>>4400577 (OP)
>why is it just boomers and browns?
Boomers like them because Jack at Walmart said they're good. Jeets try to become brand ambassadors for everything. Nobody else cares about MFT.

>>4400577 (OP)
Who cares just use what you like. Take a photo for fucks sake.

File: P8040019.jpg (1.09 MB, 1736x2320)

1.09 MB JPG

>>4400577 (OP)

it is not perfect yet

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
ISO Speed Rating	200
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: 1710698907344102.png (4.7 MB, 1673x1715)

4.7 MB PNG

>>4400577 (OP)
>tons of people do portraits with 70-200mm f/4 lenses or 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses stopped down a stop
Yes, on full frame bodies. You just answered your own question.
MFT really only excels in high light environment. They're great for wildlife and environmental shots when in good light and can do portraits in a studio type setting with high light, but when it's mid/poor lighting indoors? It's joever.

Every sensor type has it's cons and pros, even FF/MF. If you like MFT, use it and enjoy it. That's all that matters.
If you can keep iso low the reach you get is pretty crazy on MFT. But once you start getting into 1600iso+ it falls off hard compared to a FF but with MFT you get a smaller body, generally smaller and cheaper lenses.

For example a OM-5 at 3200 iso is comparable noise and DR wise to the R7(aps-c) at 6400, and the R6mkii at 12800iso. But if you understand it's limitations and work around it, you can produce some great stuff.
>>4400582
this.

>>4400577 (OP)
Micro four thirds photos have unfixably gross contrast and get really bad color casts. Just a pattern i’ve noticed.

>>4400577 (OP)
Because I have my phone

>>4400577 (OP)
Because most photos have a weird radial blur effect on fine details, the contrast from the crazy low DR base ISO and forced tone mapping on raws always looks weird (open an om-5 and a z6ii raw both in capture one and look at how identical settings create such different contrast, and how lengthy it is to fix without it looking even worse), olympus and panasonic colors are really bad (sony colors are good btw), and a lot of the cheaper, smaller lenses that aren't FF/APSC sized and priced have bad coatings that pick up color casts from the environment, ie: grass.

Also really nervous bokeh and flat rendering galore

"Equivalence" and SNR based DR measurements can go fuck themselves, the same photos with "le equivalent" settings just automatically look better on a global and local level if you shoot with even the shittiest full frame camera like a canon 6d.

Image from M43 is awful. It's flat and looks like the photo was taken by a mobile phone. Or maybe people using M43 are just bad photographers? Anyway, I have yet to see a decent photo taken with one of these cameras.

>>4400613
>>4400617
>>4400653
>>4400656
This is such gay retard shit. Uncle Terry, may he rest in peace, got photoshoots he took on m43 cameras published in magazines
https://www.katygallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=2763&page=1
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/exclusive-photos-katy-perrys-rolling-stone-cover-shoot-21517/time-for-change-239283/

>>4400660
No one cares about some pervert with tribe connections.

>>4400660
Magazines only need tiny images and the printing is comparatively low quality. You could get phone pics published in a magazine if you tried hard enough.

>>4400577 (OP)
>why is it just boomers
because they need a lightweight system due to their age
>browns
because they need a cheap system due to their income

File: original(11).jpg (540 KB, 2048x1365)

540 KB JPG

I'm not a good photographer but I can do macro and tele with my mft gear and I like using an actual camera instead of my phone. I don't need better and deserve worse tbdesu, sometimes I consider getting something like a tz90 and only using it. If it were weather sealed I probably would.

>>4400660
Terry was a pervert with tribal connections and his style was, specifically, taking really trashy looking, grainy photos with harsh contrast, flat rendering, and nasty colors.

So you're actually agreeing with everyone. Micro four thirds is the tool for the job if you want minimum IQ. Even at high ISOs, full frame is too good.
(note: terry shot a lot of his slightly less trashy work on full frame canon DSLRs)

>>4400669
>tribe connections
I have a fuckin CIB, it doesn’t mean or explain shit

>>4400582
excuse me you're not allowed to do that, you have to participate in the gearfaggotry and reply to trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls
>sony colors are good btw
like for fuck's sake come on

>>4400853
Sony colors *are* and *were* good. They just don't shift everything orange like canon to hide how unhealthy your model is SOOC, so americans primarily shooting people with high blood pressure see the same blotchy skin people have IRL.

>>4400853
Sony colors are good tho. Fuji too.

Olympus colors now, they’re pretty awful. Panasonic has improved. Nikon and canon went downhill.

>>4400693
You deserve whatever you like using and makes you happy.
>sometimes I consider getting something like a tz90 and only using it
Superzoom compacts are still neat today but if you've already got an ILC there's no real reason to downgrade like that, especially if you do macro and tele stuff- you'll miss the flexibility of dedicated lenses that are good at those extremes instead of one hardwired ""Leica"" lens that's so close to every other superzoom 'smudgy at the wide angle, hazy at the advertised super tele end, and no faster than f3.5.' The compact to look at would probably be the LX100 with its still 4/3 sized sensor and much faster lens, but it's a weird quirky little thing and that's probably why they rebadged it as a Leica, removed several buttons, and sold it at 100% markup.

>>4400719
>>4400669
>>4400674
>hating on uncle terry
wow, you zoomers are faggots. and magazines require better image quality than any pic you've ever taken needed, fag

>>4400894
>need need need
I need as much quality as I want. Purge your mind of marxist thought. Deserve and need do not exist beyond life liberty and property, the basic prerequisites for an adult person. All other deservings and needings are things prescribed to children by their parents to teach them lessons about working to earn things instead of giving them whatever they want (or nothing at all). In the real world, where legal adults live, there is only want, and can afford.

>>4400577 (OP)
>boomers
Brand loyalty. I have noticed this trend when buying used gear in lots. Often you will find several generations of tech from the same brand bundled together which shows that familiarity plays a role. Those boomers probably had 35mm Olympus gear back in the day and didn't do much research about sensor size and such in the digital era.

>>4400660
Wow an old hack pervert took photos with m43, BRB going to tape over my excess sensor

>>4400900
if you sneed more, shoot large format like a real man, fagola

>>4400577 (OP)
>Why aren't there more samples for one of the worst usecases for MFT
>Why is it all third world shills and retards
Gee anon, I wonder. The top
portrait lenses are more expensive and worse than the ultra budget FF and APSC lenses.

>>4401120
>If you can shoot in base ISO a micro43rds is going to be just as good as a FF
This is how it works on signal to noise ratio charts generated from resized images

But not how it works in photography. Every single OM-1/G9II photo I see looks like garbage, even worse than low DR FFs like the Z8 and lower DR R5II. There is more to the way an image is rendered than the averaged signal to noise ratio of the entire photo. Way more. There is the signal to noise ratio of each pixel, because colors are guessed from combinations of pixels. Larger pixels are more sensitive and receive more light even at "equivalent" ISOs. There is way pixel size relates to sharpness, which influences optics design (crop lenses need more corrections which sap a little light and shift colors if you're not buying a $1000 piece of glass). And there is, of course, sensor technology. Only the G9II, which costs as much as full frame and is larger than some full frame cameras, actually has an up to date sensor. That leaves the sole advantage lens size which isn't really an advantage.

I shot micro four thirds for YEARS and no matter what your charts ever said, equivalence doesn't actually work between most cameras. Even a 45mp FF has larger pixels than 20mp m43 and the difference in color quality, especially if you don't spend $1000 on a prime for fucking m43, is obvious.

Lift weights and get a fucking job. Woops, there goes the "weight and size" too.

>>4401132
diffraction physics get really fucky with micro four thirds too

full frame manages to be noticeably sharper at the same DOF no matter what you do. it's just how lenses work. micro four thirds photos resolve almost no detail. the g9ii is 25mp or something but whenever i see a photo from one it looks no better than a low MP fujifilm. it always looks like they're shooting at f16-f22 in terms of detail rendition.

File: lol.png (519 KB, 580x607)

519 KB PNG

>>4401132
Yes, nothing can save baby sensors from physics. This is with the panasonic 42.5mm f1.2 (85 f2.4 equivalent), one of the sharpest lenses in existence in terms of lp/mm actually. Even a lengthy image stacking operation just can't compete with simply making the sensor bigger.

Micro four thirds cameras make lovely point and shoots. You can fit an em5iii with the 20mm or the kit zoom etc into your pocket. Micro four thirds cameras also make amazing camcorders. A video frame is displayed for 1/24th of a second or less and is probably motion blurred. No one cares about the sharpness. Photos are sampled down to 4k or printed at 300dpi and the little sharpness differences show through even at those sizes... because they're not motion blurred and you can look at them for at least a second so all the little details give it "pop", as they say. Its just not the same use case. Better to give video the better codec/less rolling shutter at the cost of rendering.
But ever saying it's as good as full frame, or a replacement for full frame, or that now that your strap-only long lens large body camera is 1lb lighter and 3 inches shorter you are finally able to take a photo of a bird... is fucking retarded. If you want quality dont cope and pretend a cheap sony a7c with a sigma 100-400 won't stomp all over a m43 with its 'heckin price to weight to reach" ratio. Of course the 400 has less reach, but less reach actually contributes to the quality (less focusing through obstructions, less haze) and if you can't shoot wildlife with 400mm you're either hunting rare parrots in the amazon and better fucking have a 600mm prime for what nat geo is paying, or you're really bad at this. Ambush shoots wildlife with 70-200 and he's literally too good for /p/ now.

>>4400577 (OP)
>>only time someone like peta pixels talks about micro43 is for video

they just made a video a week or two ago praising m43 and talking up how they (jordan and chris) both still shoot 4/3 for personal photography use

>>4401132
>>4401133
>>4401138
99% of images get shared on ig or the web. you literally cannot tell the censor size if there is enough light. there is literally a bong who does landscape photography for pay with a m43 on youtube. anyone bitching about muh 400% crop pixel peeping nonsense is a fag trying to justify their muh full frame which gets mogged by film anyway

>>4401139
>a couple of gay canadians use baby sensors for taking pics of cats and fences
my family got mad at me for using micro four thirds (gh6) for a group photo. they thought it was a digital camera from 2008. my fault for using a pentax k1 for the one prior. oops, bar too high. i switched it for a nikon z7ii pretty quixk.

you can take a million photos that dont matter with a shitty camera and tell all your friends on the internet you’re saul leiter 2.0 and a master of manual focus, but dont forget you’ll eventually fuck up an important one thats more than instagram filler.

>>4401141
You can take a million photos that dont matter, but if you actually have a life you need to consider the ones that arent instagram filler

I use flickr instead btw. Instagram doesnt even display page 2 for people without facebook accounts. Keep your 1500 followers, i have friends, family, and a church group.

my family likes my photos and i only shoot mft :3 i even give out little prints sometimes!

>Micro four thirds: Bro no one on insta can see my bokeh bird larger than a phone screen
>Full frame: The yearly group photo at church is always a 20x30

>>4401146
>smaller, cheaper camera is good enough for children and homosexuals
>bigger, more expensive camera is better for adults
ye thats what toys and starter gear are for

File: 1513471859490.png (424 KB, 779x720)

424 KB PNG

>>4401144
>church group.

>>4401148
>enjoyer of pedophile cartoons from a godless nation of shut in fetishist gets triggered by christ and community
lol

File: 1512857628137.jpg (14 KB, 256x256)

14 KB JPG

>>4401152
and yet, here you are.

>>4401154
>Human: ew, there’s a rat in my house
>Rat: ew you’re in a house with a r-ACK

>>4401141
people who use m43 professionally are almost as cringe as people who make bait threads here about sensor size, i feel like if you're being paid then you are also going to quickly be able to afford to use proper tools for the job and not salaryman cameras.

m43 is great, but i would not be reaching for it if i was a professional photog in any capacity. i use it because used bodies and lenses are cheap and plentiful and i only do casual photography.

>>4401156
I laugh at people who use ff sized m43 gear
>muh $2000 g9ii
>muh $1600 85mm f2.4 equivalent
>muh $1500 200-800mm f11-16 equivalent
>fool frame bt-
>stop asking if i used a gf1
People who accept what the baby sensor is and use it as a pocket camera are ok. Too bad olympus died and panasonic just makes camcorders.

File: Giga-Chad-English-2022-20(...).jpg (34 KB, 500x500)

34 KB JPG

>>4401158
>Why yes, I carry my GF3 with my TTArtisan 18mm 6.3 everywhere with me

>>4401138
>You can fit an em5iii with the 20mm or the kit zoom etc into your pocket
You can but then thanks to the "the M43 standards don't actually cover fucking anything other than the mount itself and barely even that" dealio, you have to deal with Panasonic-lens-on-Olympus-body problems, like the famous purple flaring and the AF grid artifacts. Panasonic feels like they never went all in on the mount to start with and jumped ship to L mount as soon as it was feasible; Oly did go balls out from the start and made great little bodies and lenses but were already bleeding out internally and now they're a laughing stock of O-M1 Mark II Super Turbo slop jobs and Sigma rebadges. Absolute bungling on both sides all the way down and it saddens me.

>>4401155
>Go into rat warren
>Complain about rats
>Try to claim superiority over rats even though you willing entered

>>4401213
That's called conquest. This situation is why native americans no longer exist.

Moefag weebs are already a disliked minority on 4chan. Most of /a/ is just teenagers that like shonen. The majority of 4chan users dislike anime. Moot and hiro each added an unofficial furry board. The time of the animepedo has come to an end. 4chan is now... furchan.

File: feelsgoodman.jpg (114 KB, 1024x1024)

114 KB JPG

>>4401165
>It just werks
>the one you have with you
Truly the most based kind of based

Teaser for rumored "OM-3": https://youtu.be/qMsY4hJEL7E [Embed]
Actually looks kinda cool, like an OM-5 with the Pen-F jpg options.
(There's also rumors of the 17mm and 25mm 1.8s getting weather sealed, and the 100-400 getting sync IS, but both of those sound very dubious to me.)

>>4401315
JUST GIVE ME A FORM FACTOR LIKE THE PEN F WITH A NEW SENSOR FUCK

>>4401316
I feel like Pen-F with an EVF is something people have wanted, but ditching the rangefinger look is surprisingly upsetting.

>>4401315
>OM-5 with a jpeg option dial
>olympus never known for its good color science not even today
lmao, om shitstem

>>4401316
OM System is compromising and consolidating as much as they can, so it makes sense from that perspective; to normies it's just another cool retro style body, but it also appeals to the "adventurer" type OM System has been heavily marketing to. The latter is willing to spend more too. If it's small and has some real upgrades over the OM-5 I'll probably buy. The bar's on the floor as far as I'm concerned.

>>4401144
>>4401146
>>4401147
>>4401156
If I need higher quality I have film cameras. I can have a 120 slr and a 35mm slr that has bracketing and half stop shutter stops so I can shoot ektachrome with it.
>muh digishit is better
film 100% looks good judging by the fact that when I post a shitty pic on here people shit on it, but the pic from OP I took on a 645 and no one has said a bad word about it.

>>4401165
>>4401156
is the 18m 6.3 significantly smaller than the 20mm f1.7?
I can fit a pen f with a 20mm in my coat pocket (or really in jeans pocket though not super comfortably). if I can't do that with your format I see no reason why I would use it over film

>>4401331
>The OP i took on a 645
Thank you for providing further confirmation that 6x9, with 10k in scanning gear, is no better than a canon 5ds r, and 645 with iso 100 stock is interchangeable with a 5dmk3 shot at iso 3200. I thought that was an example of micro four thirds portraiture with a film sim. It looks very mushy, low detail, low tonality.

>If I need higher quality, I have worse quality
6x9 hardly compete with a canon 5ds r. Everything about it is worse. The world completely abandoned film when the first 10mp, 8 stop dr camera came out because 10mp is more resolution than most 35mm with a triple digit iso rating can provide and 8 stops of DR is the same usable DR that can be had from a negative.

>>4401335
>all this seethe
I see you also posted no photos. Digishit looks like shit. its why all modern movies look like shit and fight scenes in the fucking power rangers from the 90s look better
>muh megapixles reeeee
digishit looks flat and gay and still has not been able to supas film. that's why all digishit uses filters to try to look like film. its why film products still outsell digishit on amazon. all digishit has is convenience, and m43 is way more convenient than full frame. your canon x whatever bullshit produces worse and uglier images than my canon 35mm film point and shoot

File: DSC_7708.jpg (1.29 MB, 4836x3456)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4401332
shit nigga, is basically a bodycap

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	4836
Image Height	3456

>>4401342
>power rangers watching manchild furiously defends film funkos after his "glorious quality first 645" is mistaken for micro four thirds
film is trendy with teenage girls because retro twee won't die. they watch barbie movies for fucks sakes. that's it.

645 looks like micro four thirds
35mm looks even worse than micro four thirds
it takes 6x9 to look like a full frame DSLR shot at a high ISO
4x5 is almost at the level of a sony a7riv shot at iso 1600

film is inferior to digital. anyone who disagrees has major skill or delusion issues.

>>4401346
Oh yeah? Name a digital camera that has lower quality than micro four thirds while having the depth of field of full frame, using vintage full frame lenses instead of modern plastic super exotic aspherical ED element slop.

I'll wait. (protip: you can't)

>FILM CHAD STATUS: WINNING

>>4401315
I don't fucking want more shitty built in jpeg filters that look like someone corrupted the image, just make the 5 series metal again like the Mark II. I'm not even asking for putting the mode dial in a sane place on the left and bringing back MySets so you can have four or five full custom settings on the PASM spots you don't use. That and Type C USB.
>can already guess that the art dial will only be able to be used for art dial and not a bunch of custom settings, like the aforementioned MySets
Disappointing right from the get-go. Sad.
> the 17mm and 25mm 1.8s getting weather sealed
Would be nice, but probably not worth the price compared to just putting a bag over your camera. The 25 is already a great little lens, the 17 just needs a second version to fix the weird softness and fringing that the 12/25/45 don't seem to have. Keep the clutch, though.
>100-400 getting sync IS,
It doesn't already have that? It's one of the few Oly lenses that even has stabilization (along with the 12-100) and it doesn't support dual IS? What the fuck.

>>4401324
normies don't care about lolympus or they'd have fuji's retro style market share instead of 0.05% market

>>4401359
>Metal body
It doesn't look like the OM-3 will have that which is pretty dumb. The leaks said it'll have the OM-1ii sensor which would be cool, but I'd rather just have a metal OM-5.
>Would be nice, but probably not worth the price compared to just putting a bag over your camera.
Nah, dust resist is huge regardless of weather. Given how they advertise themselves having weather sealing should be a minimum for all new OM gear. It's one of the few things going for them.
>It doesn't already have that?
Yeah it's stupid. I wish they'd make it sharper at the long end too but I doubt we'll get that. We'd be lucky if either of the lens rumors are true at all, last year we were supposed to get a 50-200 f/2.8 and/or a 50-250 f/4, but instead got the Sigma monster lol.

File: Taylor-Swift-Olympus.png (761 KB, 700x699)

761 KB PNG

>>4401361
Olympus has 100% of the tay market. She literally posts using a default vintage filter apparently lmao

>>4401366
OUR GIRL

>>4401366
Olympus confirmed for girl cameras
>Sony/nikon = bf
>Olympus/fuji = gf
>Canon/panasonic = single middle aged man having a mid life crisis
>Film = gay
Simple as.

>>4401346
look at this dickless "full frame" digicuck seething about how his digishit is worse than old film cameras
>>4401394
nah more like
>sony/nikon/canon
>weirdo who smells funny
>film
>major chad
everyone is always more impressed when you carry around a film camera

>>4401138
>ambush is too good for /p/
if this is true he'll never be back then RIGHT?

>>4401603
Wow look at you cope to pretend the $1000s you spent on lower quality photos was worth it. A big ass mamiya 7 cant do a better job than a $800 canon 5ds. Its pointless.

Why do these pretentious filmfags even pretend they’re not just the same flannel shity fixie hipster they’ve always been?
>now, i finally feel like i am better than other people because i consoomed outdated technology. that makes me very wise and unique and not a sheep. -9000 fixie hipsters chanting in unison

>>4402534
cool story, seething snoy digicuck

File: LegendaySuperSaiyanTelescope.png (2.15 MB, 1392x875)

2.15 MB PNG

>>4401346
you foolframers are sensorlet copers

>>4401394
Canon is the milf choice

File: channels4_profile.jpg (93 KB, 900x900)

93 KB JPG

>>4400577 (OP)
>either a boomer or brown

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4402737
Why are all camera youtubers either fat women or balding men with fat girlfriends?

>>4402579
wouldn't the picture have lines all over it from the gaps between the sensors?
do they just aigen fill the gaps?

>>4400577 (OP)
For all the sacrifices made in the name of a smaller system, the negligible gains in compactness aren't worth the losses in everything else. The only cameras that ever actually exploited the format properly were those tiny Panasonics from years ago.

>>4402829
>Why are all camera youtubers either fat women or balding men with fat girlfriends?
chads fuck staceys, rest has to resort to facsimiles

>>4402871
No one was buying, because phones, so olympus died and panasonic started selling prosumer camcorders masquerading as shitty stills cameras

>>4402838
>wouldn't the picture have lines all over it from the gaps between the sensors?

no. there is overlap between the margins of each sensor, they stitch them to make final images.

File: Screenshot 2025-01-28 135313.png (359 KB, 1769x449)

359 KB PNG

>>4402871
>>4402878

>muh 1/3 inch and 0.2lb prevents me from putting this camera in my purse t. tranny with aids
why are foolturds like this

>>4403137
>snoy queer once again admits to owning a purse
many such cases

>>4403161
No one said that. You’re having a mental breakdown from realizing you wasted an immense amount of time and money on a bad camera and it’s driving you totally insane.

>>4403193
you've mentioned your purse multiple times. turn your monitor on

File: IMG_1186.jpg (179 KB, 289x836)

179 KB JPG

She’sa gone totally insane

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	289
Image Height	836

>>4403202
>snoy troon is seething, wears a purse and phone posts
top fucking kek

Holy mother of cope

>>4403207
yeah, she snoy fag is pretty embarrassing

>>4402871
Correct.

>>4402878
Also correct.

Sensors smaller than aps-c are pointless in photography. No inherent advantages.

>>4403220
stop replying to yourself you gay purse wearing snoy queer.

>>4402529
shoots film now and doesn't digitise so why would he be back?

>>4401394
I audibly kek'd