Search Results
6/2/2025, 6:13:21 PM
>>4431982
That's not how it works. Foolturds f4 is f8, the aperture is the same actual size as an FF's f8. There is no improvement or benefit whatsoever, you're just missing out plus every single camera has the real world photography base ISO DR of a Z6II at ISO 1000. And everything looks way fucking worse. I have bunch of family snapshit 4x6s and the only source cameras I can't tell apart are the zf, z6ii, d750, and z7ii (do BSI sensors and megapixels matter? not that much desu)
The micro four thirds cameras I went through (em5ii and em1ii) on the other hand always stand out even with smaller 4x6 and 8x10 prints because the colors are just less varied, there's always highlights blown in one channel if the photos weren't taken in the shade, and there's significantly less tonal variation in the shadows. The more shadows have to be recovered to protect highlights the flatter it gets. The sensors just can't soak up light as effectively. They need to be shot with flash or bright soft light whenever possible.
When I still had excessive cameras I put the EM5II up against the Z7II in the same light (LEDs), in the same spot (a blue couch), and shot with equivalent settings, and this happened
>the EM5II's raw was underexposed at exactly equivalent settings (so much for "more intense light")
>the Z7II had significantly richer and more varied colors
>but just as predicted "but if in theory!" if you zoomed out the noise levels and DOF looked almost similar
That was when I knew for sure I was going to resell the micro four thirds junk and stick to sensor sizes that don't drive brands to bankruptcy. Even fuji is better than micro four thirds. They even fixed their autofocus 90% (XM5).
Pic unrelated it's a d750 with a tamron lense but it's proof i own a camera unlike you
That's not how it works. Foolturds f4 is f8, the aperture is the same actual size as an FF's f8. There is no improvement or benefit whatsoever, you're just missing out plus every single camera has the real world photography base ISO DR of a Z6II at ISO 1000. And everything looks way fucking worse. I have bunch of family snapshit 4x6s and the only source cameras I can't tell apart are the zf, z6ii, d750, and z7ii (do BSI sensors and megapixels matter? not that much desu)
The micro four thirds cameras I went through (em5ii and em1ii) on the other hand always stand out even with smaller 4x6 and 8x10 prints because the colors are just less varied, there's always highlights blown in one channel if the photos weren't taken in the shade, and there's significantly less tonal variation in the shadows. The more shadows have to be recovered to protect highlights the flatter it gets. The sensors just can't soak up light as effectively. They need to be shot with flash or bright soft light whenever possible.
When I still had excessive cameras I put the EM5II up against the Z7II in the same light (LEDs), in the same spot (a blue couch), and shot with equivalent settings, and this happened
>the EM5II's raw was underexposed at exactly equivalent settings (so much for "more intense light")
>the Z7II had significantly richer and more varied colors
>but just as predicted "but if in theory!" if you zoomed out the noise levels and DOF looked almost similar
That was when I knew for sure I was going to resell the micro four thirds junk and stick to sensor sizes that don't drive brands to bankruptcy. Even fuji is better than micro four thirds. They even fixed their autofocus 90% (XM5).
Pic unrelated it's a d750 with a tamron lense but it's proof i own a camera unlike you
Page 1