It's not the same compression if you use 75mm lenses on cameras with different sensor sizes with the same composition. If the distance from the subject was the same (and hence the composition different) you could argue a 75 mm is a 75 mm whether cropped or not. Although apparently the sensor size does have some effect too. https://cameradecision.com/DofCalculator

>>4401597 (OP)
>isn't compression based on angle of view or whatever and not focal length?
Have you ever used a telephoto?
I'd never use m43, but higher the focal length, the greater the background compression regardless of angle. What you might be referring to is the bokeh blur on things behind the subject being far away out of critical focus which is not background compression. Part of the reason a 70-200mm is one of the best portrait lenses is because of that reach at 200mm if you step back a bit, but you can get even better compression even with a higher aperture at 400mm.

Use a DoF calculator and mess with it to get a better understanding. Take a random object, and place it wherever, and take a picture at different focal lengths adjusting your distance for same frame filling comparison if you're more of a hands on person.

>>4401623
>>4401624
he was talking about the model's face/body more than the background DoF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lR10-eimwc [Embed]

>>4401625
>I'm shooting 150mm but I'm getting the 75mm compression
Your boomer is absolutely correct. /thread

>>4401625
I think you're misunderstanding the whole premise. Crop sensors fill out the frame """more""" due to the smaller capture sensor, the focal length is still the same, you're just capturing a smaller part of it, it literally has the same affect as going to crop mode on a FF which won't affect compression.

Outside of that piece, there's a reason portraits when focused specifically for faces like headshots/shoulder up/etc use higher focal lengths, it it's more flattering and does not exaggerate features as much as let's say a 35mm and makes it more "flat" due to it.

>>4401597 (OP)
It has literally nothing to do with focal length, only distance to subject.

https://fstoppers.com/architecture/how-lens-compression-and-perspective-distortion-work-251737#:~:text=This%20is%20called%20%22extension%20distortion,is%20called%20%22compression%20distortion.%22

>>4401654
this, perspective distortion is the proper name. that said op is generally correct. if you're shooting from the same distance a 75mm on mft will look the same as a 150mm on full frame; subject will be the same size and have the same perspective as well.

>>4401873
Yeah, but the amount of background blur, the diameter of any given bokeh ball will be half at the same aperture. On the plus side your in-focus area will also be about double on mft.

can you guys say m43 instead of mft I keep reading it medium format. thanks

>>4401904
>MFT = MFTurd
>M43 = Micro 4our 3rds
>MF = Macro Four (Thirds)

>>4401904
male to female

>>4401597 (OP)
Real answer? Not the same, it just gives you less compression than you'd expect from basic crop factor math and catches people off guard.

The vertical crop factor of micro four thirds is 1.85, the horizontal crop factor is 2.08. If you're shooting with a 75mm, vertically it feels more like a 138.5, not a 150mm, so you get closer and experience a little less compression than you're used to. This also applies to medium format. 80mm on 6x6 is more like a square crop of a 35mm, not a 50mm.

>>4406664
neat

>>4401597 (OP)
Why are these colors so bland?

>mft for studio work
makes most sense since you can shoot at base iso and aren't constrained by natural light

>>4406735
Base ISO is still 800 equivalent and has worse colors between the smaller pixels and lower resolution than a standard FF camera (33-45mp). Shooting both side by side even "equivalently" a Z8 at ISO 800 looks better than an olympus at ISO 200 (the actual base ISO, 100 is extended and looks the same). If you use a less than perfect light source instead of direct sunlught or flash it's even more obvious. And if you don't spend the same amount on lenses, and use a more affordable and smaller lens on olympus, it gets extremely obvious that the nikon is better.

MFT is a GWAC system. You don't see many professionals use it. Only "professionals" who are just doing the bare minimum of worthless jobs to promote their blog/youtube. Like youtube landscape/wildlife photographers who are 0% artist, 100% side hustle. It is intended for aging birdwatchers and field biologists cataloging bugs, not photographers.

>>4406733
shitty pete mkwhatever the fuck his name is lightroom preset

>>4406741
>an olympus at ISO 200 (the actual base ISO, 100 is extended and looks the same).
olympus doesn't have 100 iso, it has like 64 or 80 or something weird as the extended
plus that boomer was literally using it for "ecommerce" photos. it was literally temu or wish or someone sending him clothes to have models wear for ads that were primarily going to be consumed on phones for women. I think he owns or owned a full frame and kept seething about IQ but then coped with the fact that temu or whoever he was making the photos for didn't give a shit and he was getting paid so why should he care
>Only "professionals" who are just doing the bare minimum of worthless jobs to promote their blog/youtube. Like youtube landscape/wildlife photographers who are 0% artist, 100% side hustle. It is intended for aging birdwatchers and field biologists cataloging bugs, not photographers.
so much seethe. a m43 like the pen f competes with the ricoh and X100 series APS-C cameras and phones, not really with full frame. snoy doesn't make a pancake lens. the compact m43s cameras with the smaller lenses can fit in coat pockets. plus don't the "professional" grade ones have weather sealing that is better or cheaper than the snoy shit?

File: saars its over.png (1.05 MB, 2890x1038)

1.05 MB PNG

>>4406753
Rajesh, my fellow pay shill, please do the needful and fact check you are poost. I made this mistake once and my pay was docked to 1 rupee per 1 post and I could not afford to pay women to enjoy bob and vagene. I worry that at olympus call center they may be even harsher because they do not have so much money to give. Thank you come again and have a vishnutastic day.

-sent from my ChaiPad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_YaLe3rAbA [Embed]

>>4406760
oly lenses are sharper and better weather sealed, done deal for me chief. snoy aps-c is a joke

>>4406763
They are. Vintage variants are good too. I use them on my T2i. When it is a we'll focused image* they look very sharp. The sharpest lens I will say though has to be Leica though and then Panavision lenses.

File: Screenshot 2025-02-16 133524.png (250 KB, 1165x344)

250 KB PNG

>>4406760
>comparing a floating aperture kit lens to a fixed aperture pro lens
>not picking a small body
>31mm f/4.3
so a slower and worse lens with a gay focal length vs the 20mm f/1.7 aka 40mm f/3.4

>>4406783
>uhm, if you compare it to a 16mp body with worse everything and no weather sealing its slightly larger!
Lmao so you need to downgrade to a non weather sealed 16mp body with worse DR and significantly worse AF (the om-5 and om-1 were already worse than an a6700s AF) for mft to be slightly smaller. why not switch the pro tier a6700 for a nex 5n or a6000 in that case? should we go down to lumix gm1 with basically no feature?
>ITS A FIXED APERTURE PRO LENS!
that is as soft as the sony kit lens, and "equivalently" slower (f5.6-8 vs f8 constant) lmao

btw every olympus "pro" zoom i have owned was plasticky and wobbled
12-45 f4 (24-90 f8)
12-40 f2.8 (24-80 f5.6)
12-100 f4 (24-200 f8)
8-25 f4 (16-50 f8)
all plasticky
all wobbled
all aps-c kit lens tier

and then you have vide evidence up there of the weather sealing working fine because its not the a7iii days anymore

tamron has a 17-50 f4 constant, full frame native lens, no equivalence math, wtf is olympus doing lmfao if even snoy is better. canon, nikon, and fuji are much better than snoy but olympus can't even beat them wtf lmao, no wonder they had to sell the camera business.
>inb4 i swear it was an accounting error!
sure sure, totally not because they were non competitive.

>>4406787
>Lmao so you need to downgrade to a non weather sealed 16mp body
pen f has 20 mp. I assume the rest of what you said is also gay and retarded and wrong
>that is as soft as the sony kit lens,
source?
> and "equivalently" slower (f5.6-8 vs f8 constant) lmao
5.6-8.6
>and then you have vide evidence up t
where?
>sure sure, totally not because they were non competitive.
you sure are one seething purse boi

>>4406834
Why do you love imagining men wearing purses? Is it another obsession like all the pictures of Asian crossdressers you have on your computer?

>>4406787
>>4406787
>btw every olympus "pro" zoom i have owned was plasticky and wobbled
Post a single photo you took with one of those.

>>4406850
You first, chump.

>>4406782
shut up you fucking faggot

>>4406782
Nice post, zach. You sure are right about that!

>>4406851
Where did I say I owned them? I just know they're metal and you're full of shit.

>>4406857
Doubt it considering you have no photographic evidence.

>>4406735
I think the argument is, if you are in a studio you might as well use a bigger camera since you aren't carrying it around

>>4406843
the guy posting the troons isn't me. and its because snoy boi's wear purses. unless you say you shoot with a 31mm asp-c lens which eww 31mm is a gross focal length

>>4406851
>>4406859
I have the 75mm f/1.8 which I don't think is a pro lens, but it is metal

>>4406926
Liar, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this one time.

>>4406928
>>4406928
I ain't lying

>>4406934
No one who says ain't is telling the truth.

>>4406946
holy shit you are multi thread seething

>>4407641
Hold your purse a little tighter.

>>4407646
I don't own a snoy so I have no purse