shoots both, it's interesting that you'd omit any mention of the people who are obviously more obsessed.

i liked micro four thirds, but then I found out 1" exists and actually fits in pockets

>>4430952
it's not like it, it's exactly that. m4/3 is sunk cost cope: the system.

>>4431079
Honestly sucks nikon abandoned it. Such a cool concept.

>>4431076
>>4431078
lol I clearly hit close to home. It's okay if you need to crop in post still or waste your money on gear you don't understand. It's how everyone starts. I would just recommend learning on Nikon DSLRs so you spend less before you figure out what you really want.

>>4431103
you're radiating that small dick energy again. i'll cut you off right here, and send you off with a toy more suited to your personality

here ya go champ, have a blast

>>4431106
>sensor size queen gets critiqued for having a shopping addiction
>thinks product recommendations are a comeback
Oh no are you gonna advertise at me next lmao

>>4431125
It's always so amusing when someone invents a character in their head and then proceeds to get mad at them. Thanks, bud.

>>4431125
This sensorlet has gone totally insane

>>4431106
Why are you thinking about mens dicks anon

>>4430569
What's going on with the telephone pole?

>>4431133
It has been crushed.

>>4431134
Is that a micro four turds artifact?

>>4431143
yes its out of DR

>>4431159
Out of dick range cause it's micro lol

I recently bought an em5 that should be coming in the mail soon. I am coming from primarily shooting on film and using a pentax q7 daily. I would figure I would be happier with the evf and larger sensor size, but the constant gearfag bickering in these threads puts some hesitation in my mind. I can agree though that its a bit ridiculous how expensive the format can be for its size/image quality

>>4431159
>>4431178
Lol your both retarded. I took all of those from Flickr. They came from the Nikon Zf group. Glad too see /p/ really can't tell the difference between full frame and MFT

I don't take good or worthwhile photos but I like my mft gear. It's rugged and does what I need it to do. My family increasingly wants photos from me though so I'm considering selling and rekitting. It's one thing when it's me alone in the woods, but another when it's a grandkid. I feel bad using second rate gear even if I like it and think the results are fine.

>>4431198
I just made a joke about what dr stands for. U okay bud?

>>4431198
>They came from the Nikon Zf group
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25005731@N08/54376204529/in/pool-zuiko-ed-20mm/
Why lie about it?

I can get the OM-D E M1 Mark II used near me, is that still a good camera for wildlife? I'm eying a 100-400mm for a lens.

>>4431226
>>4431198
So can you guys tell me if this photo was made with full frame or mft?

>>4431226
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/25005731@N08/54376204529/in/pool-zuiko-ed-20mm/
Holy sharpening batman.

>>4431248
NTA. I vote APS-C

>>4431248
Obviously MFT. Are you done proving what we already know?

>>4431226
Hahaha jesus fuck
MFTURDS ARE PHOTO STEALING COMPULSIVE LIARS

>>4431248
Who gives a shit it looks like crap. You small dick energy sun. Haha holy shit. Stealing photos and lying. Lmao.

You know what matters? Not that you cant tell mft at base iso with a panaleica noctotroon from ff at iso 1600 with the kit zoom
what matters is that in the same hands in the same scenarios ff and apsc will always be better

only a fool would spend more than $250 on a meme fail turds body or buy one of these dumb $1000+ lenses for it

>>4431241
Ew no. Panasonic 100-300 and save your money for a real camera.

>>4431199
Just get a zf

>>4431265
>Just get a zf
overpriced

>>4431266
its $1500 used for a better camera than the r6ii or a7iv. anything after it will only focus on meaningless video codecs. buy once cry once.

>>4431266
I got a zf, so you can buy my z6 instead

>>4430572
Lol you guys are idiots. This one is full frame. Glad there really isn't a difference between full frame and MFT.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201632767@N05/54248335805/

>>4431265
Sure if you like constant dead pixels and ugly Nikon glass lol

>>4431295
>accused of posting ff at iso 1600 with the kit zoom
>its ff at iso 3200 with the kit prime
You know what matters? Not that you cant tell mft at base iso with a panaleica noctotroon from ff at iso 3200* with the kit prime*
what matters is that in the same hands in the same scenarios ff and apsc will always be better

mfturds always radiate small dick energy. pure insecurity. always so desperate to prove the $1500 panafeica noctotroon and $2000 g9ii were not wastes of money.

you should form a club with the fujifags, panasonoc autofocus defense force, and snoys. call it
>the "no way are our cameras that bad!" club
so canikon blobGODs can laugh at you all at once

>>4431302
It is an unfortunate yet predicatable situation when somebody hemorrhages $3000+ on a stylish fashion accessory larping as a photographic tool. There's always a point to prove that their shitty purchase was actually le smart and f/5.6 is all you ever need bro.

These M43 threads are just full of
>Yes why I DID make this ART with my Panasoylympus and my superdooperfagotron f/1.2 (WOW!) PRO lens.
There's no APS-C, FF, or Digital MF threads because the people who take photos with those are normal and don't constantly need validation

>>4431295
>"lol you guys are idiots"
>lies and steals photos to try and "score a win for m43"
>accidentally implies that ff could only be mistaken for m43 with a $200 plastic lens, underexposure at ISO3200, and a low quality 2mp resized jpeg
>confirms that mfturds are insane amoral nophotos who traded pressing shutter buttons for screencapping noise charts and typing out equivalence theories
fucking lmfao this is more pathetic than when mfturds tried to dox the husky guy and accuse him of bestiality
film > ff > apsc > digishit > micro four thirds

>>4431304
I am worried one of these knobs missed rent to buy an OM 3.
>almost 2000 clams for the same shit as every other 20mp micro four thirds
>same price as the nikon z5ii

I love the routine where he'll post photos and lie about their settings/sensor, then he gets BTFO over his lying and avoid posting for a time before coming back to "gloat" over a technicality that he's also lying about. It's been fairly consistent.

Schizo

>>4431330
Imagine being so insecure about your sensor size you steal other peoples photos, and then mislabel an underexposed iso 3200 snapshit taken through a plastic prime lens as micro four thirds

And yet it actually still looks better due to full frame's superior tonality

>>4431333
imagine being so insecure about your sensor size you make a thread about it. ff, apsc, 1", and crop medium format chads are laughing rn.

>>4431331
>obligatory "flak over the target" response

>>4431304
Top be fair I don't know if anyone who buys digital MF or FF on this board even take pictures. Seems like they postore spec sheets and charts than pictures. Basically collecting Funko pops

Good thread OP. Managed to bait the nophoto Sony and Nikon schizos into being friends lol

>>4431352
sony schizos are not real. they all went broke and killed themselves when their shutters failed and sony refused to repair it for free.

>>4431349
Basically every photo posted on this board is FF digital retard

micro four thirds people dont post photos. they steal photos from flickr groups to try and get someone to say a FF is m43 or vice versa. to be fair i only looked at the power pole and duck ones and didnt pay attention to the rest lolololol

>>4431352
>obligatory ego salvage attempt

>>4431357
I mean most of the photos I see on this board are digicams or crop sensors. Probably why there isn't a full frame thread. Fool Framers don't want to add to their shutter count when they sell it to mpb in 4 months.

>>4431363
Time to take your meds kiddo

>>4431349
I take pictures with my digital medium format. Go check out the pet photography thread and bask in the glorious image quality of 2006 era medium format ccd.

The Dalsa FTF 6080C sensor is so freaking based.

>>4431365
>twice now
Your lack of self-awareness isn't convincing anyone to look in your favor. We'll be waiting for your next set of stolen photos.

>m43 with 0 good photo
as expected

>>4431370
stolen photos at that

>>4431366
>Medium format
>Shoots dog photos
As expected

>>4431368
>>4431370
Besides the exif on one of those flickr photos I uploaded is manipulated. And you can't even tell which one it is lol. You've spent hours arguing in a thread with multiple people over someone else's pictures and haven't posted a single one yourself. Probably cause they are worse than the pictures that I posted.

>>4431432
>doubling down on lies
>obligatory "nophoto"
Any more cliches you want to throw against the wall?

>>4431422
Aka based 10/10 type photography. They're insanely fantastic cameras for studio portraiture as well, but I can't share that with you chuds.

>>4431455
My girlfriend goes to another school too anon

>>4431469
Beautiful sunset! I have a whole album of just beautiful cloud formations. Omita funny but I feel like it's genuinely an under photographed subject despite being in most pictures.

>>4431370
This isnt reddit. Nobody is giving out upvotes for your snapshits. Go back.

>>4431422
Dog photos are the only good photos

>>4431432
>i swear that one of the photos i stole has fake exif! you cant tell ff at iso 3200 from m43 at iso 200, fooltards!
You sound genuinely pathetic. That small dick energy is so radioactive i think my weiner would shrink if i were in the same room as you.

>>4431527
I think your obsession with sensor size and dock size might be related anon

>>4431265
>Just get a zf
No, I'm getting a D750 and some old AF-D lenses, and then a Sigma BF and Leica lenses for the family pics.

>>4431542
Yes. Us large sensor CHADS will be thinking about dock size. We need large docks for all our yachts.

>>4431548
Lol I think you misspelled dick

>>4431549
There's the lack of self-awareness that was pointed out yesterday. Now comes the part where you assume you're talking to one guy (and pretending you didn't post this >>4431432).

>>4431549
You would think that wouldn't you, dick boy? Seems like dicks live rent free in your head.

>>4431545
Don't give the L mount jews your money. L mount cameras are all snoy tier. Do you want your family to have pallid skin and rolling shutter distortion? Probably not.

Get a nikon for real photography and a little canon large sensor PNS for snapshits

>>4431644
Nah it'll be fine. Great AF too. More importantly I want actually good lenses, not overcorrected trash.

>>4431644
Nah Nikon's lenses are overcorrected. Plus Nikon sensors have crazy amounts of dead pixels for some reason. The scamera of choice for /p/

>>4431652
>>4431650
Small dick energy. Doghair is a better photographer than you.

>>4431653
Doghair is a better photographer than every m43 shill fr

>>4431644

>>4431661
Pros use snoy because they're incompetent snapshitters that need AI auto framing and 120fps constant shooting to do their job for them

Real photographers only need a canon 5d mark II

>>4431655
Yes, of course. I am in to top echelons of all photo-graphers because I take high quality pictures of my dogs with large sensors. It really is that simple in most cases.

Mirrorless is bad. Buy a D750. Mirrorless cameras that aren't high end canons and nikons can't focus (and snoy doesn't count because it's snoy), but a D750 focuses through the power of your psychic energy to acquire critical focus exactly where you want.

Micro four thirds? Forget it. The tiny pixels can't fit enough tonality in their photon (light particle) wells.

>>4431662
Is the a real jeet?
Or just an AI bot?
Caught in a gearfight, so far from humanity

>>4431665
>posts dog

I believe this guy.

Can micro four thirds achieve 3D pop?

>>4431665
If you got mirrorless you could have fast af-s while using the flipout screen which would allow you to get an eye level shot instead of this snapshit garbage.

>>4431670
Personally, I don't think so.

>>4431673
Only if it was a nice mirrorless like a canon R5 or a Nikon Z8. Fujifilm cameras miss even in AF-S, and micro four thirds has so little resolution and tonality that it might as well be out of focus.

>>4431670
Yeah. Best lenses for it are the panaleica 15mm and 25mm. OM system 20mm is pretty decent too. Telephoto wise the sigma 56mm f1.4 is great as well. Just stay away from the zooms for the most part. 3d pop is almost entirely from having good contrast and the right amount of chromatic abberation in the right kind of light. There's probably some cheap Chinese lenses that could achieve it as well but I haven't used many.

>>4431725
I'm tempted to buy the yongnuo 25
Just to see how it fares

>>4431725
Can your present us with some example images that contain 3d pop, please?

>>4431729
I have seen some pretty good pictures from that thing. If it's any good make a post here. I kind of want to pick one up too lol

>>4431199
Go outside, take photos, and for the love of God stop browsing /p/ gearwar threads. This place is bad for your soul.
>I like it and think the results are fine.
Great!
>I'm considering selling and rekitting
And there's the rabbit hole of whose shitpost advertising has been most effective.

>>4431199
I sold my fool turds when every backlit midday photo looked like shit

these wannabe artists would say skill issue, fill flash, shoot 4 hours later, actually the forest being a wall of white is sovl, etc
but friends and family do not follow professional photoshoot rules or instagram trends, matter MORE than instagram trends, and if you dont have full frame or a modern apsc with a high dr sony sensor, you might as well use your phone.

>>4431745
To elaborate it goes like this
M43
>guys stand in the sha-
>ENOUGH OF YOUR STUPID CAMERA I AM USING MY PHONE
FF
>*snap* gotit
>thanks

>>4431744
based and yesphoto energy
>>4431745
>>4431747
You don't take photos or have a camera.

>captcha K2GAS

Where are all the wonderful mft pix at boys?

I like playing with the Live ND. In my experience, 1 second handheld exposures are pretty doable with later Olympus/OM cameras.

You rang?

>>4431831
You can do 1 second handheld with the VR kit lenses for old APS-C DSLRs and just stop down to f22 for the mft experience.

>>4431995
Miss Piggy!

I'm kinda leaning to 3, for the sake of portability, what do you think? Target is wildlife.

>>4431995
She's very cute. Her reviews are kind of misleading though. Too positive about everything she talks about.

>>4431775
neither do you

Some of my old pics from a couple years ago

>>4432042

>>4432043

>>4432042
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brindleyron/52687910887/
>>4432043
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brindleyron/33688610833/
>>4432042
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brindleyron/52595058556/

Why are you stealing photos from ron brindley? You didn't even bother downloading the originals you sloppy bastard

/m43/ stole photos off flickr again award. Is it time to move on to just reposting from adobe stock?

HuskyHair here, full frame is the best. Micro four thirds sucks. My 8x10 full frame camera has all the tonality. Subscribe to my onlyfans for pics of my dogs paws.

>>4432058
King.

>>4432053
>>4432058
He just doesn't get the hint, does he? Unless he's low-functioning enough to think that simply responding counts as being trolled.

>>4432058
But wait, what if ron brindley was actually here arguing with us? Personally, I think his pics would have looked better if he used a digital medium format camera.

>>4431106
what's wrong with chinkpads?
i'm out of the loop

>>4432068
Literally none of his photos appeared on /p/ before this trash photo stealing thread. besides, no one can post on /p/ and end up doing this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brindleyron/54301948945/

it goes against the instagram trendster shit that everyone likes here

>>4432074
I know it isn't him and that vignetting is yucky.

I like eggs, livestock, dog, and cat pics. Are these acceptable photographic subjects for this web forum?

>>4432039
She’s very fat. Her channel is called Micro Four Nerds but she shoots on L-mount full frame, and her “reviews” are just paid gigs from OM System and Lumix.

>>4432103
Sounds pretty based to me.

>>4432028
Get a 40-150 f/2.8 and a 1.4 and/or 2x teleconverter, but use it without the TCs as much as possible. Beautiful lens and cheaper too. Going to 400mm equiv is enough and looks better on this lens than the 100-400s. I dunno about the fuji tho.

>>4432121
Yes, listen to this guy. Spend $2000 to take blurry ass photos, and then cope with AI sharpening in post.

Do not just buy the affordable panasonic 100-300. You need to buy a $1500 olympus lens, and then halve or quarter its image quality and speed by putting a $500 teleconverter in front of it. What could go wrong?

Also, make sure you buy an OM-3 or G9II. They are totally better than other micro four thirds cameras and just as good as full frame. Because equivalence. Trust me. Do not just get an affordable EM5II/EM1II. How will /p/ think you're rich if you're responsible with your money anyways? Who needs to do actual rich person stuff like shooting sheet film when you can be one and done and flaunt that pricetag forever?

>>4432103
if om system and lumix spent as much on R&D as they do on shills and cruise ship trips, we could have had a pocketable, affordable m43 with a real base ISO of 100 and snoy tier AF (olympus would have actually got there, not sure about panasonic)

>>4432124
I got my 40-150 with a 1.4x TC for under $800. It's like you don't even know how to win at ebay. The 100-300 is a lower quality lens but gets the job done, I've seen sample photos. The 40-150 is a lot better just less reach.

>>4432158
>wait months for the right listing just to spend $800 on quarter frame

>>4432125
I hate getting into "what could have been"s but man are there a lot of "Olympus probably would/could have were they not being bled dry for millions of dollars from inside"

>>4432160
I waited 0 months, maybe they've gone up in price a little but the combo is about in their price range. Kindly take the stick out of your ass, $800 isn't a lot in the world of wildlife photography.

>>4432177
However, it IS a lot in the world of dead shitty systems

>>4432124
We get it, you don't like m43.

>>4432177
$800 is a lot to spend on something that's 4x worse than ff and is more appealing on pxlmag than it is in person (pxlmag exaggerates size differences)

The sigma 100-400 for sony is $700 to $800 lmao

micro four thirds has no point unless it is kept as cheap as possible

>>4432085
Yes, especially eggs.

>>4432243
>tamron 150-600 f5-6.3 G2 - $500
>micro four thirds equivalent: 75-300 f2.5-3.2 (est. price $2599)
>Nikon D810 - $500
>micro four thirds equivalent: 36mp OM-9001 with a base ISO of 16 (est. price: $4,000)
>being skilled enough to use a DSLR and having a license to mock panasonic's broken autofocus - $priceless

>>4432245
NTA but I don't believe that lens can be found for $500.

>2/3s the m43 photos itt are stolen
>sharpest m43 photo in the thread posted by dogfag who thinks m43 is garbage
>most of thread is making fun of foolturds for spending ff money on toy cameras
pov you made a thread for a sensor size

>>4432252
In complete fairness the smartphone thread produces some good content and it's essentially a 1/2.3" thread.
There are two active M43 threads because there exists a population of eternally coping turd worlders on /p/.

>>4432262
Micro four third's haters have posted more quality micro four thirds images than the shills

Did you know that 8x10 cameras have a sensor almost 230 times larger than mft?

Medium format digital is around 8 times bigger.

The color stretching is truly out of control with these sorts of sensors.

>>4432103
lol gay guys seeing a real woman for the first time is always funny

>>4432068
lol fool framers have to go into a gear thread for a system they hate and dox one of the few yesphoto posters. Pathetic even for /p/ standards

>>4432321
THAT'S your cope for some nerd stealing images from flicker? Lol.

>>4432321
>Om1 shot renamed EM5ii_
>"a couple years ago"
>steals photos from 2017
>in a thread where someone who totally isnt the same poster already got caught stealing from flickr groups
not one single ron photo other than the ones that were already stolen has ever been posted on /p/

you got caught stealing pics because micro four thirds is so bad you dont even own one

>>4432325
take your meds buddy

>>4432339
So you think ron was posting on /p/? Maybe he can chime in and let us all know if he actually was ron posting.

>>4432321
You're such a cowardly scumbag that you're now trying to redirect our attention onto the guy you stole from, then claiming that WE doxed him.

Un-fucking-believable. You will lie about anything just to "win".

>>4432314
>if you aren’t into cowmaxxing you must be gay
What is this world coming to

>>4432245
>muh equivalent aperture and reach
Those 3rd party dslr 150-600 or 100-400s look bad is the thing. They're passable for bird snapshits but that's it. imo the 40-150 is a much more beautiful lens. If you don't get it from sample photos that's fine though, it's not for everyone.

>>4432383
The f4 or the f2.8? I don't really shoot wildlife just landscape and was debating between the two. I pretty much only shoot in bright sunlight at like f5.6. I was leaning towards the f4 version just to save some grams in my pack.

>>4432383
>Those 3rd party dslr 150-600 or 100-400s look bad is the thing
What? Are you nuts? The tamron 150-600 g2 and nikon 200-500 are stellar, and afforadble, each can be bought for less than $800. How is it people so freely bounce between "sterility and overcorrection looks bad" to "these visually sharp lenses with a little glow and smoothness that only shows up on test charts are bad"? Mind you, these lenses are often considered too sharp, while older AF-D lenses render more organically.

The biggest problem with micro four thirds is the massive amount of sterile lenses. Every single image is a deep center crop, so it's only on the really small lenses with small elements that show any amount of character. The big "pro" f5.6 and f8-11 equivalent zooms and "pro" f2.8 equivalent primes use large elements to keep edge aberrations outside of the image circle, and end up the same size as their FF aperture size and FOV equivalents and sometimes larger, because they are essentially APS-C "sony G master" lenses in optical construction in front of an m43 sensor, and what this creates is overly sterile rendering. Even hypersharp sony G masters exhibit more character and organic, life experience-like rendering than many of the "great" micro four thirds lenses.

Ultimately the best way to render and render an image on digital is to use a relatively undercorrected lens and correct for major aberrations like coma, softness, and CA by using pixels that are always going to be larger than those aberrations, rather than using additional glass, because while film can just be enlarged less, downsampling a high res digital scan reduces aberrations worse than using a lower sampling rate to begin with. Also, larger pixels can record finer gradations and come closer to the tonality offered by film. To attain decent resolutions, this requires larger and larger sensors.

>>4432402
Using less glass by leaving aberration correction up to sampling rate also reduces light loss from reflectance (modern coatings are very good and allow for the creation of zooms with less reflectance than many vintage 7 element primes, but less glass is always better) and improves the image further by giving the image sensor more color variation to see to begin with

This is a very technical way of saying something that is easily visualized if you imagine light rays going through a tube of curvy windows towards a big field of buckets, so forgive me if my terminology is off or my grammar is confusing while I translate a hallucinatory shape rotation into english.

The only time micro four thirds is really enjoyable is if lenses with fewer and narrower elements are used, to retain that "whole image circle" look and lose less to excessive aberration corrections, with lower resolution cameras (16mp is already pushing it) like the 12mp lumix gf1. In this way, using micro four thirds produces results similar to using a CCD APS-C DSLR. The simpler and less high quality more compact zooms are also preferable to hypersharp $1500 olympus SUEPR PRO shit that could probably cover aps-c with a baffle removal.

>>4432268
>The color stretching is truly out of control with these sorts of sensors.
Ok multiple threads with this “colour stretching” shit now what the fuck does it mean? I’m not even sure anymore if you faggots are trolling or what

>>4432424
Did the guy say that in this thread or the other one? I may have mixed them up.

>>4432424
Read this in and indian accent and you will understand

micro four third is betta than fooframe because the big pixels only record as many light particles so the color is stretched out to fill the pixel yeas you see? because equivalence, i promise you my friend, micro four thirds has more intense light and is better in low light than fooframe.

>>4432429
The stretching of the color brightens the photograph.

>>4432394
The 2.8. The f/4 can't be used with tcs and 150mm isn't enough.

>>4432402
>How is it people so freely bounce between
Turns out there's more than one person on the internet. I don't ascribe to either modern or "microcontrasy" camps I just know what I like.

The fuck happened to the queen?

Is cool, but screwing the lenses is not practical and prone to damage....

I'm tired of fight the autofocus and stabilization on my z7ii. Looking to jump to Olympus since I shoot in pretty bad weather. Is there much of a difference between the OM 1 and OM 1ii? Looks like they are basically the same and the OM 1 is only like 800 used.

Whats your favorite adapted lens? Or which ones work best for the system?

>>4432926
You will regret falling for that meme

Just get the z5ii. Nikon has better weather sealing than olympus. Olympus hasnt even improved since 2016.

>>4432926
The next gen of Nikon cameras have excellent AF. If you really want mft you'd want to go for the OM-1 ii or OM-3 for their better AF. Olympus and Nikon have similarly good weather sealing.

>>4432926
Its fool turds. You will regret this.
cue
>its good stop noticing things you cant look that closely its not allowed muh theoretical equivalence reeeee you dont need YOU DONT NEED <- needed $2500 to take a picture of a bird on quarter frame

>>4432926
Get an Om-1ii. Much better AF and it's very well built. I'd say rent it and a Oly 12-40mm f2.8 or a couple days and see if you like the pictures you make with it. Then buy it used from Map Camera. You'll hear a lot of people who have never shot with a MFT camera say it can't take good pictures but they are just weird freaks who waste time online. Just try it for yourself and see.

>>4433069
micro four thirds people are weird freaks who waste time online talking about ai editors and equivalence just get a full frame canon like everyone else instead of listening to people who unironically call themselves stuff like "micro four nerds" and spend all day talking about equivalence pixel shift hdr stacking with 3 different special computer programs. full frame canon and nikon cameras just take photos without the nerds ifs buts ands and thens.

>>4433074
Have you ever used an Om-1ii before?

>>4433078
yes it had baby sensor quality it was like using a real camera like a canon but if it had phone megapixels instead of camera megapixels and skies and sunny spots are always bright white like a digishit ot a retard using their camera at iso 10000 in the middle of the day

>>4433079
So your an MFT user? Why would I trust someone so easily tricked.

Rather telling how quickly this thread was abandoned.

Spoon feed me babby's first wildlife kit under €1500.

>>4435101
I'd aim for a *-400 or *-600 FF equivalent. On MFT that could be the 75-300 (poor lens), Panasonic 50-200 (good lens), Panasonic 100-300 (ok lens), Oly 40-150 with the 1.4x TC (best choice but out of your price range if you add in a body), either brand's 100-400 (ok but pretty good if you stay in the *-300 range). Phase detect AF is a must, I'd prefer a stacked sensor and subject detect too... so OM-1 (mk 1) + 100-400 (the mk 1) would be my suggestion, you could just barely squeak it under $1500, which means it should be fine in euros?
There are other options in other kits, for example if you didn't mind using a DSLR the D500 and 200-500 5.6 would beat this kit easily, but it'd be a lot heavier.

>>4435144
Thanks. Lighter would be better, but people keep talking smack about mft, I assume with reason.
Why the D500 rather than a Z6 (or something) with an adapter?

>>4435101
Basically, ignore this guy >>4435144
He's a MFT fanboy who wastes money on expensive lenses purpose to "prove MFT is worth it and can be just as good!"
(it's not, and it cant)

He also recommends really bad, user unfriendly, and technically/optically dated full frame and APS-C kits on purpose to make you try MFT later and go "wow this is better and way sharper!".

If you truly insist on poorfagging it, the poorfag gold standard is an E-M1 II and a panasonic 100-300 mk2 with the OIS switched off (it doesnt work on olympus bodies, but autofocus is shit on panasonic bodies, and sharpness is shit on olympus lenses)
If you want to be normal and take higher quality photos buy an A7III and a sigma 100-400 or tamron 150-500 and get deal hunting, it's going to be a little more expensive because more people want it.

Be warned, micro four thirds fanboys have a lot of FUD built up to spam whenever sony is mentioned. Pretty much all of it is untrue, misrepresented, or cherry picked user errors/abused cameras. They shill against sony ("snoy") because it's the lightest and cheapest full frame system and they feel they can't recruit people into the MFT cult if they think they have options other than the two largest and most expensive systems (nikon and canon) or DSLRs (inaccurate autofocus, worse lenses, less AF coverage, stronger blurrier AA filters).

>>4435146
He recommends an unusually expensive crop sensor DSLR and a soft nikon lens because he wants you to have a bad experience and come running to MFT.

It's a cult. They all do this.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3632672590/om-system-om-1-mark-ii-sample-gallery/7879585391
>iso 8000
not that bad desu

>>4435176
>$2000 camera
>$2000 lens
>camera jpeg engine renders phone smears
First time seeing a high ISO image?

>>4435179
Why does the Z6II at a higher ISO show more varied tones? Like it has more... tone-ness? Weird. So much for equivalence. Micro four thirds images always look kind of flat with less shading. It's very strange.

>>4435185
The black part on the right also looks different; perhaps we are seeing differences in exposure and white balance? I have a (much cheaper) Oly and I think it leans into green, just like here.

>>4435190
Perhaps the micro four thirds camera is darker because even with the same exposure, smaller pixels gather less light. The Z7II also has worse colors and gradients at high ISOs, and it has smaller pixels.

We have been autisming over sensors this whole time, but did we ever stop to think that sensors are made of many smaller sensors?

>>4435179
Photo looks good for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>4435216
It doesn't really look any different than a photo taken with a $500 20mp micro four thirds camera and excessive teleconverter use on a 200mm or 300mm zoom, and the actual real world relevant hardware capabilities of the body are pretty much the same as a $750 micro four thirds camera, the E-M1 III. The OM-1 was an incremental upgrade from the E-M1 III that Olympus had already prepared for release (they were running short on money already hence almost no impactful change), and the OM-1 II is a firmware update for it masquerading as a new product. The 150-600 is a lens sigma made for sony E and leica L mount, rebranded under contract, with a $400 price hike and no change in the mechanics, optics, or build quality.

Here's the thing. "OM system" is an investment corporation that bought the rights to Olympus cameras. They're not selling you a competitive product. They're literally in the business of running scams. Micro four thirds is meant to be cheap and small.

>>4435220
tl;dr: Get a Panasonic GX8 and a Panasonic 20/1.8 and the 100-300 if you're going to birbfag, everything else is excessive spending

>>4435221
Panasonic bodies kinda suck

Olympus made better hardware, panasonic makes better optics because leica lets them mooch off their trade secrets as part of using them to manufacture SL gear.

Only ever buy the 20/1.7 II. the regular 20/1.7 has an older lens coating that kills the fuck out of color transmission and contrast.

>>4435222
if they only didn't go full Jewpanese with the weather sealing...

>>4435157
The D500 and 200-500 is the primo DSLR combo. I was working in the price range. A FF mirrorless is going to be a bit more as you said. Not everything is an insane conspiracy, we're in agreement more or less.

>>4435221
>Panasonic GX8
Hmm, how about a E-M1 Mark III?

>>4435234
Nikon has never been the primo DSLR anything except for providing modern DR to people who don't like mirrorless yet. Their lenses are definitely uh, "characterful". The biggest hasphoto nikon fanboys on /p/ literally like them for worse image quality.

>>4435227
Lens weather sealing is a meme unless it's a zoom. Metal mounts are right enough to prevent water ingress. Multiple people have used non-sealed lenses on sealed bodies and had no issues thus far, and sealed panasonic lenses on "incompatible according to one forumfag" olympus bodies.

don't get tripped up by droplets on the mount upon removal. metal is hydrophillic so as the lens is remove, water wicks in. If you pay attention most mount gaskets actually slide over the mount and don't fit tightly either. They're not to keep water out of a crack in the mount, they're to keep water away from the mount so it doesn't wick in when you remove the lens.

leaked image of the up an coming OM-5II:
https://www.reddit.com/r/M43/comments/1l8njzq/first_leaked_image_of_the_new_om5ii/

>>4435434
Specs:
https://www.43rumors.com/category/rumor/

>>4435242
NTA but I'm a Canon user and I've always thought Nikon bodies look like they're great to use. Lotta buttons, looking sturdy too.

I am having a very hard time justifying buying an E-M5 III since I already own a 24mp FF DSLR and lenses with OIS. It certainly has some specs gimmicks, but doesn't seem to offer any real world benefit other than looking more socially acceptable.

Except I look like a hobo, instead of a twink, so is ANYTHING more socially acceptable?

>>4435434
>>4435435
JIP sushi finna release a firmware update as a new product again? Lemme guess, priced on par with a FF MILC?

I hope they hire some dude to work on OM Workspace.

>>4435435
Depressing. This might make me jump ship but every camera manufacturer feels like a scam these days.

>>4435566
Why are you trying to justify it? I don't understand. Just save up for a used FF mirrorless.

>>4435566
m43 is a fashion system thats it. buy it to look like a rich hobo not for any real addition to your photography.

>>4435602
nikon is the least scammy. the zf is GOAT thanks to the 28, 40, third parties, and 6BIT MTZ and AF ETZ adapters. if fuji lowered prices they’d be GOAT too, but their insistence on chinese manufacturing hurts them.

hopefully CANON gets their head out of their ass and makes less ugly, more flat and compact cameras soon. the powershot v1 is a step in the right direction. the r50 and r10 have the right guts and price but the wrong design for the 2020s. its not 2008, no one wants to look like such a loser they settled for "real" professional photography (school portraits, sports n wedingdings) except for some asians.

>>4435604
The zf is stupidly big for a rangefinder though. I don't really like Nikon's 1.8 primes, the 40 is neat but I prefer 50, and it's just one lens. The only decent macro is big too. I have considered adapting lenses only, but compromised sealing would suck. Fuji X is not interesting to me but GFX is, kinda. The sensor is too small to justify the compromises in lenses cost and weight. Canon suffers from overpriced L lenses that are actually good or dumb f/8 zooms and crippled bodies. Shopping for gear makes me hate this hobby.

>>4435625
The lenses most worth adapting (leica and sony) were never weather sealed anyways, and fuji's sealing is no more reputable than sony if you thought that would help. Viltrox made a small 50mm f2, I would not expect any manufacturer to make a weather sealed small 50 these days.

it's an added manufacturing expense, and it was never important. People just hold up an umbrella or use a plastic bag either way because none of them guarantee 0 damage and IP ratings are a joke (no buttons pressed or rings turned during the water spray - using controls momentarily breaks seals and creates little vacuums)

haha oh wow
>snoy

>>4435651
I'll just stick with what I've got. I hate gear. Fuck gear.

>>4435668
>one compact stylish camera can use all the lenses from all 3 top brands - leica, sony, and nikon
>it has 24 full frame megapixels and can run modern autofocus and take clean photos with good colors in any light
>fuck gear this is too complicated for me
>i'm confused
>it doesn't even have uncropped 4k60 clog 444 or ip1x weather sealing total fucking scam
gearfags are a curious bunch
they hate gear yet they love it

>>4435718
>it has 24 full frame megapixels and can run modern autofocus and take clean photos with good colors in any light
I cringed. You getting paid for this? Why are there so many brand shills here?

>>4435725
full frame megapixels perform 1.5 times better than aps-c megapixels due to superior tonality absorption

>>4435726
But have they discocered techniques and/or algorithms to account for the color stretching of large sensors?

>>4435730
I might be a faggot, but you're a massive unadulterated retard. Every thread with any mention and you're there spouting complete nonsense.

I need m43 to be good.

>tonality absorption
lmao the kekking pseudoscience on this board, you people are like tv chefs.

>>4435731
It's an honest and true question based on real scientific observations. I do not understand why science and the workings of the world anger you so very much.

>>4435774
I doubt you have seen the studies on tonality adsorption either.

>>4435730
Crop sensors, on a fundamental level, stretch out incomplete photon counts to guess the colors because their narrow world view prevents then from knowing more about what little they can see. Much like the crop sensor internet defense force. Full frame gets more complete numbers even with "equivalence" because its reality warping effects cause less color stretching. Also, because full frame is a real camera, the confidence you gain aligns the world with your expectations and you begin taking better pictures through "latent human telepathy" (superior awareness warping reality).

>>4435783
its actually because pixels aren’t sensitive over their whole area and full frame is literally more sensitive in addition to being able to gather more light. smaller pixels have less photosensitive area, proportionally. m43s are usually iso 200 except for class leading sensors because extra gain is alread applied.

>>4435782
kek, so is it adsorption or absorption?

>>4435791
What the heck do you think happens when a light touches a photosite? Bigger photosite trap and contain bigger photos. The stretching is happens after adsorption occurs, but before trapping.

>>4435795
There is no stretching. Full frame cameras with larger pixels just record more information. They are absolutely superior.

This was proven by huskyfucker last week when his ZF had better tonality transmission and more 3d pop at ISO 56,000 than his OM-5 had at ISO 1600.

>>4430557 (OP)
/thread

>>4435805
Hahahahahaha fuck me. MFT on suicide watch.

>>4435809
Yeah, olympus really cocked it up. OM system MIGHT be smart enough to realize the small lenses are the only ones worth using, but they are not smart enough to realize they need to be half the price of compact sony FE gear.

And they are selling the OM-3 and likely the OM-5 II as well for more than the price of a sony a7c/a7iii, and the newly weather sealed old design primes for 2-3x the price of cheapo samyang f1.8 FF primes, viltrox f1.8/f2/f2.5 primes, etc...

>>4435804
Who said color stretching was necessarily a bad thing? With the proper algorithmic manipulation color stretching can lead to enhanced outputs and reduced proportionality based tonal inaccuracies. Pretty rudimentary stuff, honestly.

In the industry theres a common saying that goes, "It's better to stretch colors than it is to smash pixels." This becomes self evident with the proper understanding of photosite engineering and physics.

>>4435823
>This becomes self evident with the proper understanding of photosite engineering and physics.
Well you see, the problem with this, is the board is full of retards.

>>4431995
>tfw she'll never be my gf

>>4435823
>>4435804
>>4435795
Sorry chuddies, ChatGPT here to settle the score. Go back to trolling or /gay/ or wherever you came from.

>>4435835
>Npc receives npc programming.

We are free thinkers here on /p/. You and your "A" "I" are not fooling anyone.

>>4435835
That reminds me, I asked ChatGPT about 3D Pop. Should I post caps?

>>4435844
Eh, ChatGPT would never directly call out and insult boomers who are behind the delusion, so probably not too amusing.

>>4435845
I still thought it was an interesting breakdown, I'll post them anyway.

>>4435848
Part 2.

>>4435849
This is what any sane person concludes after gaining enough experience and skill taking pics.

>>4435652
they certainly nailed the tacky build quality of the FM2 with this. At least its still better than the zfc in that regard

>>4435652
If only the dials weren't fucktarded.

>>4435849
Bro, you are taking your opinions from a literal NPC. All it does is regurgitate amalgamated information.

99% of what you find regarding 3d pop is coping GM lens fags crying that it must be fake so AI just regurgitates that. It is not a person. It is not a mind. It can not think.

>>4436225
>It is not a person. It is not a mind. It can not think.
funny, that's exactly how i'd describe 3d pop boomers.

>>4436225
>Bro, you are taking your opinions from a literal NPC.
Projection. I already recognize AI for what it is.
>All it does is regurgitate amalgamated information.
No shit, Sherlock. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? I brought it up to confirm what the more functional posters here (the few left) already know. J
I'm just aggregating from across the web to pierce that bubble a little bit.
>"Most people complaining all happen to fall under this specific strawman and AI favors just them for some reason huurr"
Woman moment.

So, are you guys ever going to prove it actually exists? Will you go through the trouble of creating controlled tests and changing out variables as needed, or will you just post another long-winded cope that can be safely boiled down to "it totally exists, you just don't believe hard enough"?

>>4432836
Nothing wrong with loosing weight

>>4432836
That’s a man

>>4435805
Never realized Sony's mount is so fucking tiny.

Looking at used em-5 mark iii or the om-5 now that the new one is out. My only hesitation is the plastic base plate. Does anyone know what the real world implications would be? Ive need people breaking it with tripod mounts, but maybe they are just retarded? I don't really use a tripod anyway and might only screw an external grip on there. Currently using the em-5 mark ii (with its chad metal body), but could do with some extra megapixels for cropping my macro shots. Thoughts?

>>4437703
>Ive need people breaking
*Ive seen

>>4436223
Ngl I kinda want one. I love the 'flagship' integrated grip form factor on my 1Ds and having one from Olympus would be cool.

>>4437663
>CANON CURRURS
>ORIUMPUS ALREADY DID THIS
>MA LAYSIA
Honestly he's so based, his photos are pretty damn nice too.

>>4437708
lol I can't stand him, seems like a nice chap though.

>>4437703
You know, back when I was a noob not very online photographer I used my OM-5 on a few hikes with the capture clip and it was fine. I did not have heavy lenses, my heaviest was 250g, but it was swinging around on its base. Maybe 30 miles of hiking with somewhat significant elevation gain/loss. I won't deny I got lucky but I think having more weight on the grip would be an issue. Personally I might just spring for an older *-1 model.

>>4437713
Which -1 model? The increase in battery is quite intriguing, but the form factor might be a bit cumbersome for the type of pics I want to shoot. Did you ever feel the need to add an external grip to the -5? Like, with some bigger lenses or even just for everyday carrying?

>>4437713
>>4437703
>plastic base plate
You're saying the threads are plastic??

>>4437715
The thread is not plastic, it's essentially a little metal cylinder with a threaded hole going most of the way through, as is on many other cameras. The problem is that that that little cylinder is screwed into a plastic plate rather than a metal one. Nothing bad happens to the threaded cylinder itself, but under enough leverage, the camera when screwed into a tripod will have said plastic baseplate crack. There are photos of it online if you'd like to see what that looks like. The affects all of the '5' series OM-D camera other than the EM5 mark 1 and mark 2 which both had full metal constructions including the baseplate. This issue doesn't affect the EM1/OM1 cameras, I dont know about EM10.

>>4437703
The baseplate change does not matter, and makes the camera lighter. capture clips are a meme and if you do this shit right it should be unnoticeable on a strap or fit in a jacket pocket.

I wouldn't fuck around with an em1 over this issue. That shit's the size of a "real FF" (not a sony a7c). The -5 models are good because the sony a7c models aren't (a7c purple screen, a7cii/a7cr disintegrating weather seals and overheating) and canon hasn't released a compact FF yet, and if they do, it will cost $2000 and overheat.

>>4437703
the mark 3 improves autofocus a lot and somehow squeezes out a little more dynamic range. it's better than fujifilm desu.

20mp will be 16mp if you crop to 3:2 or 4:5 to print so it helps there

i sold all my fuji gear (x100vi and xt5) for olympus m43 with an om5 and all the lenses are smaller and sharper, the colors are better, the low light is BETTER (sensor size btfo!?) and i can use better film sims in capture one anyways

why do people even buy fuji??? marketing???

>>4431364
I lold.

>>4431364
Thats not really true, most quality contributions are shot on modern ff mirrorless, 35mm film, and micro four thirds

aps-c users on the other hand can't seem to post anything good
aps-c is a format for clueless people

>>4431364
I don't know why people pretend like full frame is some unobtainable expensive spec. You can get a a 5d mark II which does 90% of anything modern cameras can do for like 100 bucks and it will keep going forever. Or you can get a use A7.2 or EOS R if you really need mirrorless for fairly cheap too.

>>4437728
Don't lie to people. A DSLR isn't even close to a modern camera. You cant shoot from low angles without getting filthy, the metering can never be trusted, the autofocus has no coverage (and if you get a nikon its really slow), and those old FF cameras have the same technical performance as micro four thirds so only extreme pixel peepers will ever notice the difference. Actually micro four thirds has better performance because unlike DSLRs, mirrorless lenses can be sharp and have stabilization without weighing 2lbs

Professional photography died with the DSLR because now anyone can shoot like a pro without wearing a dumb canon vest and getting muddy. Almost 100% AF coverage, good 24/7 live view, stabilization on every lens, zooms that are sharp without costing $2k... what's not to like? You either get a micro four thirds or a modern FF mirrorless these days.
>a7.2
Sure, it has the sensor size and megapixel count, but it has an earlier iteration of sony build quality and ergonomics. the a7iii is widely considered to be the first mirrorless camera worth putting up with if you dont want to cope and spend hours in capture one. even the jpegs and sooc video can be good if you know how to use the styles and profiles (via sony menus - have fun!)

>>4437729
Why do the pics look worse if the numbers are all better?

>>4437729
This is true, there's no real difference in IQ between aps-c, m43, and old FF if you have skill. It takes a $1000+ FF camera to noticeably surpass a $500 m43 camera, and it's still cope if you can't afford medium format.

Surprise surprise, it costs more money to use better technology!

>>4437730
Do they? Multiple people here fake their exif. Huskyfag uses an em5ii and has convinced /p/ he's using a bunch of different nikons. Corgifag uses an em1ii and has you losers convinced he owns a leica.

A well made m43 used skillfully will have the same image quality as a modern ff at iso 400-800

>>4437729
>A DSLR isn't even close to a modern camera
If you can really justify this to yourself, I don't think you'll be content with any camera. Do you think people weren't happy with their cameras when they bought new flagships 20 years ago? What changed? The cameras still work perfectly if you want to use one today, you're just letting companies tell you what you have is not good enough and tricking you into 'needing' the latest thing.

>You cant shoot from low angles without getting filthy
Why? Do you think there are no DSLRs with live view or articulated screens?

>the metering can never be trusted, the autofocus has no coverage
Untrue. I know the Nikons are pretty shit for this but even an EOS 1V has perfect autofocus. If you can't nail action shots with that you'll never nail any shots and you should definitely just give up.

>without weighing 2lbs
Not sure what you mean by this friend, but I'm guessing it only matters if you're weak and sickly. Corn syrup induced numale?

>>4437734
>Do you think people weren't happy with their cameras when they bought new flagships 20 years ago
People are selling those ugly clunky battery grip bricks for peanuts, so despite the fact that they "work", so does a $300 farm truck without air conditioning or shocks. All those ex 1ds-ii owners have moved on to the om-5.
>Why? Do you think there are no DSLRs with live view or articulated screens?
DSLR live view and screen articulation worth using is really limited to a few models that cost nearly as much as an a7iii. I wonder why?
>The 1v has perfect autofocus!
It has much better autofocus than any NIGGON thats lower end than the z8 and zf, correct, but it only has 45 AF points in a central spot just like every other DSLR. The OM-5 can focus on anything anywhere in the frame.
>Not sure what you mean by this friend, but I'm guessing it only matters if you're weak and sickly. Corn syrup induced numale?
I can fit a micro four thirds 24-120 equivalent in my pocket, I can use the 28-60 kit lens on a sony and get sharper pics than most DSLR era primes can produce, but on a DSLR only the biggest lenses that still cost almost $1000 or even more are sharp because old optics design wasn't as good as modern lenses. The few DSLR lenses that are as good as modern micro four thirds glass still cost almost as much as equally good 3rd party sigma/tamron lenses that are native to FF mirrorless because all the cannot POS R users are buying them to save money. It's just a bad value proposition.

>>4437739
>People are selling those ugly clunky battery grip bricks for peanuts, so despite the fact that they "work", so does a $300 farm truck without air conditioning or shocks. All those ex 1ds-ii owners have moved on to the om-5.
You didn't answer the question

>old optics design wasn't as good as modern lenses
This has nothing to do with why this is by the way.

>The few DSLR lenses that are as good as modern micro four thirds glass
Yeah I mean olympus has great glass. It's just pointless because your $2000 "f/2.8" that quintuples the size and weight of your "compact" system works out the same as a a $150 5d mark 2 and a kit lens in terms of the actual images you produce. The gimped sensor means you've basically just got an f/4 zoom, which sucks for you cus the ISO performance is also real real bad.

>>4437732
Can you proof this?

>>4437743
>You didn't answer the question
You asked if people were unhappy with the ford model T. Not at the time, but now they can buy a vehicle that's not shit.

>Yeah I mean olympus has great glass. It's just pointless because *made up bullshit* *muh bokeh*
The 3 on the right will take consistently sharper photos than the 3 on the left
With more dynamic range and better 3d pop and tonality because of superior sensor technology and lenses that correct for microcontrast transmission
You lose fool framer

>>4437744
The best part about knowing that our gearfag friends are using an em5 and em1 is keeping the proof to myself and letting them have a laugh

If you weren't around for the threads where the truth came out, sucks to be you. Just know that every camera huskyfag has used since his snoy has been a m43, and corgifag has been processing m43 shots in dxo to convince you he uses FF and fuji, and you've been falling for this for over a year. Lol! Did you really think anyone here really uses $4000 cameras to take pictures of their dog? Get real. No one is that retarded.

>>4437747
>car analogy from numale wrenchlet who doesn't know anything about cars
>using tech from 20 years ago is just like driving a car from 100 years ago!!!
Typical 'photographer'. I bet you can use that bald spot under your beanie as a diffusing surface lmao

>>4437748
>No one is that retarded.

>>4437750
Hey I made that one!

>>4437749
>Dont want to drive a rustbucket that breaks down every 100 miles? Ya'll cant wrench
Funny, but I'll stick with my prius and laugh at people who can't fix the electronics instead

>>4437752
Idk man the prius came out like 20 years ago. Pretty sure that makes it literally impossible to drive.

>>4437753
Cars are more advanced than cameras because they're more essential. Camera development is slower than nikon autofocus and no one cared because anyone who really needed a good camera during the DSLR days just shot medium format film.

Today, micro four thirds can outperform a pentax 645 film SLR.

>>4437748
>the best photo-graphers on pee use m43, so you should to.

This isn't the proofs I was asking for.

>>4437755
Corgi and husky aren't the best photographers, it's just funny because they convinced everyone they use elaborate FF and fuji setups when they actually use olympus em5 and em1 models and are trolling you for fun. You did realize they're trolls right?

>>4437756
fuck... i just thought they were obnoxious and smug about their gear... they were just fucking with me!

>>4437756
Regardless of who these nobodies are and who on earth cares, it's a safe bet to assume when someone is trolling, they're really only exaggerating what they actually believe in a caricature of themselves. This what everyone without a social disorder immediately sees.

>>4437758
This sounds like a cope. Fool framers btfo.

>>4437756
Is this your final cope?

>>4437758
>the best photographe-
>*realizes they use micro four thirds*
>literal nobodies.
jej, foolframe moment

this guy actually fell for "i spent $20,000 on leica and fuji, and now you must submit your photos to me before you can have opinions"
it was micro four thirds the whole time!
>i got messed with on 4chan? help! social disorders!
JEJ

>>4437761
THATS CORGITOGRAPHER?

>>4437762
YES

You've been had!

>>4437763
All your credibility is destroyed. I was asking about pic before I read the filename. You ARE A LIAR.

>>4437761
>wears a leica as a necklace
>actually uses micro four thirds
chad move

>>4437763
Next time I see him I will demand a pic of his camera next to his corgi.

>>4437766
Husky, corgi need camera checkins ASAP. Germanshepherd is in the clear this time.

>>4437748
>Lol! Did you really think anyone here really uses $4000 cameras to take pictures of their dog? Get real. No one is that retarded.

It's not retarded. It's called being based. I doubt most would understand!

Maybe one day you'll see me with a modern phase one sensor. I would only ever post dog pics on here if I actually did get one, and half of them would be purposefully blurry to cause massive outrage.

>>4437747
>>4437731
ive been saying this for years. tech progress overrides sensor size.

>>4437771
>i will waste even more money on being a size queen
ok
cheap barely used gear has to come from somewhere

Anyone hear from the m43 guy that sold his m43 kit to buy bitcoin so he could sell the bitcoin then buy a gfx?

>>4437774
Like I said most will not understand. Thank you for proving my point so perfectly!

https://fstoppers.com/animal/pushing-camera-its-limits-low-light-husky-ride-618869
Wow, micro four thirds handles dog pics really well. Just a 20mp camera and f2.8 lens is enough for anything.

>>4437776
>exact same iq as husky corgi pics
bros we might not be being trolled… what if they did use mft and call it ff as a prank?

>>4437776
Why do the pics look yucky? I love mft but these fail to impress even the most devoted teenysensorchads.

>>4437778
You didn't.

>>4437781
they look exactly like husky corgi fags photos dont troll

>>4437784
Can you side by side? I don't see the similarity, sis!

>>4437786
can you?

>>4437790
Maybe, but I don't think so. Please do it for all of us microbb

>>4437792
can you post a photo thats better?

>>4437794
Better in what way?

Microsissies do we even know what good pic look like??? Plz.

>>4437795
any way that does not depend on you mentioning the gear you used.

>>4437799
Hmmm. Okay. Let me get on that one fellow microsis.

>>4437799
BAM.

>>4437803
Now lettuce do an objective analysis between these two images.
Can we compare and contrast goodness between these two in a proper and honest m43 type integrity way?

>>4437805
Naturally sharp with lots of 3d pop, and its ISO 12800! Imagine what a lower ISO could do!

>>4437803
Oversharpened hdr phone slop

Microsissies where has our integrity gone???

>>4437805
Wow, honestly, this looks better than the canon 5d.3. I’m sold on the 20mp olympus bodies. Is this color science exclusive to the om1? Stacked sensors just improve readout right?

>>4437810
How can you seriously look at this phone hdr with chunky ai sharpening and fucked up bokeh >>4437803
And think it is anything but 10x worse than this naturally rendered 3d poppy shot with smooth bokeh >>4437805
M43 at iso 12800 >>> ur phone in broad daylight > fool frame

>>4437817
Very very flat image that lacks any cuteness. Popless. The lighting is doing all the heavy in that snapshot.

I was asked to provide a better image in anyway that doesnt relate to the camera and I did exactly that.

Microsissies btfo yet again.

>>4437776
>100fps
>looks great, no rolling shutter, nice colors and no ugly noise
>everything is weather sealed
What in the fuck, I thought MFT cameras were all shit

>>4437824
Only panasonic ones are shit. Olympus is ok if you know what you’re doing. Just as good as aps-c. Yes modern FF is better at larger sizes and an R6II/Z5II would blow your mind. Yes you should save your money and stick to cheaper, older mftees. But no it is not unusable. Its better than doghairs shitty DSLRs.

>>4437822
Cope.

>>4437825
No anon
The camera isn't bad
You are

>>4437825
>Microsissies coping after utter defeat.

It is to be expected.

>>4437826
This. One of the most telling parts of these microsensor circle jerk threads is the extreme lack of microanon photos. There are always charts, equivalence blabbering, extreme cope posting, photo stealing, look at THIS GUYS m43 photos, but never any pictures from these microanons.

The best looking pictures in this thread are snapshits from larger sensors. WHY? Why is it like this in EVERY SINGLE one of these threads???

>>4437826
Forgot about the samefag shilling and no u posts as well.

>>4437828
Oh sorry you say these are good looking?

>>4430588
This is fucking dogshit, not even a photography, you should be banned for posting this
>>4432061
Noisier than an olympus pen, dull greens and a magenta tinged dog. Snoy?
>>4432402
Stolen photo
>>4435179
FF chart cope

>>4437873
Absolute cope and avoiding the question.

Still zero good photos from the m43 folks.

This is the m43 cope thread. What do you expect?

>>4430557 (OP)
>only photos are of that furry's traumatised dog
Yep it's a m43 thread

>>4437902
M43 anons seem to only read charts and steal photos. Any thoughts why?

>>4430560
This. FPBP. You called it perfectly.

>>4437904
I think part of the issue is retards in this thread think they can use m43 like you would use a FF mirrorless with a zoom lens, and they go out with their enormous setup that's effectively a phone camera sensor with an F/5.6 zoom when really m43's niche is small bright primes and small bodies. See >>4430569 which is nicely composed but looks like an iPhone picture.

>>4437906
So these small sensor cameras don't excel in literally every aspect over a camera with a larger sensor? But the charts told me dynamic range was so high it must be the ff killer we have all been praying for.

Is this the true power of m43???

>>4437720
>capture clips
are you saying most people who broke the plate strapped it to a clip like those from peak design that go onto a backpack strap, and not from mounting it onto a tripod?

>>4437916
NTA but yeah, that's the vast majority of breakages. I've heard of at least one person who broke it on a tripod, but they were swinging it while attached without supporting the body. I'd still be wary to use it on a tripod though, this is most likely sample bias; the OM-5/E-M5 are almost never used on tripods, kinda goes against the ethos for most people. On the other hand, capture clips fit the ethos to a T.

Everyone seems to agree M43 has stagnated, where did it peek?

>>4437914
lmfao so glad I don't visit the animales board.

>>4438221
I just post goofy pictures of my dog, cat,chickens,pigs, and horses. And occasionally argue with people about stupid shit. It's pretty comfy when the schizos aren't schizo-ing.

Chicken general is peak comfy. The horse general is pretty funny if you like silly horses.

Do you know why we need an m43 appreciation thread?

>>4430557 (OP)
>M43 appreciation thread
Any actual appreciators ITT?

>>4438298
I mean yes. The reality is that everyone appreciates mft. Unironically. Even the schizos...it gives them something to talk about. Me personally, I like the pictures that come out of my camera.

Mft users are the absolute most insecure photographers to ever exist on p. Far far worse than the filmfags that insist 35mm still beats full frame digital. At least filmfags post photographs. All I see are test shots, links to other people's work and charts on here...
I bet there would be a lot less trolling if there were legitimately good photographs, but there aren't.

I'm choosing between E-M1 mk2 and G9, your thoughts? I wanna use it with one of the 100-400 lenses for wildlife.

>>4430619
>Enjoy the colour version
Maybe we could have enjoyed the colors if this weren't a 4turds sensor.