[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 16 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


4chan Virtual YouTuber Contest - Submit Designs Here

Janitor applications are now being accepted for the next ~48 hours. Apply Here



File: hydrant.jpg (4.62 MB, 4608x3456)
4.62 MB
4.62 MB JPG
Coming from a Foojew X-T2, only had this OMD EM10 III for a little over a week and only been able to take some snapshits around the house, but I'm pretty sure this "entry level" MFT outclasses the progear quality APS-C X-T2. I'm genuinely astounded with what I've been able to get out of this tiny little thing just snapshitting within walking distance of my house. The detail and sharpness out of the RAW files with all of the Oly f1.7 primes on this body are out of this world.

I swore my next camera after the X-T2 was going to be a FF Nikon or Canon DSLR, but I think I was just having gear envy from all the progear shitposters who can't accept that "entry level" gear is often outclassing their $2400 bodies and $1500 glass.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10 Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:08:09 20:20:32
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: angel.jpg (2.44 MB, 2432x1521)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB JPG
Here's a 100% crop of a RAW nearly sooc, only applied about 10% noise reduction and pushed the white balance slightly warmer.

Why do people shit on MFT again? Because they were dropped on their heads as babies or something?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10 Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:08:09 20:50:59
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2432
Image Height1521
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3336650

Oh shit, just noticed the wasp on the angle's wing. That's a fantastic shot.
>>
>>3336650
>>3336651
Samefag

/p/ is dead. Your thread is also dead. These are the times we live in. It is time to KYS, to KMS. All of us, in these hard times. Saging this bread.
>>
>>3336649
>>3336650

Is the first one sooc? There's some weirdness on the rock where it looks like there's some kind of blowout of the highlights. Also the road looks full of artifacts, but maybe that could just be jpeg compression. There is also pretty noticeable color fringing on the pole in the background. Aside from that, I like the shot overall, at least as a benchmark if that was your intention. It doesn't really tell a story so it's not "good" street photog, but you're right about the detail on that fire hydrant, when I zoom into the rust areas and surface features I find it pretty amazing. Even when I'm zoomed in like 300% it looks incredibly detailed and clear.

The second one looks pretty good for a 100% crop but I don't like your framing. As far as detail and clarity goes it's impressive enough. I've seen worse image quality from much higher end gear but that's not saying much since there are a lot of variables, including the ape behind the lens.

You should post some more examples, preferably in low light for real comparison, but you're generally right that MFT detractors are just being stupid. I suspect a lot of them are just guys who overinvested in the idea of FF being the "end goal" of every photographer and feel like they've "made it" once they own one and look down on plebs without. I'm agnostic. If you can show results that look pro, the gear doesn't matter.

Your pics don't look pro, but that's just because you probably just need more practice with composition and lighting. The gear you have can definitely do it if you put in the effort to build your photo chops and actually get out somewhere with suitable subject matter. You're not going anywhere just shuffling around the yard looking for random snapshit fodder.
>>
t-b-h X-Trans is the most meme sensor tech ever, might as well just use an AA-less Bayer sensor instead of the wormy garbage it produces.
>>
>>3336736
>all this effort
>to basically say nothing
>>
>>3336649
Both your shots are really soft, if you resized first people wouldn't be able to see the effects of having shit gear.
>>
nice blog post, but i'm with you. oly lenses are of very high quality and relatively cheap. make sure to get the 45 mm 1.8 if you don't already have it. even the 40-150 f/4 kit zoom is very sharp and is on sale for 60€/$ sometimes.
>>
Panasonic is also incredibly good and offers unique stuff like dual stabilization with the right lenses.

I was on the Fuji train and was about to pull the trigger on an x100f until I played with a gx85 and realized that it was 100x faster, smaller, better and cheaper.
>>
>>3336769

>Both your shots are really soft

Neither of them are soft. Are you that total moron that's in every crit thread and says shit that has no basis in reality? Why do you do it? Does it make you feel better as a person?
>>
File: reserved-parking.jpg (3.07 MB, 3456x4608)
3.07 MB
3.07 MB JPG
>>3336737

>X-Trans

I applaud Fujifilm for innovating, and I can understand the theory behind the sensor, but I think they missed the mark just slightly when it comes to optical clarity and sharpness, although I do appreciate the color rendition of X-Trans over a lot of Beyer APS-C competitors.

>>3336769

What do you mean they're "soft"? Are you talking about the bokeh? It's meant to be like that.

>>3336780

>make sure to get the 45 mm 1.8

Already got all the "premium" f1.8 primes except the 12mm, so my lens stable is the 75mm, 45mm, 25mm, and 17mm f1.8 primes and then the 14-150mm ED II. So far the 45mm is my favorite, but I'm warming up to the 25mm really quick and it might become my favorite depending on how it performs for nature walking. Pic related is one of the shots I got with the 45mm and the benchmarking shot that first made me fall in love with this system. I'm still astounded at the details on that sign, especially the screws and surface imperfections of the plate.

>>3336796

>dual stabilization

I read that Oly is doing dual stab with their Pro line now, but those lenses are still a bit out of my league, especially considering I originally bought this camera for an aspiring family photographer lower on the totem pole.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10 Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3456
Image Height4608
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:08:10 16:25:45
Exposure Time1/1600 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3456
Image Height4608
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3336994

Your shots are dope for taking snapshits of nothing. Why is your focal depth always as thin as a razor though? That sign looks wild but only the center is in focus. It would look way better if you has the whole sign in focus. You might be selling me on an Oly thogh.
>>
>>3336649
Why do you keep posting threads that are obviously meant to shill for Olympus?
Can't you keep your snapshits contained in one thread?
>>3334788
>>3334769
All taken with an E-M10 III, with similar focal lengths to your lens loadout.

If you want critique, then post in the RPT. Your snapshits do not warrant 3 fucking threads
>>
>>3336994
>I'm still astounded at the details on that sign, especially the screws and surface imperfections of the plate.
is this the first time you've owned a camera that shoots at decently high resolution or something? i'm really not seeing what it is in these shots that you're raving about
>>
>>3336994
Looks like microchips and ones and zeroes
>>
>>3337073

>Your snapshits do not warrant 3 fucking threads

the first thread I made wasn't about my snapshits at all, it was literally about harassment of photographers. I just happened to post some of my pics there to give the thread some eye candy and interest about the topic. The second one ALSO wasn't about my own photos, at all. I was literally asking about people's experience with MFT since I've never owned an MFT camera before.

THIS thread is the only one I've made specifically about my own photos.

Maybe read the fucking OP text and try to derive what the topic is you fucking imbecile.

>>3337118

>is this the first time you've owned a camera that shoots at decently high resolution or something?

Did you bother reading the fucking OP? I literally said I'm coming from a Fucci X-T2, which shoots in higher res than the EM10. I'm comparing the detail at pixel visible crap levels and to me the EM10 with these fast Oly primes is the more impressive system.

>i'm really not seeing what it is in these shots that you're raving about

Maybe you need to learn how to pixel peep you plep. Lemme guess, photography is only about *feeling?* I don't fucking get what your confusion is about.

>>3337125

>pic related
>>
File: seeing-ones-and-zeros.jpg (355 KB, 1536x826)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>3337131
>>3337125


>forgot the pic for pic related
>>
>>3337131
>Lemme guess, photography is only about *feeling?*
nope
>I don't fucking get what your confusion is about.
i don't get what your enormous boner for this camera is about
>>
>>3336736

>Is the first one sooc?

Nearly. I messed with the HSL levels a bit in LR, guess I must have overdriven the luminance on the orange or yellow channel. I was mastly optimizing for bringing out the detail in the rust on the hydrant. Thanks for catching that.

>You're not going anywhere just shuffling around the yard looking for random snapshit fodder.

Just been too busy to get anywhere worth shooting. The spots I have immediately in mind require permission. I'll get there eventually.
>>
>>3337133

>your enormous boner

Primarily because I wasn't expecting much out of it. I thought MFT was an inferior sensor compared to APS-C, and I was in minor disbelief when the shots coming out of Oly's "entry level" MFT body and consumer tier lenses was outperforming gear far above it's pricepoint.

That's all. Hope you're not confused anymore.
>>
>>3336649

Strange, I had the complete opposite experience recently. I had a 10 year old absolute entry level 1000D which I barely used anymore, decided to upgrade to start taking more family snapshits. I totally fell for the MFT meme, all the promises of cheaper lenses, same or better performance than APS-C, light weight etc. I bought the OM-D EM-5 II + 14-40 f/2.8 PRO. Reaction after first few shoots - disbelief, disappointment, regret. ISO through the roof in anything other than full sun, lacking critical sharpness anywhere in the frame, never quite pulling in enough detail (either down to 12mp resolution or noise reduction from the high ISO, not sure). I expected a lot more from the hype and ~7 years newer technology but honestly my 1000D + cheap shit 50 f/1.8 still produces more pleasing images hands down. Seriously considering selling this MFT gear after only 2 months and switching to an A6300 because I do like the compact size of mirrorless.

Your photos do look a bit better than my results, maybe I'll give one of the primes a shot before calling it.
>>
>>3337138

>Seriously considering selling this MFT gear

Give me forewarning if you do, I might be willing to scoop it up if we can talk about the price.
>>
>>3337131

This is the power of gear fagging
>>
I shoot with an oly camera and love it...and even remember being amazed by the quality of my early snapshits. But in retrospect they weren’t great. Honestly just about any modern camera from the past 5 years can produce quality that is stunning to anyone but the most critical pixel peepers.

>>3337138
I’m a bit surprised by your experience here, although you may want to review your detail/noise settings. I don’t think you will get much better results from an a6300 unless something is wrong with your em5 or how you’re using it.
>>
>>3336650

> 10% noise reduction
> base iso in daylight

Jesus the state of m4/3
>>
>>3337138
That's interesting. I had a NEX 7 and Fuji X-E2 before moving to M4/3. I got an EM5ii with 12mm ƒ2 and adore the combo. There are some limitations, but I quite like dealing with them and they rarely get in the way.
The size/functionality of the system far outweigh the slight hit in IQ over high-end APS-C and FF models.
>>
>>3337138
Post pics.
>>
>>3336853
The fine detail is fucking soft my dude.

You're just excited because it's sharper than your cell phone.

>>3336994
No, I'm not talking about the bokeh, I'm talking about the ability of that lens and sensor to render fine detail. It's bad compared to other cameras, really bad.

If you want equivalent sharpness to full frame, you need a lens that can resolve 4 times as much detail, and Olympus don't have a super secret stash of special glass that's 4 times better than what canikon can get. You're trying to argue your ford fiesta can outpace a Porsche because it makes a neat vroom vroom noise.
>>
File: 20170410-DSCF2134.jpg (3.82 MB, 4000x6000)
3.82 MB
3.82 MB JPG
X-T2 at iso 2000

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:08:11 15:26:49
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness0.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length90.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3337209
>this tired point
increasing megapixels and resolution stops becoming meaningful unless you start printing large or pixel peep. The difference between most modern mirrorless or dslr cameras is indistinguishable at native screen resolutions. Posting a 4000x3000 image or a 6000x4000 image, the differences in perception in 99% or situations is negligible.
>>
>>3337210
Don't lie that's clearly film
>>
>>3337210
>Iso 2000
Iso 1000 ;)

And the skin looks weird af, like he's made of wax.

Pretty gross my dude

>>3337211
>Unless you actually print photos it's not visible

Ah, so you're saying m43 are only good for web sized shots, that I can agree with.
>>
>>3337131
And I'm telling you that this third thread wasn't necessary. /rpt/, use it. And if you want to brag about your purchase or some childish shit like that, then use the /gear/ thread.

2 of your 3 threads were nothing more than, "Look at me! Look at what I purchased!". If you're so inclined, then make a post about it on social media or write a fucking blog about it.
>>
>>3337218
He’s right, OP. I shoot with m43, this is uneccesary. Just post on /gear/ or your m43 post or /rpt/.

Although I feel like with how lame your pictures are you could be trolling. A disabled sign and a fire hydrant? Go out and shoot some more pics.
>>
>>3337209

>If you want equivalent sharpness to full frame, you need a lens that can resolve 4 times as much detail

Congratulations on outing yourself as a complete retard. The ability to resolve detail is primarily about pixel density on the sensor, which is the same on FF as it is on MFT. You don't need glass that can resolve 4x the detail you absolute fucking idiot, you only need a lens that can resolve equivalent light levels in terms of stops, which is twice that of FF because of the crop factor. Pixel for pixel, FF isn't giving you any more detail than MFT, it's just giving you a larger frame, i.e. when controlling for zoom of the same subject in the same lighting at the same stops taking crop factor into consideration, there is no optical difference between FF and MFT.

IQ in that context is wholly a function of the quality of the glass, the quality of the sensor, and the capability of the image processor in the camera. OP is absolutely correct that MFT can rival FF for IQ because many of the latest generation MFT bodies have newer fab process sensors and more advanced image processors in-body than most of the stable of DSLRs from Canikon except the higher end, which are so far above the pricepoint of MFT gear the price/performance ratio is absurd. Oly glass is also some of the best in the industry these days, even their second tier premium series. Then take into consideration what OP pointed out in one of his dupe threads that Oly bodies have some crazy image stab ability because the motor only has to move a tiny sensor around, and you have a total package that, yes, can in fact surpass the IQ of many FF systems under most real world conditions for the average shooter, pro or not.

Unless you're making massive blowups for commercial applications, the higher res of FF isn't going to fucking matter.

>It's bad compared to other cameras, really bad.

You're just a bad troll and the cancer that is killing /p/ but I'm at least going to challenge you to prove it.
>>
>>3337217

Apologies, 1000. Please post a m43 portrait at iso 1000.
>>
Oly haven't made a professional camera since the OM-3ti.

Sad.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.