>>4304585
>baby sensor AND mirrorless
Yikes. Buy a canon 90d. The king of reach.

>>4304592
Based and 90d pilled
>CHADNON 90D(ICKUS BIGGUS)
>Super cheap, super sharp lenses everywhere
>1000mm of reach on a budget
>OVF autofocus works with the same speed in all light, has the dynamic range of your eyes, separates composition and exposure
>Has higher pixel density than 20mp foolturds, so if you crop and basically have mft you have more reach
>Super durable
>Lenses cross compatible with every canon full frame camera ever made and adapt well to nikon, panasonic, leica, and sony

>Lolympiss/OM-Shitstem OM-1
>Any lens that isn't super slow and soft is overpriced as fuck, might as well shoot FF and git gud
>800mm of reach for eight grand, still looks worse than an EF 100-400 L with a teleconverter
>Muh FPS, but autofocus doesn't keep up
>Autofocus performance depends on lighting and chosen exposure
>If you turn off exposure preview you just have a laggier OVF with worse dynamic range, and autofocus performance is still worse in low light
>Flimsy plastic
>lenses are a dead end, only future cameras they will work on are webcams and drones

>>4304598
anything over 10fps with a mechanical shutter is overkill. high speed eshutter shooting a great way to fill your cards with practically identical photos with occasional banding and distortion problems and is mostly a cope for people with shitty AF systems and no skill.

>>4304592
but I don't want a canon overrated shit I want an Olympus

>>4304605
>I don't want something actually good, I want overrated shit from a failed company that went out of the camera business and sold their brand to an investment firm because they couldn't compete with shitters like fuji for market share
The Canon 90d is the second best DSLR ever made (after the Nikon D850). Put a 100-400 L IS II USM on that bad boy and out-bird all your micro fool turds using friends.

>>4304607
also at 160-640mm f7.2-f9 ff equivalent, equivalently faster than everything 600mmish on m43 except for a $3000 300mm f4 (=600mm f8) prime, the closest mft lenses are like 200-600 f8-11 equivalents lol

>>4304610
Whatever you can do on aps-c is always going to be better than m43 unless your name is camera conspiracies and your 4k120 needs to be uncropped all-i 4:2:2 for youtube

>>4304598
>800mm of reach for eight grand
Isn't the 100-400 $1000? Panasonic has one too. Or the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC which looks great and provides 840mm equivalent, or even the new stupid 360-1200mm equivalent is less than 3k.
>Flimsy plastic
It's a metal body, the OM-5 is plastic. Never saw anyone complain about AF either. I don't get all the /pee/ hate, it's a very usable system with lots of options for lenses. Like any camera and system it has tradeoffs.

>>4304640
That would be true if any brand took their APS-C lines seriously. If Nikon released a rugged metal weather sealed DX Z body I would be all over that, but their current DXs are shit.

>>4304607
>DSLR
just die already old man

>>4304643
Braindead zOMbie.

>>4304642
>Uhhh the mirrorless tho?
DSLRs are better.

>>4304641
Olympus has a $8000 150-400 f4.5 (300-800 f9 lol), and a $1300 100-400 f5-6.3 (200-800 f10-12.6). An absolute joke. All of these things do a worse job than just slapping a 100-400 on a 90d with its finer pixel pitch.

You've never seen anyone complain because mft is a cult. The complainers leave for greener pastures, ie: the joy of reflex, fujilarp for weak hands, niggon for being a rich mcmansion liver with money to blow, ASAP

>>4304650
Does a 90D have IBIS or wildlife detect AF? Does it have zero blackout shooting? Even with Lolympus you nearly always get what you pay for.

>>4304667
Nat geo’s best photographs were made with neither of those and its been downhill since the snoys so its safe to say they are actually making your photography worse.

>>4304598
Do this or go get an R7 + RF 100-500 if you've got a lot of money. You've now beaten the OM-1 plus Olympus 150-400 lens.

>>4304676
not just possible but plausible

gimmicks lend themselves towards "tough shot mania" but the tough shots aren't necessarily artistically good
>its an eagle flying, shot wide open, in front of trees! can your autofocus do THIS? i shot this at 40fps so I could choose the perfect wing position and everything! and we're not even to the herons catching fish yet
>yeah we've seen those, last year, from someone else
>BUT CAN YOUR AUTOFOCUS SYSTEM AND E-SHUTTER BURST RATE DO THIS?

>>4304592
>1.6x
king of crop/cope more like

>>4304718
That honour belongs to Foveon X3

>>4304605
>>4304607

Yeah but APS-C DSLRs are made to be as cheap and shit as possible. Even the 7d and the 6d aren't made very well. 90D has a shutter lifespan of like 30,000 lol. The 16mp olympus sensor isn't great, but all of the 20mp ones will mog the 90D. Plus weather sealed and non-spiteful build quality. Not to mention decent EF lenses are still way more expensive than decent m43 lenses. And EF lenses are a minefield, about 60% of them are waste of money garbage. I get better IQ out of my em1 than I do out of any of my 5D's and I have all four of them (not the 5dsr though)

>>4304802
>cultist post

>>4304804
I mean I love Olympus cameras, but I also love Canon cameras. Some canon cameras are amazing. If he had said get a 5d 1, 2 or 3, as those are probably similar prices to an EM1 mk1 or 2 I would probably say go for the 5D. However, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like a 90D is a good choice for anyone beyond a classroom getting cameras for their students or a really casual shooter. It's just not true

>>4304802
>Even the 7d and the 6d aren't made very well
You could tell that from the AF array and the X-sync speed.

>>4304802
>non-spiteful build quality.
When are they gonna bring back the metal E-M5?

>>4305151
I know right, the mark 2 will always be my fave. So weighty and the last one to keep that metal tripod mount. Worth giving up 4 megapickles for i reckon

>>4304585
yo yo yo

>>4306684
stop bumping your shitty gear threads that should've gone in sqt. there's nothing to discuss further

>>4304718
kek