Even Panasoynic doesn't want to use their own cameras. Embarrassing.
>>4331663Panatrannies, our response?
>>4331667S9 suks
>>4331667Just be glad that they used Nikon instead of Sony. Would be very bad rep to use the main competitor.
>>4331667We aren't using the S9 so we don't really care
>>4331669>>4331670>>4331680Panacopium
>>4331682>t. nophoto snoy
>>4331667Stills are for faggots
>>4331663The lumix s9 does not even have a shutterIt physically could not take most of the demo photos with a flash sync speed of 1/15
Don't care still buying a gx9iiOh wait :^D
>>4331669>>4331680>>4331744it was for their whole lineup thoughhttps://panasonic.jp/dc/info/20240627.html
>>4331973please understand they merely used professional photographyfuture marketing images will be crowdsourced from youtubers
>>4331973Do you think other brands doesn't use stock imaging?
>>4331663>outsource website to pajeets>get shat oncan't defend them here
>>4332058Then prove it and redeem your brand
>>4332100But enough about sony
>>4332104sony's so far on the opposite side of the spectrum that it might as well be autofellatio
>>4332058Nikon and fuji definitely dont. Their color science is real obvious. >>4332118If these arent sony colors why did the photographer make the skin tones so drab?>>4331998>it wasnt shot on panasoi because it was shot by professionalsKEK
>>4332135>colorscienceEver heard of post processing?Retard
>>4332169the "raws dont have color" myth is stupid. before all camera reviews were just platforms for shilling useless fucking wildlifevideosports crutches that somehow, national geographic and summer olympics photographers had their best years without (and STILL dont fucking use, it's DSLRs everywhere), one of the review points was actually the metameric error and spectral response of the sensors CFA. and people used to know that, and care that, all lenses have a color cast. if you know dick about how light works (8th grade science bro) it all makes perfect sense but nooooo this new generation of gearfags only knows "DR charts" (that somehow dont correspond to actual dynamic range), rolling shutter, FPS, and codecs. they dont care about the things that actually affect the final image instead of their total absence of skill and internet brand wars. to this new generation of geeks every camera shoots perfect raws which are unbiased 1:1 copies of reality.reality could not be farther from the truth. every camera+lens combo mangles reality, especially colors, beyond recognition in a way your editing cant fix. you can't edit your way different filter spectra. that's actual photography stuff, the color of light.
>>4332215Only real artists like cinematographers still care about lens color castPhotography is muh sharpness chart vs muh made up 3d poops and vsco filters
>>4331663yes they are horrible, sell them now
>>4332394no
Is this a good price since this is the panatranny thread
>>4336715>following thread>still wanting to throw money at panasnoynic anywayYou’re beyond help.
>>4336715>making fun of panasoynic users>with these in the status barholy amerifat
>>4336720yes I forgot to crop them out but yes I'm looking for a camera for my cheap Jew fuck ass and everything is either a scam or 10% off new retail after the guy bought it 4 years ago>>4336716I have a line on a Sony A7 III, unknown shutter count for $350 too.
>>4336745If that's an ebay listing and the seller has a low feedback count or no activity for years you are buying into a same zipcode shipping scam
>>4336758No it's Facebook Marketplace. Giving third worlders internet access is a fucking cardinal sin and if you don't believe me try to find a used Sony Alpha camera. Every other ad will resemble pic related or some equally stupid sob story like a dead son that thirdies think work on stupid fuck boomers.The worst part is that they're not even jeets. They're fucking indogs or pinoys.I also found almost new inbox Lumix G7 with the 14-42 lens kit for $375. If the A7 doesn't work I might check that out. The Lumix ads are actually real people because no one fucking wants a Panasonic kek
>>4336769That ad description doesn't seem that bad.I'd hardly call it a "sob story".
>>4336780Now repeat this same syntax and similar message across 20 other ads, almost always with area codes from outside of the area, and sometimes instead it's "son had a fatal accident/coma" or some other bs. And then refusing to ship even though they're next door to you.I'm actually feeling like I'm going about it the wrong way, I might be better off taking the subway into the city after work and finger fucking Adorama/B&H's used selection. Their prices are surprisingly reasonable.I actually don't know anything about the Lumix/M43 cameras. Was looking at a refurb R50 earlier for $600 but I honestly wanna spend the least amount in case it's a fading hobby and I lose interest
>>4336786>almost always with area codes from outside of the areaThat's just called being smart.I never got any spam coming to my phone by choosing an area code that I don't do business in.>Do you want to sell it for anyone elseWhat does that even mean?Do you want to buy it before anyone else?Did you actually call him a benchod? >Was looking at a refurb R50 earlier for $600 but I honestly wanna spend the least amount in case it's a fading hobby and I lose interestWhy not just buy a $30 DSLR then?
>>4336789>Being smartNo, trust me, it's literally all by accounts that are under a year old. And you could simply not put your phone number in the ad and use messenger 100%. Look for a A7 on Marketplace if you don't believe me.He was insisting I put a deposit down even though it's literally 10 mins away and I realized he was indog when I then insulted him in indo. I was expecting jeet, a jeet wouldnt have let being called a chamar alone.>$30 DSLRehhh I guess. It's really replacing a Motorola cellphone for photos.
>>4336791>trust me, it's literally all by accounts that are under a year oldI'm not doubting you; I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons for your phone's area code to not match the location.>I then insulted him in indoHow'd you do that?>It's really replacing a Motorola cellphone for photosThen it'll be great for it.I can also all, but guarantee that no Pajeets or Indonesians will be selling a Canon 20D regardless of the venue.
What is the argument for choosing a M43 sensor camera over a APSC or Full Frame sensor camera? The M43 cameras all seem worse in terms of specs and the crazy part is that I can't find any real justification for the cost/performance of those cameras. I'm looking to do sports photography and apparently the M43 cameras are better due to the smaller sensor allowing for better long distance shots (more zoom) but its outweighed by the older software and worse autofocus, making them great for wildlife/birding but not for stuff that's moving fast.
>>4337053>making them great for wildlife/birding but not for stuff that's moving fastWhat did he mean by this?
>>4337053M43's advantages are size, weight, and cost. And not even those really anymore. M43 is by no means recommended for any semi-professional or above photography. If you bought an M43 5-10 years ago and built up a collection you still have a very decent setup, but these days better options exist. Olympus autofocus isn't that bad for instance, but Canon's is basically top of the line as an example.The thing about wildlife is that you're cosntantly fighting bad lighting, so the bigger the sensor the better, since you'll often find yourself turning the ISO up and smaller sensors produce more noise per ISO stop (in general). I would advise for an APS-C camera at least, and you still get a 1.5x* focal multiplier instead of M43's 2x. *Canon is 1.6x.>smaller sensor allowing for better long distance shotsErrrrrr..... sort of. Look into what a crop factor is. Most M43 cameras top out at 20MP or 16MP which is fine for the sensor size, but APS-C and FF go way past that. Sure, you don't get as much "effective zoom", but you'd achieve the same sort of artifical zoom by shooting with APS-C and cropping further, except as long as the MP is 24 or higher, you're still getting better pixel density even after cropping. There's actual calculators and charts you can use to compare and my math might be a bit off.>older softwareDoesn't matter that much. Might be lacking features like focus peaking or HDR modes but that's either only if you go pre-2012 or just buy something really shit.
>>4337694Ironically, I'd actually argue that pro wildlife photographers have more latitude with gear and could make good use of M43 gear, but hobbyists would struggle more. In addition to just competence, pros will wait hours and days for the right conditions. Fieldcraft goes a very, very long way to compensate for bad gear. A shot with bad lighting could look acceptable on FF but never great, so it'd likely be discarded either way. Pros also cope less with bokeh and pick and choose backgrounds that give their subject a sense of place. There are tons of natgeo wildlife photos where everything is nearly or entirely in focus. A lens review would call it "busy bokeh and poor background blur". You'll also see wider angle lenses used more frequently for similar reasons.
>>4337710Couldn't agree more with your point about lack of background blur. People jerk off like it's the be all and end all, but in reality it's just an easy cope to make your background less distracting. If you compose the shot well and purposefully choose a good backdrop for your subject, it's not a huge deal. Gotta think, some popular wildlife lens choices are huge, long and look like my d- have a very slow aperture of like f/8.
>>4337694>M43's advantages are size, weight, and costAnd none of these are freeTo be smaller and lighter, you must use much smaller apertures, "equivalently". The harsh truth about equivalence is 90% of the time, there is so much light that larger sensors do not "have" to shoot equivalently, they can use a lower and lower ISO while m43 bottoms out at the noise of FF ISO 400. There are also things that "equivalence" does not cover, like sampling rate, photosite size, and the rendering differences of different focal lengths regardless of sensor FOV. These things mean that even with the (measured) ISO and DOF roughly equalized (measured is important, otherwise your m43 will be underexposed at labeled equivalence and do even worse), the larger format will still look different. To most people, subjectively better.And the inherent crop sensor issue: putting smaller and smaller pixels on an image circle eventually demands unrealistic levels of sharpness. High MP FF can cope because the imaging area is huge and you can throw some of the flaws away downscaling (but not all, if 61mp reveals ie: coma that 24mp would not, it's not going away easily). Crop sensors can not. If you want anything even CLOSE to the "look" achieved by cheap shit like a cheapo sony a7mk1 and a cheapo fe 85mm f1.8, you actually need to spend more.>>4337712The equivalence bokeh gap isn't huge for how blurry the background is. f6 to f12 on a bird photo? its fucking nothing, everything that isnt the bird will still be blur. However, the two stops of ISO absolutely wrecks color and detail and will leave you AI coping.Here's 56mm f1.2 vs f2.8 bokeh on aps-c. The actual blurriness is not that different. The background is still soup.The CHARACTER of the bokeh is more important. Some lenses have hard edged OOF highlights (vintage primes), other double images in the OOF area (many m43 zooms do this). Larger formats typically have better bokeh character for less $$$.
>>4337719And to round it all off, if you want to approximate the camera body performance and lens rendering quality you can get on aps-c/ff mirrorless these days, m43 often comes out to being as expensive or somehow MORE expensive especially for focal lengths under 600mm (in terms of FF FOV) - and about the same weight, in "normal healthy man" terms of what amount of weight is perceptible.m43 made a ton of sense back when a larger sensor undoubtedly meant a DSLR, fujifilm, or a first/second gen sony. No other mirrorless cameras were weather sealed or had so many features, let alone video features. Bigger sensor meant DSLR. The camera body alone was as large as the m43 camera+lens. You actually could not get anything close to the same size. This has not been true for ages and now people are waking up to weather sealing not fucking mattering (because even the IP ratings basically say "it doesnt actually work, you idiots are slowly killing your cameras lol thank you for guaranteeing you will buy new gear not like you wouldnt anyways AHAHAHAHA" -olympus, canon, pentax, and nikon) hence fuji's growing salesNow m43 turds who once bragged about saving entire pounds over comparable quality FF DSLR kits (which did not even have IBIS, only lens IS on bazooka lenses), cope about "gram" amounts equal to 1/2 pound or less. Basically all it's good for these days is getting flagship FF video-like specs for cheap, at the cost of a huge quality hit and truly fast lenses just not being an option, neither of which really matter that much for video because nobody is printing their motion blurred 4k frame 5 feet wide and staring at it.
>>4337719>>4337720tldr:dont try and buy your way into m43 being "just as good", because it just isn't, if you want a good stills camera, buy a good stills camera. at their best these shitters are good camcorders.if you just want something that is a step above a PNS in the sony rx100/rx10 class, then buy older models and keep it cheap, it's not going to get much better for less than aps-c money.
>>4331663I bought a Lumix DMC-G3. Worst waste of money I had ever blown. Wouldn't maintain exposure across the frame (therefore couldn't stitch), the filed was not flat, the focus was different across the frame (using different lenses even)... Never a Panasonic ever again.
>>4337746>wouldnt maintain exposureyou had to configured a different ae-l button because idiot m43 designers think anything not FF MILC sized needs to be ergonomically ruined>field was not flatsensor size problem because it's all wide angle lenses until 100mm eq fov and diffracts at f5.6 so you can't entirely flatten out the field of focus>focus was different across the framesame issue as above, cheap wider lenses have more field curvature
>>4337748>had to configuredtyping moar gud is hard when you're 4channing when you're meant to be working
>>4337719>>4337720So at this point it sounds like M43 cameras are not worth it unless you buy it at a stupid low price, and for the most part it's a dead platform unless you want to take advantage of the 2x focal lens range you can get from the smaller sensor (less lens needed for the same zoom). And that nearly always a 5 year old mirrorless or late model DSLR will give dramatically better results if size isn't a concern because the sensors are bigger and the software/features caught up.I was asking about the GX85 earlier, and I also found a few G100s for $4-500, but I think I'll just keep looking for a used Z30/D7500/D5600. I found a Pentax KF for $500 with a 15-45 lens, but I want something with phone connectivity so I'm on the fence.
>m43 raped my dog!Do you even read the shit you write
>>4337760Yeah it’s shit unless you are bigger on birds and macro than anything else, do camera scanning, and tolerate lower stills quality, and have a low budget. Then the em5/em1 is the best ever!Otherwise r7/a6700/xt4-5 MOGS this shit hard and used ff is not much more and even better except for gram counting sisses>>4337764Why are you mfturds so obsessed with dog rape? You make closet gay homophobes look less insecure. Dont act like i didnt see yall saying shit about huskies based on all the dog porn you watched lol!
>>4337764>>m43 raped my dog!nah, we got a dog rapist on this board, but he's FF.
>>43377854x5 you mean
>>4337768because mfoolturds is a system for poors, and there's a lot of overlap between porn-brained shut ins, and poverty. same reason that people who take photos of the anime dolls they "hot glue" are always gonna be using m43 or an ultra low budget dslr, and darktable. poverty and perversion go hand in hand.
>>4337748You have no idea what you're talking about.The exposure was different across the frame, not different images. Same with focus, and for the absurd price Panicson charged for that piece piece of crap, the lens that came wit it should at least work. Also, much of this was discovered doing astrophotography. You rubes that think a pretty landscape makes you think the tolerances in your equipment are fine. As for lenses, I'm talking also about exposures through telescopes and T-adapters that my other cameras are just fine imaging correctly.Lumix is crap.. *Expensive* crap. Period.
>>4337813It must have been broken, which is common for anything made by panasonic. Random models have shutter/ibis/port/circuit board failures. Even the TVs don't stay functional. It's a joke.
>>4337838>P-panasonic sodomized my cat!
>>4337838>common for anything made by panasonicTrue dat. I posted about this on a normie photo board and someone else said they had the same experience. Defective or normal? Can't say. It's shit,either way.
>>4337849Panasonic is like sony. They make junk. If you give them enough money your junk will have some pointless premium feature and last a whole five years. But it’s junk all the same.
>>4337849Anusonic can't even make a functioning microwave let alone a camera>S series cameras sucking down their batteries while sitting idle
