which one would be the best one to go for, more to the point I'm making here is which one would you say stands out the most as being the one that has the best performance in most of it's functions and settings?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4294290OM-5
>>4294290whichever one has a full frame sensor
>I am this close to getting an EM1-III, the only thing holding me back mft low light looks dreadful
>>4294357any camera does without a tripod and/or fast lens
>>4294290GX85
>>4294360Cope>>4294357Full frame looks better in every situation
>>4294290Nikon z6ii>>4294357Nikon z6ii
>>4294386>z6ii>1.5x crop mode>10 mp imagelmao fullframe, lmao
>>4294374Nah, most people can't tell FF from MFT if light is good, DR is low (high res mode evens the playing field here significantly) and there isn't a lot of movement. If you can expose well and don't care about bokeh it does not matter.>CopeYou are the one coping in every thread kek
>>4294400>>4294386FF are large cameras though
>>4294404>don't care about bokeh...and speedboosters and the plethora of cheap sub-f/1 mft lenses of late even removed this advantage. No real point to FF for most photographers, they simply don't utilize the difference.
>>4294405Just as god intended
You need full frame for the best image quality
>>4294405they are practically the same size
>>4294414That's so chonky. Also no one carries just a body
>>4294416>the ergos are so much better>and that's a bad thing
>>4294414I guess I'm just really wary now because of my saga with the K1-II, it was way too bulky to carry anywhere
>>4294416
>>4294424Yep so it's bigger. Got it>>4294465Why is the body suddenly the same size in that pic, compared to the body only one? Clearly it's not to scale
>>4294465ooooffffff
>>4294480yup. and that's why you get a small prime for your small m43 body and for anything else you go full frame.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOM Digital SolutionsCamera ModelOM-5Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-0.7 EVSubject Distance6.82 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmImage Width1944Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4294475>Why is the body suddenly the same size in that pic, compared to the body only one? Clearly it's not to scaleyeah they made the om-1's grip 1cm too big.
>>4294493You'd think they'd get it right since the main purpose of that tool is to compare size, and they have the exact dimensions lol
>>4294497the 9cm/10cm is the body height. the 7cm is the depth. so the body-with-lens image is about right. the only-body image is wrong.
>>4294497hmm, for me it looks OKmaybe anon is just a retard?
>>4294293kk will keep that one in mind thanks anon
>>4294300right, I'm not sure which one that one would be i'll have to look into that to see
>>4294293....this one?:https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-5-review
>>4294465>>4294480so what are you saying here with this, what are you specifically trying to get at?
>>4294480>300g!>BIG NUMBER SCARY>300g to lb>2/3s of a poundOne pound is not even noticeable. 1/3 of a pound is like, the weight of a wristwatch. Not worth a plastic tripod mount, 4x more noise, more diffraction, less dr, worse tonality, softer images, worse ergos, general lolympus artificial crippling, etc.
>>4294582Because lolympus mega sucko “pro” glass is a fucking joke mft pxlmag comparisons are a fucking jokeThere are small lenses for mft but gearfags dont like them because they’re “soft” (smaller pixels need super sharp, therefore doubleplusbig lenses, to look as crisp as FF at 200% zoom)And yet except for the green cast the tiny cheap lumix 20mm f1.7 is more than sharp enough for print and export sizes appropriate for the low dynamic range of micro four thirds (4000x3000 at base ISO with good technique and editing).
>>4294582you don't understand how smol and weak my arms are. I still need mommy's help to open the car doors. I am very weak and frail, but I have decided to not let my smollness stop me from leading a full life and getting out there and enjoying life
>>4294372that's The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 camera not an Olympus
>>4294489Nice photo despite the slightly awkward framing
>>4294607But you can mount an Olympus lens on it
>>4294582if size and weight doesn't matter why bother with an underweight piece of shit like a z series. why not use a gfx or hassie? unless you're poor or weak anon? you're not poor or weak are you?
>>4294664Because those are scameras for the most part? They don't even have lenses fast enough to justify using them, not even the actually medium format Hasselblads (44x33 isn't medium format, it's medium cope).Reminder that the resident hasselblyat got thoroughly mogged by a 6D which is by no means the best performing full frame camera out there.
>>4294607But Panasonic is mft partners w/ Olympus
>>4294664Om-5: $1kFF MILC: $1.5kMF worth buying: $8k and upCurious. Hey why dont you have a phase one xt? Are you poor? Dont talk to me until you post phaseone and artisan baguette on the hood of your ferrari, and dont forget to dangle a Classique Quantième Perpétuel 7327 from the camera and shoot it on your hassy cfv 100c (yknow, your fun travel camera)
>>4294670>thoroughly mogged by a 6Dfabricatedare these the sorts of things you need to make up to make niggon worth buying? admit it, pseud, you have bought into the only FF system that comes with medium format sized lenses with all the quality of APS-C lmfao>>4294682>think of a fast car>duHHh faerrariyou sound fat and retarded plus you're onions
Poorfag copeCamera, watch, and bread on hood or do not speak to me you filthy peasant.
>>4294687>i cant afford a ferrari so they suck!Typical poor
>>4294687Ferrari together with Alfa Romeo are arguably the most loved cars in the world. They're not just fast, they're art on wheels.
>>4294692p-p-poor fag c-c-cope..!!>>4294694sorry i should spell it out for you since you obviously don't get it. the first thing that comes to your mind when thinking of a fast car is ferrari, which means you're not interested in cars, which means you have low testosterone which means i could rape you easily >>4294696you are notoriously onions
>Another m43 thread started by that Nikon retard who bought a pen-f expecting it to fix his inability to perform basic camera operations (focusing)
>>4294700Cope off the chartsIs this the autistic german who could only afford a z6ii or the third worlder who spent his entire life savings on “high end” panasoi mft lenses and a g9ii (at launch price) and ended up making 20 threads to fend off his buyers remorse
>>4294702No you guessed right the first time, i have a small barn full of phase one backs and the fastest and reddest car the world, the frary.
This wannabe richfag troll is just expressing his remorse after buying an entry level nikon (not even a z7ii, zf, or z8) and not being able to hold it firmly enough to operate the autofocus
>>4294704>implying a z8 is good
>>4294639oh right okay I see what you're on about now
>>4294678yeah I know about that but it's specifically an Olympus Camera that I'm interested in getting
>>4294386that's not Olympus though
>>4294664because we're comparing cameras that are similarly priced. if MFT was priced at $500 (or 1/2 of FF) there would be no discussion. but current MFT bodies are priced at FF levels and have done away with the main MFT selling points (size, weight). so we compare MFT to FF now.
>>4295034The OM-1 is the cheapest camera you can get new that has features like no blackout shooting, ultra high framerates, high res pixel shift, bird detect AF etc. It's also the most expensive current MFT camer, there are many that are much cheaper. Lenses too; you can spend a little or a lot on MFT but with FF you can spend a little more or a TON.
>>4295105lol all that cope for a baby sensor toy cam
>>4295105>newNew buyers are cucks. Used buyers are BVLLs. >le sports featuresBut the autofocus cant keep up with them so every om-1 user takes 500 photos of a hovering hummingbird and maybe an eagle slowly gliding and thats it.
>>4295129If those features are cope to you then you don't need them, but that doesn't mean they're useless lol. I'm just explaining why the OM-1's price is reasonable.>>4295154>usedThe OM-1 is like 1000 dollars used now so it compares even more favorably there; comparing new prices was easier. It has great AF performance, look up any review or sample images.
>>4294692...shut the fuck up dickhead
>>4295034>>4295105thank you for the information on this anons
>>4295154New buyers are deflowering cameras, your so called BVLLS are getting their sloppy seconds after they pump and dump them.
>>4294412ah right okay thanks for letting me know now i'll have to go and find which one or ones are Full Frame
>>4294493>yeah they made the om-1's grip 1cm too big.is that a bad thing?
>>4294704who are you talking about here?
>>4295105>The OM-1 is the cheapest camera you can get new that has features like no blackout shooting, ultra high framerates, high res pixel shift, bird detect AF etc.oh right cool that's really interesting to know
EM1-III vs OM-1 vs Panny?
>>4296139too bad the autofocus is like, nikon z5 tier and the image quality is like a basic android phonethe last part alone is not worth all those crutches desu. people took better bird photos with the canon 5ds r. not a fast camera.>>4296221full frame
>>4296245Recs for a small lightweight weather sealed full frame system that isn't rape prices?
>>4296255Pentax K1, any other questions?
>>4295105Cheapest stacked sensor by a huge degree.
>>4296258I'm dead serious>full frame>excellent weather sealing>reasonably pricedIt's a little heavy, but heavy bodies are good for stabilization and it's due to being very rugged
>>4296257The II is awful, what makes 1 better?Also >no evf
>lightweight>1kg body
>>4296263It's a fine camera. It has a couple downsides and quirks, like every camera, the chief complaints being that it bakes in noise reduction to raws, but this isn't dissimilar from Sony baking in vignette correction, but no one cares about that. In reality it's because most of this board hates DSLRs and so they were never going to use it anyway so it's a free punching bag
>>4296263Why people specifically hate Pentax is a complete mystery to me, so you'd have to ask them. They aren't class-leading in anything, so I guess if you're looking to buy something it doesn't make sense on paper. But the reality is that they are more than good enough as all cameras have been since 2013. But people love to fixate on charts and numbers rather than how those numbers affect use (aka they don't)
>>4296268>Why people specifically hate Pentax is a complete mystery to mefor me it's the wasted potential. pentax has been taken out of the competitive market by ricoh. it's now the retarded step child ricoh could experiment on. and they do (monochrome pentax) but they're not going far enough. pentax could release a true digital rangefinder (they still have the optics know how) and compete with leica. but all they do is boring monochrome DSLRs and relabeled 80s lenseswasted potential. sad.
I said it in another thread, but>OM-5>20mm f/1.4I will get these, then finally start my journey actually taking pictures instead of being trapped in a gear rabbit hole
>>4296582Nice choice, be sure to come back with photos.
>>4296582>If I just get X I'll be cured of GAS>It will work this time, I swearSure it will.
>>4296582>he doesn't know
>>4296582You purposefully chose this so you would have an excuse to try an xt5 with a 27mm and a a7cii with a 40mm.
>>4296263Because pentax used to be an amazing company that made great cameras and lenses, and was your affordable option for well built medium format cameras. Now that hoya and ricoh have owned the company they no longer make a medium format camera and do the opposite of everything they ever did. They replaced their MF SLR with a half assed FF. Their cameras are stagnating shit that was generations behind upon release and the lenses are genuinely fucking awful. Pentax full frame in particular reminds you that “there is no such thing as a bad lens” is a lie. “Pentaxians” want $1k for the worst 70-200 f2.8 ever made because they think pentax has magic weather sealing that canon and nikon don’t have. To make matters worse pentax fanboys, like olympus fanboys, actually do insist that their weather sealing is better than canon/nikon which is an outright lie that’s sure to piss off 75% of people.
>>4296636their “modern” 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 are double triple ultra dogshitprice of a new mirrorless lens, size that puts sigma arts to shame, performance of a 60 year old m42 lens. literally dead fucking ringers for lenses that are a fraction of the everything. genuinely bad products. there is a correct way to use pentax:pay <$600 for a k-1 mark ONE or a k3-iiuse classic film lenses and the kit zoom for ff, for the k3-ii pay under the bare minimum fora few modern aps-c lenses for the WR while expecting absolutely nothing but a gimmicky dx dslr that’s built roughly as well as a nikon fx
>>4296636>weather sealing is better than canon/nikon which is an outright lie that’s sure to piss off 75% of people.with you up until here, you're just another nikon brandfag. oly and pentax weather sealing is the best in the business, this is common knowledge and easy verified.
>>4296638Sew, here they go lying again. “Good weather sealing doesnt exist outside of olympus and pentax!”Yes thats why all the warzone photojournalists choose nikon and canon.
>>4296638olympus unironically paid for an IP rating that says their weather sealing doesnt actually keep water and dust out and that the camera is only guaranteed to work for like 20 minutes. as far as anyone sane is concerned there are two kinds of weather sealingphysical seals (canon, nikon, pentax, olympus)overlapping panels and users coping that its actually weather resistant and isnt supposed to work anyways (fuji, sony, panasonic)
>>4296638Gee why do people think poorly of pentax and lolympus fanboys? What's next, going to claim micro four thirds has less noise than full frame?This is unsubstantiated...>technicallyThey all use the same methods (rubber strips, rings, plastic seals, etc), except for sony, who opts to use overlapping plastic shelves instead of seals in some major areas, and fuji, who builds their cameras like sony to keep them on the small side (a crop sensor camera body does not actually have a technical reason to be smaller than FF just because the sensor is unless it's built worse or missing some supporting hardware for processing/cooling/connectivity/a bigger battery etc)>experimentallyNone of the 4 major brands have actually proven one has a lower failure rate in harsh conditions than the otherYou could claim that olympus has the most weather sealed lenses made by a major brand, because an olympus camera can also mount all of the panasonic weather sealed lenses. That's it really. On the other hand, pentax has the least, and some of the worst.
>>4296649oh oops, correction, i really should have looked that upMicro four thirds has 44 weather sealed lensesZ mount has 33 weather sealed native lenses and 75 weather sealed Fs (FTZ adapter is weather sealed, but autofocus works on <50% of the older lenses)EF mount has 87 weather sealed lenses and RF mount has 24
>people who actually go out and use olympus cameras in crazy conditions rave about how good the sealing is>random all lowercase nophotos say it isn't trueStarting to think that /p/ is to photography as /v/ is to videogames
>>4296729>people who actually go out and use olympus cameras in crazy conditions rave about how good the sealing isPeople also do this with canon and nikon and they don't say "i wish i brought an olympus/pentax" so the claim that olympus/pentax is better is unsubstantiatedif they were better they wouldn't have both basically gone out of business (japan edition, where an investment company does nothing so the brand founders can pretend their lifes work wasnt a failure)
>>4296736Didn't read, where's your photos?
OM should have more weather sealed lenses though. Their old, kind of shit 75-300 in particular deserves better IMO, it's the perfect range for birding (150-600 equivalent). I'd make another lens based off it:- weather sealed‐ metal- sync stabilization- sharper- 5.6 at the long end?I'd pay good money for this as it'd round out my current favorite duo, the 12-45mm and 60mm macro. The 40-150mm overlaps too much, and no one needs the fuckin 300-1200mn equivalent or even the 300-1000mm (with TC) equivalent lenses. Actually on that note, I wish OM would release a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or f/4, it's a well known focal length but on MFT would be excellent. I really do hope OM gets on their feet, I love using their bodies but their recent decisions have been not so promising.
>>4296737Cope outOlympus and pentax do not have better weather sealing than anyone else. People do not break their canikons and say "I wish i brought an om-1". It simply doesn't happen.
nophoto seethe
FACT: Olympus has time tested and true weather sealing. Stories of dropping cameras in the river, leaving them in the rain overnight, taking them out in the freezing cold etc. are common amongst circles of experienced photographers. It is why they have the TG Tough line, and why they are the outdoorsman's choice for wildlife and landscape where other cameras would surely fail.
>>4296784><1% market share, original company exited camera market due to inability to profit off brand, cue re-naming the same camera over and over and rebadging sigma zoomssure.
>>4296784I don't care if it could survive a pyroclastic flow, I wouldn't shoot m43 if it was the last camera on earth
>>4296784>TG Tough camera but better lens and full manual controlPLEASE, it'll be the perfect camera
>>4296784>the outdoorsman choiceStarting to see why /p/ seethes about them. I swear, once /p/ finally takes a fucking photo it's only of a street outside their house.
>>4296776what?
>>4296801The outdoorsmans choice is actually nikon. Always has been. Olympus was for arthritic manlet birdwatchers who didnt want to leave the manicured trails (muh reach)
>>4296784>>4296801>>4296992[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone 13 ProCamera Software17.3.1Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:03:15 15:10:04Exposure Time1/99 secF-Numberf/1.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating125Lens Aperturef/1.5Brightness3.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.70 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width4032Image Height3024Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4296786this. I'd rather shoot film than m43[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 6_2Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating2500Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmImage Width3024Image Height2012RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
which one out of these would be the better one to go for?:OM System OM-1 Mark II OM System OM-5Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III&Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:12:10 12:23:01
>>4297107If you can afford an om-5 do yourself a favor and keep putting up cash for a nikon z6iiEven the z6 would be fine (same autofocus capability as any olympus and people complain about it!). Better yet just buy a FF DSLR and stop being a neurotic woman.
>>4297107I never really got the appeal of the E-M10 line and the OM-1ii is just strictly better than the E-M1.3, so if you can afford it the OM-1.2 or OM-5. If portability is important or none of the OM-1.2 advantages matter, OM-5. If great wildlife focus, no blackout shooting, better IBIS justify the cost and size increase, the OM-1.2. What do you want to take photos of?
My EM1-III is coming soon bros I'm so excited
>>4296993Based outside photo takerI'll be with you soon bro
Any reason to spend the extra cash for an OM5 over an EM5 iii? Is it mostly just software features like hires mode stuff?
>>4297287Nope, not at all. Spending extra cash at all on fool turds is how it gets the name fool turds. This is the shit you buy if you can't even afford an A7RIII and a plastic bag.
>>4296582>I said it in another thread, but OM-5 20mm f/1.4kk right will keep that one in mid also another person said the OM-5
>>4296265what is, which camera are you on about here???
>>4296754cool thanks so much for all of this highly detailed information, also is the OM are Micro 4/3 Lens?
>>4296993that be a big camera you got there in your hands
>>4297287actual reply: no, it's basically just an EM5.3 refresh but they didn't even add a 'mark' at the end like the OM1 mark II. iirc the one new thing it has is handheld high res mode but i don't know how well it actually works in practiceboth are plastic-fantastics compared to the steel brick of the EM5.2, but the 5.3 and OM5 also have a better sensor and PDAF instead of the older noisier one on the 5.2 that only has contrast detection AF and constant-AF that's basically useless so if you can deal with a flimsier feeling body and possibly breaking the tripod mount, the 5.3 or newer is better, but the 5.3 is also 'good enough' and the OM5 is way too fucking expensive new for what it is
>>4299977If I drop it would you die?
>>4299984I pray the OM-5.2 will be metal, though I know it won't be. That with better bird AF, the 12-45/4 is basically my dream. While I'm at it, a pro 70-300 or 50-200 would be nice too.
>>4294290up
up
>>4294290bump
>>4296582Great combo. Get the panny 35-100 f2.8 and you won't need more in the years to come.
>>4296582>Same price and size as an a7c+40mm f2.5 with a softer, slower, larger, heavier lens.Same WR too, because olympus doesn't build the -5s to the -1s standards. I find it easier to locate a parts only olympus -5 or -10 camera than a -1 camera with WR related failures like glitchy screens, ports, and buttons.Get literally anything else, you're overspending to gain almost nothing over an e-m5 and 17mm.
hello