>>4294290
OM-5

>>4294290
whichever 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

>>4294357
any camera does without a tripod and/or fast lens

>>4294290
GX85

>>4294360
Cope

>>4294357
Full frame looks better in every situation

>>4294290
Nikon z6ii

>>4294357
Nikon z6ii

>>4294386
>z6ii
>1.5x crop mode
>10 mp image
lmao fullframe, lmao

>>4294374
Nah, 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.
>Cope
You are the one coping in every thread kek

>>4294400
>>4294386
FF 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.

>>4294405
Just as god intended

You need full frame for the best image quality

File: aBRICK.png (31 KB, 299x149)

31 KB PNG

>>4294405
they are practically the same size

>>4294414
That's so chonky. Also no one carries just a body

>>4294416
>the ergos are so much better
>and that's a bad thing

>>4294414
I guess I'm just really wary now because of my saga with the K1-II, it was way too bulky to carry anywhere

File: Screenshot 2024-03-14 at (...).png (630 KB, 1668x894)

630 KB PNG

>>4294416

>>4294424
Yep so it's bigger. Got it

>>4294465
Why is the body suddenly the same size in that pic, compared to the body only one? Clearly it's not to scale

File: Screenshot 2024-03-14 at (...).png (381 KB, 1200x809)

381 KB PNG

>>4294465
ooooffffff

File: P3148258.jpg (1.91 MB, 1944x2592)

1.91 MB JPG

>>4294480
yup. 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 Make	OM Digital Solutions
Camera Model	OM-5
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Subject Distance	6.82 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Image Width	1944
Image Height	2592
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Screenshot 2024-03-14 at (...).png (29 KB, 882x270)

29 KB PNG

>>4294475
>Why is the body suddenly the same size in that pic, compared to the body only one? Clearly it's not to scale
yeah they made the om-1's grip 1cm too big.

>>4294493
You'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

>>4294497
the 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.

File: Screenshot 2024-03-14 at (...).png (356 KB, 1478x826)

356 KB PNG

>>4294497
hmm, for me it looks OK
maybe anon is just a retard?

>>4294293
kk will keep that one in mind thanks anon

>>4294300
right, I'm not sure which one that one would be i'll have to look into that to see

File: omds-om-system-om-5-silve(...).jpg (639 KB, 2560x1706)

639 KB JPG

>>4294293
....this one?:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-5-review

>>4294465
>>4294480
so 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 pound
One 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.

>>4294582
Because lolympus mega sucko “pro” glass is a fucking joke mft pxlmag comparisons are a fucking joke

There 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).

>>4294582
you 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

>>4294372
that's The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 camera not an Olympus

>>4294489
Nice photo despite the slightly awkward framing

>>4294607
But you can mount an Olympus lens on it

>>4294582
if 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?

>>4294664
Because 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.

>>4294607
But Panasonic is mft partners w/ Olympus

>>4294664
Om-5: $1k
FF MILC: $1.5k
MF worth buying: $8k and up
Curious. 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 6D
fabricated

are 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 faerrari
you sound fat and retarded plus you're onions

Poorfag cope

Camera, 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

>>4294687
Ferrari together with Alfa Romeo are arguably the most loved cars in the world. They're not just fast, they're art on wheels.

>>4294692
p-p-poor fag c-c-cope..!!

>>4294694
sorry 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

>>4294696
you 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)

>>4294700
Cope off the charts

Is 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

>>4294702
No 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

>>4294639
oh right okay I see what you're on about now

>>4294678
yeah I know about that but it's specifically an Olympus Camera that I'm interested in getting

>>4294386
that's not Olympus though

>>4294664
because 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.

>>4295034
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. 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.

>>4295105
lol all that cope for a baby sensor toy cam

>>4295105
>new
New buyers are cucks. Used buyers are BVLLs.
>le sports features
But 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.

>>4295129
If 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
>used
The 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
>>4295105
thank you for the information on this anons

>>4295154
New buyers are deflowering cameras, your so called BVLLS are getting their sloppy seconds after they pump and dump them.

>>4294412
ah 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?

>>4294704
who 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?

>>4296139
too bad the autofocus is like, nikon z5 tier and the image quality is like a basic android phone

the last part alone is not worth all those crutches desu. people took better bird photos with the canon 5ds r. not a fast camera.

>>4296221
full frame

>>4296245
Recs for a small lightweight weather sealed full frame system that isn't rape prices?

>>4296255
Pentax K1, any other questions?

>>4296257
Is this a meme or are you being serious?

>>4295105
Cheapest stacked sensor by a huge degree.

>>4296258
I'm dead serious
>full frame
>excellent weather sealing
>reasonably priced
It's a little heavy, but heavy bodies are good for stabilization and it's due to being very rugged

>>4296262
I didn't ask because I think it's shit, but because I see Pentax bashed regularly. Why is that?

>>4296257
The II is awful, what makes 1 better?
Also >no evf

>lightweight
>1kg body

>>4296263
It'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

>>4296263
Why 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 me
for 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 lenses
wasted potential. sad.

I said it in another thread, but
>OM-5
>20mm f/1.4
I will get these, then finally start my journey actually taking pictures instead of being trapped in a gear rabbit hole

>>4296582
Nice 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 swear
Sure it will.

>>4296582
>he doesn't know

>>4296582
You purposefully chose this so you would have an excuse to try an xt5 with a 27mm and a a7cii with a 40mm.

>>4296263
Because 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.

>>4296636
their “modern” 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 are double triple ultra dogshit

price 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-ii
use 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.

>>4296638
Sew, 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.

>>4296638
olympus 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 sealing
physical seals (canon, nikon, pentax, olympus)
overlapping panels and users coping that its actually weather resistant and isnt supposed to work anyways (fuji, sony, panasonic)

>>4296638
Gee 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...
>technically
They 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)
>experimentally
None of the 4 major brands have actually proven one has a lower failure rate in harsh conditions than the other

You 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.

>>4296649
oh oops, correction, i really should have looked that up

Micro four thirds has 44 weather sealed lenses
Z 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 true
Starting 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 is
People 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 unsubstantiated

if 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)

>>4296736
Didn'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.

>>4296737
Cope out

Olympus 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 zooms
sure.

>>4296784
I 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 control
PLEASE, it'll be the perfect camera

>>4296784
>the outdoorsman choice
Starting 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.

>>4296776
what?

>>4296801
The outdoorsmans choice is actually nikon. Always has been.

Olympus was for arthritic manlet birdwatchers who didnt want to leave the manicured trails (muh reach)

File: IMG_7042.jpg (3.36 MB, 3024x4032)

3.36 MB JPG

>>4296784
>>4296801
>>4296992

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13 Pro
Camera Software	17.3.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:15 15:10:04
Exposure Time	1/99 sec
F-Number	f/1.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.70 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: DSC_9535.jpg (1.3 MB, 3024x2012)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4296786
this. I'd rather shoot film than m43

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	3024
Image Height	2012
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: XZR5F4bMzUEwkmDM3jQRpf.jpg (1.25 MB, 2000x1125)

1.25 MB JPG

which one out of these would be the better one to go for?:
OM System OM-1 Mark II
OM System OM-5
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III
&
Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:12:10 12:23:01

>>4297107
If you can afford an om-5 do yourself a favor and keep putting up cash for a nikon z6ii

Even 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.

>>4297107
I 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

>>4296993
Based outside photo taker
I'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?

>>4297287
Nope, 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/1.4
kk right will keep that one in mid also another person said the OM-5

>>4296265
what is, which camera are you on about here???

>>4296754
cool thanks so much for all of this highly detailed information, also is the OM are Micro 4/3 Lens?

>>4296993
that be a big camera you got there in your hands

>>4297287
actual 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 practice
both 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

>>4299977
If I drop it would you die?

>>4299984
I 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.

>>4294290
up

up

>>4294290
bump

>>4296582
Great 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