I want to get an upgrade to my MFT, but I'm torn
On the one hand I love shooting low light so I need a full frame or maybe even APSC, but on the other I hear full frame is only for professionals and amateur hobbyists are fine with any camera
Then I think I shouldn't spend so much on a camera, then another part of me says I work hard and can afford it so why not
How do you solve this quandary bros?

>>4440203 (OP)
Just but what you want. If you want low light performance just get a used FF body and don't look back

>>4440203 (OP)
Depends on what you mean by low-light and what your expectations are.
Even modern APS-C will struggle past ISO 6400 so I would strongly suggest full-frame. Bigger sensor will always help with lower light. A used FF DSLR will be the most value-oriented choice you can make but it will be bulky. Your lens also dictates how much light can potentially reach the sensor in the first place, so think about wide-aperture lenses. You'll lose some DoF but you'll keep the ISO down into usable territory.

>>4440203 (OP)
Just buy an a7cii. It's strictly better. That's why it costs 3x-4x more than the last mfts worth buying (gx9/em5iii).

If you make bank why the fuck not? Honestly the small lenses are the same price as their m43 counterparts (inferiors) so it's just the body is expensive unless you're an animal photography sperg

>>4440212
Well I don't make bank but I make decent money, at least I think I do because I used to be on welfare and now I have a minimum wage job
But I'm just really lost in what I actually need versus what I want and what I should get
I went through this saga before, leaving me with getting an MFT, but after using it for a year I keep thinking "man this would probably look better in FF"
I'm interested in astro too and MFT is pretty bad at that

But also I simply wonder if maybe a new lens would fix it, not a new body

Canon R5.

>>4440217
>4.8k

>>4440214
>What I actually need
A $25 film camera and self devving tri-x and ilford
>what i want
Whatever the fuck, that's for you to decide
yes it would look better in FF, it's just physics, if it didn't look better with FF you would have fucked up, thats why it costs 4x as much as the last mft worth buying

you could actually still mog micro four thirds with a cheaper ff like a zf (kinda big tho), og a7c, a7iii, a7riii, z6ii/z7ii if you can tolerate shite autofocus and a size increase, but it wouldnt be an upgrade it would be a diagonal-grade to a new state of being

Just get a canon 5d mk4 used and and a 50mm f 1.8

>>4440220
>go from mirrorless to SLR
>everything is softer because you didn't know the resonant frequency of the mirror box and use lockup when correct

>>4440223
>also every lens is worse period, it weighs 4x as much, and stabilization is shit or not there all for the price of an a7iii that mogs it because canon boomers "know what they got"

>>4440223
he's on mft who cares. I guarantee a 5d mk4 is significantly better than anything he has

>>4440224
buy an ad

>>4440225
Mft outperforms 5d4 even a phone does dslrs suck outside of super autistic edge cases sorry

;-;
This shit is so hard
I just want to get a good "forever/long time" camera and lens and finally focus on the art and composition part

>>4440203 (OP)
I think of everything I buy as a temporary purchase that I’ll try for a while and then sell off heh I’m tired of it. As long as I think that way, I don’t mind spending a few thousand at a time or even using credit to do it, bc the little loss that comes from depreciation & fees are just like a small rental fee, but I still get my $ back out of it at the end bc high end sheyyyot holds its value well.

>>4440234
you're just making things up. Cameras don't magically get 100x better just because you removed the mirror

>>4440218
I didn't say mark 2 or new.

>>4440203 (OP)
>>4440203 (OP)
>>4440235
As soon as you get the perfect thing you’ll realize there’s some *other* focal length lens that you’d actually use more, if only you hadn’t spent top dollar on this fucking thing instead, & hey you could sell the one you got and get two pretty decent ones for the same $, but then eBay rapes you to death on camera gear sellers fees so you’ll just need a few hundred more, but in that case you might as well just keep the fucking lens you got and get a second one, and thus begins the long slide down the pyroclastic flow into sea.

The best thing about MFT is, you can use the same C-Mount lenses as a Super16 modded 16mm movie camera, so you can get 2x the lenses and use your MFT cam to live preview your exposures & shot composition on your non-parallax movie camera. That’s actually pretty great.

>>4440235
Well you can get glass and stick with it your whole life, the body is whatever unless you're shooting shit that requires 60fps raw shots or something. Research different brand glass and pick a body that looks okay. I like Nikon glass so that's the system I went with.

>>4440237
Mirrors soften images with vibrations, bad lens design, and bad stabilization. 2 dslr megapixels = 1 mirrorless megapixels.

>>4440235
just get a zf, xt5, a7c or a7cii like everyone else

>>4440242
>2 dslr megapixels = 1 mirrorless megapixels.
3/10 b8 made me reply

>>4440242
Those options are way too expensive

>>4440211
My full frame struggles @ 3200 cus its old but even that's enough for me to shoot racecars at night. How high to people realistically need to go? Is this a video thing or something? For like 60 years the highest you could get on film was 1600 and even thats plenty imo.

Well now I'm back to where I started, because I looked at my MFT photos and they looked fine. Good size, everything sharp. So now I'm thinking if I even need an upgrade

>>4440323
The black pill is that 90% of shooters haven’t “needed” to upgrade since like 2010. It’s all gas gas gas, the output quality is fine across brands and gear.