>>4332502
I like mine because it was cheap and I got it before the weird shitpost craze about it.
> this body is much better built than the following em5's, with a metal body instead of plastic.
It's not a huge difference with the body itself, yeah the 5.3 feels and is cheaper but the 5.2 is mostly just heavy. That said it's neat in an autistic way to have a camera that you can physically see is made out of a couple solid chunks of well fit-together metal, and more importantly the 5.3 (and OM-5) are notorious for the tripod mount on the bottom cracking because the plastic bottom plate is barely reinforced. 5.2s can have issues with the power switch being faulty or the battery door not closing right but that's a scotch-tape fix and a lot less bad than the bottom of the camera coming off.
>I like it's size and form factor
It's smaller than it looks in photos and videos. You'll almost certainly end up getting a grip for it, either a chintsy metal one or an overpriced Olympus one off eBay.
>in case of inclement weather
Don't trust it unless you also have a weather sealed lens (most of them aren't, the cheapest decent one you'll find is probably the 12-40 or 12-45 Pro lenses- Panasonic weather sealed lenses won't actually seal 100% to the body because the "M43 co-operative" turned out to be a fucking sham). That said every ingress point around the camera that I've found has pretty decent rubber gaskets.
>I'm trusting you mtf faggots,
>trusting 4chan
>never
I'm an amateur nophoto with nothing worth posting so take my advice or don't. Honestly I'd say save a little more and get an EM-1 MkII, it's the better camera all around- the newer 20MP sensor, black magic IBIS, ergonomic as hell in the hand, not appreciably larger or heavier than the E-M5, has the neat newer features like pro capture, three proper custom settings on the PASM dial instead of MySet kludge, and the last of the bodies where Olympus gave a shit before going into plastic hell and then getting bought out.

Ayh, after having tried many camera sistems, have positively concluded that the micro-four-thirds sistem offers the best balanse of image quality, portabiliy and easr-of-use.

>>4332502
Good choice. When I was in mft I shot Lumix instead, actually, but only because I was interested in the video side, too.
I have nothing bad to say about Lumix cameras and Olympus cameras seemed to generally give a better experience if photography was your primary focus. I was always kind of envious of their design and their lenses seemed a step up unless you were shelling out for Panny-Leica lenses (which I'd reckon are competitive, rather than meaningfully better or worse than the Olympus PRO lenses).
If I were to buy an mft camera again, I'd probably get one of the cameras from OM System.
I'd recommend them any day.

>>4332510
>the "M43 co-operative" turned out to be a fucking sham
Ayh understand that the L-mount allianse is worse.
Also, Ayh believe that the original E-M5 had a seal problem with the battery-grip. Ayh say this for information purposes only.

>>4332515
Yeah, the PanaLeica lenses are pretty much equal to certain Oly lenses, but sometimes it's the older Premium lenses, not the PRO line- e.g. the PL 15 1.7's competitor is the Olympus 17 1.8, not the Oly 17 1.2 Pro. For zoom lenses it's the Oly Pro line versus the Lumix G VARIO line with only one real competitor from PL (most of the PL zooms don't even have fixed aperture but still want Leica prices); the only combo you shouldn't do is non-stabilized Olympus lenses on Panasonic bodies that don't have in body IS which is most of them. Other than that it's down to which direction you want your zoom ring to turn because again there was no agreed upon standard so Olympus zoom in counter-clockwise while Panasonic do so clockwise. There is no God.

>>4332510
>It's smaller than it looks in photos and videos
It's about the same size as an x-t1 and my film camera is about the same size and has the same lack of grip, and it doesn't bother me for the lenses I have/use. and I plan on getting similar sized lenses.

>em1ii
Has the same issue to me as the g9, with it's larger grip, it just makes it a lot less discrete. But we'll see, if I like the em5 except I'm having grip issues I'll see about exchanging it.
>20mp sensor
Doesn't matter to me, I think 20 is overkill for what I do.

>Don't trust it unless you also have a weather sealed lens
Okay, I'll just treat it as unsealed then until/if I grab a pro lens.

>>4332523
> the only combo you shouldn't do is non-stabilized Olympus lenses on Panasonic bodies that don't have in body IS which is most of them.
But most Panasonic cameras do have IBIS? Unless we're talking about super old cameras, only a handful don't have IBIS. You're like seriously 7 years behind on this. The GH5s didn't have IBIS, but that one's specialized for low-light video, and the G100 is meant to be budget and compact. Those are the only two cameras I can see someone buying in 2024 that don't have IBIS.
It's also not that big of a deal. I used a lot of non-IBIS primes on my G100 when I first got into photography, and my current cameras don't have IBIS either and most of my lenses don't have OIS.
> (most of the PL zooms don't even have fixed aperture but still want Leica prices)
FWIW Leica themselves aren't really into constant aperture zooms. The L mounts they sell, I think they Leica'd the Sigma f/2.8's to give into customer demand rather than their own initiative.
The "True Leica" zooms are all variable aperture and not particularly fast. The Leica engineers in a german interview said something about constant aperture zooms are kind of a marketing gimmick and has a lot of compromises in design they loathe to take.
So yeah, only a handful of lenses get Leica's name on it with constant aperture zooming.

Regardless, they all are, IMO, pretty competitive for their prices depending on your preferences.

>>4332510
E-M1 Mark III and EM1X are also pre-sell out and well built as hell. The OM-1 is technically well built, but it feels cheaper.

>>4332534
>You're like seriously 7 years behind on this.
that's relevant considering the camera in the OP is NINE years behind

I own a few rangefinder style Olympii and a modern Canon. Canon comes out at night / super demanding situations like telephoto, astro, wildlife etc.

Street, outings, daily carry, and long trips get my M43. The weight difference is minimal, but the form factor is what gets me. The difference in cost is also great in case I damage or lose it since I won't be out $1500+

I think M43 still has a place but purely because Canon are faggots and don't put IBIS in their lighter mirrorless bodies

I wish.my em5ii had a bigger grip. Its fantastic for small prime lenses though. Essentially if you are thinking about an em1, think about what subjects you want to shoot and what lens you will mostly use. This should determine if you need the bigger grip or not. Ive not held a em5 iii but that extra grip looks kinda neat. If you are ok with getting those third party grips its quite alright though. Note also that the batteries of the em5 ii are now discontinued and you will either have to buy used originals or third party batteries that are unreliable. A battery can last me around half a day of shooting and I get by with a total of 2. The em1's have substantially larger batteries, but do check which are still being sold by OM. It could be a factor going forward and imo a reason to choose a newer model, like an em5iii, where you are not relying on used, batteries that are 60-70% capacity or lower. That said, I really like the small form factor, it makes for some fun shooting, which you may not have with an em1(never held one though). If you find a plastic em5 iii in good condition and in your price range, I would not hesitate to choose it over a ii, for the reasons I mentioned, unless all you value is the metal body.

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

1.91 MB JPG

>>4332502
m43 is shit
you'll sell that POS anyway after a few weeks
just save yourself the trouble and get a real camera

[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

>>4332646
M43 is like 90% obsolete, but they're fun designs and still generally smaller options.
Yes, there are better purchases but cunts are selling M43 bodies for cheap and if anon has fun, who cares if it's only 20MP and 4:3 sensor?

File: 1654307042019.jpg (91 KB, 488x516)

91 KB JPG

>lol op didn't buy at least a canon 5D or Medium Format
>lol op didnt buy a film camera
>lol op didn't buy snow
>lol op bought dead mount

>>4332681
unless you buy the top end $2500 body you get tech and UI that's 15 years old. using a OM-5 is like taking a time machine back to 2009 when it comes to usability and AF performance

>>4332693
Oh yeah, you make good points. As long as it isn't some autistic screecher going "REEEE M43 BAD".

>>>4332502
Please don't buy a super expensive M43. If you want M43 buy a cheap used one. Or better yet buy a Canon R10/R7. Basically what M43 was supposed to be except you get magic canon tech and two incredible lens systems (EF/RF)

>>4332681
>having fun
not allowed

>>4332693
>using a OM-5 is like taking a time machine back to 2009 when it comes to usability and AF performance
That sounds pretty based to me, also imagine playing with menus when you can simple put it on aperture priority and snap away.

>>4332502
>mtf
>male to female faggots
been laughing for a couple minutes over this, ty OP

It'll be a fun experience, I enjoy my gx85 (especially the used price shooting up after it got discontinued hehe) even though obviously bigger + newer sensor = better quality pictures all else being the same

File: 1680551731668304.gif (7 KB, 113x113)

7 KB GIF

>>4332518
>Ayh

I'm fuckin sorry, try again?

>>4332646
How the fuck do u always miss focus hahahaha

File: Untitled1614.jpg (248 KB, 1000x637)

248 KB JPG

>>4332502
Buy m 4/3 because it's the best camera to take pictures of rocks and leaves, it's light and small perfect for inanimate objects shooting sessions.

File: StupidBlindFaggotYouAreFu(...).png (518 KB, 605x804)

518 KB PNG

>>4332801
NTA but get your vision checked

>>4332863
>nta
Go back to plebbit. Also you can clearly see he focused on the sky but you're so much of an NPC that you trust software over your own eyes and brain.

>>4332867
here it means "not that anon", newfriend

>>4332867
lmfao blind newfaggot

>>4332877
>this is what the plebbit talk means here
Go back.

>>4332889
>sees blurry tree branches
>thinks the tree is in focus
All of the branches facing toward the camera (IE the most prominent ones) are out of the focal plane. He should have stopped down.

Look at the base of the tree. See how close to the camera it actually is? It's right at the bottom of the frame. Look at the grass all around it and along the entire bottom of the frame and beyond, just past the fence. All out of focus. The only part of the tree that's somewhat in focus is the backside, which is mostly obscured. Focus begins in the middle of that field.

>>4332900
Lot of words to say
>i'm blind
sad

>>4332902
It's never been more obvious that someone is on a phone, kek. Get a PC.

This shit flinging is top class

>>4332913
Relatively amateurish for this place actually

>>4332903
Why yes, I took a screenshot of focus peaking in darktable on my phone
Blind retard lol
Wrong on two counts now

>>4332918
3 counts*
Forgot you exposed yourself as a newfag redditor as well lel

File: P3097662.jpg (1.15 MB, 1944x2592)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4332921
dude, get help

[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	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Subject Distance	0.69 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Image Width	1944
Image Height	2592
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4332863
NTA but RTFM.

https://docs.darktable.org/usermanual/4.6/en/module-reference/utility-modules/shared/focus-peaking/

>Additionally, as it uses local contrast to detect sharpness, it will also highlight the edges of dark objects against bright backgrounds

>>4332926
Nobody here reads. You just skim shit for the first example that proves you are correct then ignore the other parts

>>4332510
>the weird shitpost craze about it
What's that?

>>4332518
>the L-mount allianse is worse
In what way?
IS?

>>4332681
>who cares if it's only 20MP and 4:3 sensor?
I care that more cameras aren't a 4:3 aspect ratio.

>>4332863
>StupidBlindFaggotYouAreFullOfShit.png
>NTA
>Needs software to hugbox him for his obviously missed focus
>Doesn't understand how the software works in the slightest
Come on now

File: P2220013_03.jpg (4.85 MB, 5155x3987)

4.85 MB JPG

>>4332502
If you get it for really cheap, like a hundred bucks or something you'd probably be really happy with it, but if you buy it for "standard" market price you'd probably wish you'd just gotten something with a more potent sensor

The good:
>Weighty metal body, has the metal tripod mount which all the later models don't have, weather sealed too.
>Some fun cheap lenses, the folding kit zooms by both olympus and lumix are pretty cool, obviously not that bright but reasonably sharp and its a fun gimmick.
>Can adapt basically anything to it bar modern mirrorless lenses from other systems, obviously there will be a crop factor. If you're going to go full frame for this money youd probably end up with a DSLR which will probably rule out FD Canon lenses and a couple other mounts.
>Controls are great, highly configurable, basically if you have an idea for a button to do something on the camera, there is probably a menu for it somewhere to set it. Also very nice tactile metal dials.
>EVF is honestly really solid given its age
>Really little, like the size of an OM1 or even a bit smaller. Has all the right looks too IMO
>Mechanical shutter is very soft sounding and quiet, doesnt sound like any other shutter ive heard, closest way I can describe it is a 5D mk2 on liveview but softer
>Being a "le retro" looking thingy, chicks like them, if you have a gf she would probably enjoy shooting with it, mine did enough for me to buy her her own one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Camera Software	darktable 4.2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Color Filter Array Pattern	13914
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:02:23 12:12:34
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5155
Image Height	3987
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4333106
The bad
>The sensor is just average, the 16MP m43 sensor will not astound you, maybe it will if you use some really expensive pro oly glass, but most likely not. Was the last EM5 to use that sensor before they switched to the 20MP which is just better in every way. It's not dogshit by any means, its just not what you buy this camera for.
>Has the older Olympus IBIS system, was also the last one to get this before they updated to their new one that gives like 55 stops of parkinsons reduction
>Definitely will be too small for some people. Even taylor had to step up to an EM1 cus of her giant ogre fists
>the olympus and lumix m43 lenses are almost certainly destined to be e-waste in the future, most of them wont even cover APS-C and being a mirrorless lens there probably wont be that many cameras made with flange distances short enough to make an AF adapter. Your only hope is that lumix or olympus keep this sunk cost fallacy alive

>t. owns 2 of these and a heap more olympus ewaste

>>4333107
I imagine you also have the displeasure of owning the first gen 12MP m43s. Not terrible for the time but boy does it show these days.

File: P2230139 (2).jpg (1.62 MB, 4056x3040)

1.62 MB JPG

>>4333115
Yeah man. I really like the sensor but the cameras they're in are so fragile. All of those early pens (and some of the later ones too) just seem to suffer breakages like nothing else, most typically in the form of dodgy contacts between buttons or dials. Never had any of those issues with the OM-D cameras.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Olympus
Camera Model	E-PM1
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2023:02:23 20:08:58
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4333121
Hmmm, fuck me I guess I'm lucky. Have a E-LP2 that's basically mint, an E-P1 that's been dropped and scuffed but nothing major wrong with it, and an E-LP7 that I've had to replace the screen hinge on after like 6 years of use but that's about it.

File: P7030599.jpg (2.31 MB, 4032x2688)

2.31 MB JPG

>>4333125
>don't want to be a filthy nophoto

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL2
Camera Software	Version 1.4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:03 15:12:37
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	42.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	2688
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>4332922
OOF! OOF!!1! (out of focus)
>>4332926
>>4333101
ok blindfags I don't *see* why you picked up photography as a "hobby" but enjoy!

>>4333125
>>4333126
Yeah that's pretty luck, or maybe ive just been really unlucky. Ive owned 4 different pen cameras and every single one has had something wrong with them.

>>4333134
afaik the minis were dogshit but I also don't know why you'd buy one over the L's.

>>4333152
Was cheap, basically just fell into my lap. Also have an EP1 and a EPL8

>>4332926
>Dear Diary, today I learned how focus peaking works and felt the need to share with the rest of the world

>>4333159
Are we faggots for enjoying our pens? I think we are. I don't think I've ever seen anyone legitimately enjoy owning a pen series on this board

File: IMG_4383.jpg (744 KB, 4032x3024)

744 KB JPG

>>4333163
Every Pen I've ever bought was from a white girl who used it once. Their demographics for retail purchases must be at least 80% women. And I am a faggot in the regular sense of the word so I don't the the Pen has any effect on that for me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4333165
Why would it have an effect on any man?

>>4333165
> I am a faggot in the regular sense of the word
More like every sense of the word, why would you admit to such sexual deviancy on a photography forum?
>>>lgbt
Disgusting, keep your sexual fetishes in your containment board tyvm

>>4333171
I don't know, some guys give a lot thought to whether or not what they're currently doing is faggy or not. Same reason why some people just will not enjoy a miata.

>>4333173
Do you think if I raped you you would catch it? Like you would become gay?

File: 1652148074685.gif (1.31 MB, 255x234)

1.31 MB GIF

>>4333165
Noice.

File: boris.png (517 KB, 562x593)

517 KB PNG

>>4333173
Oh fuck, it turns out you can't suck dick AND take photos. One or the other fellas.

Hello M43 sisters I have a question for you, I do have a OM-5 that I love using and old as shit Panasonic GF6 that I just throw in my bag for whatever but its really showing its age, what Pen camera would be a good replacement for it? IBIS would be nice but not necessary, I just use the GF6 as a second camera when I am out shooting film.

>>4333176
>some guys give a lot thought to whether or not what they're currently doing is faggy or not
Self appraisal is a necessary part of ensuring our personal well-being.

>Do you think if I raped you you would catch it?
So how did you contract the gay?

>>4333176
That IS how fags reproduce so probably that and AIDS
>>4333178
This is a board for discussing photography not literal faggotry

Hey everyone look how straight I am! I enjoy vagina sooo~~~ much!
Again nothing to do with photography at all, but you fags just can't help sticking yourselves where you don't belong

>>4333184
you talk about fags more than anyone i know :3

>>4333179
Any Pen after and including the E-PL7, as that's when they went up from 12MP to 16MP. The 12MP ones are fine for the time but I wouldn't buy one these days. Avoid anything with M in the name like E-M1 as they're the even further trimmed down versions. Afaik all Olympus Pen cameras have IBIS but they developed a better system at some point and I don't know what line was the last with the older style. The GF6 was from like what... 2014?

>>4333184
Fuckin hell you're insufferablk8240e. The guy mentioned it offhandlishly after I called myself a faggot, and you've done nothing but talk about it for the last thirty minutes of your life.

>>4333184
dont lie youve never touched a woman

>>4333192
Just keep it to yourself homo
Talk about photography, not how you enjoy poop on your dick lmao

>>4333195
>Y-you can't use those words or i'll get horrendously upset and you'll ruin my day
>Y-you need to sensor yourself for my own wellbeing!!!
dude shut up ahaha you sound like a snowflake hahaha

>>4333195
>you enjoy poop on your dick lmao
Maybe he's the kind that enjoys putting poop on dicks.

>>4332502
Its a low budget film scanner, that's why /p/ is obsessed with it. The pixel shift mode is borderline useless IRL but good for scanning film since the 4:5 ratio loses less resolution on medium format and any sharpness issues translate to the grain looking a bit more analog at 63mp, which is pretty close to the useful resolution of 6x7 film.

Outside of that, you're only a few hundred off from buying a nicer camera that's still small (sony, fuji)

File: 1668659903391113.gif (125 KB, 720x480)

125 KB GIF

>>4333195
>>4333201
You guys.... you guys realise faggot is thrown around as an insult everywhere on this site right? That fact hasn't been lost upon you? Like right now I'm going to call you both a Jew but I'm not going to fuck around for an hour asking for you to post your drivers licence's. Faggots.

>>4333214
What does a drivers' license have to do with being a Jew?
Do they print a six pointed star on it if you are?

File: P1500202.jpg (2.69 MB, 4594x3448)

2.69 MB JPG

>>4333200
Btw I enjoy straight consensual sex (man and woman aka male and female) for the biological purpose of procreation (just thought I'd casually throw it out there because that's what normal people do)
Homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population that the rest of us normal people are hardcoded to feel nothing but disgust and derision towards you freaks
If you don't like it don't bring it up
>>4333201
that's true I didn't think of that because notgaylol

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 7.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:05 08:46:39
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4594
Image Height	3448

>>4333214
No shit, the homosexual specifically acknowledged that before stating he is a fag in the gayest sense
Learn 2 read, I'll repost it again just for you to understand
>I am a faggot in the regular sense of the word

File: 1707252971973252.gif (422 KB, 603x602)

422 KB GIF

>>4333218
you sound like youre enjoying this discussion a little bit too much friend

File: use_your_eyes.jpg (22 KB, 279x357)

22 KB JPG

>>4333002
>>4333131
>>4333161
Don't get mad just because you didn't know something basic and wound up looking like a fool. Instead, learn gracefully. You were provided with a resource to prevent such things in the future.

Contrast-detection is ancient and how babby AF has worked for decades, which is why I am such a proponent of manual focus. Now stop trying to win a retarded argument by blindly trusting software and just look at the photo instead. Have you never used an optical viewfinder or manual focus before in your life?

>>4333325
>shifts goalposts
lmao allow me to reiterate:
1. you are blind
2. you are a faggot

>>4333347

>shifts goalposts
You can't just say this lmao. Are you esl? It actually means something. He's right it's just detecting the contrast against the sky, and he's someone who would know about shooting things in trees

>>4333362
>shifts goalposts further
Mhm please by all means do continue lol

>>4333363

You missed focus and let a computer fool you into believing you didn't lmao

>>4333366
That wasn’t my snap dumbass lmfao
No way… this entire time… you thought… it was my photo? Hahahahaha fucking retardus maximus

>>4333371

>shifts goalposts
It never mattered if it was your photo. What matters is you not knowing how focus peaking works and not knowing how to use DT

>>4333373
>projecting.jpg
(PS if i wanted my comeback I'd wipe it off your mother's face)

>>4333347
>34mm equivalent lens
>subject distance: 6.82 m
That tree is not over 22 feet away, anon.

Regardless, it's a bad photo and the tree is not as in focus as it should be. You should use your eyes to judge photos (including focus) instead of software you don't know how to use properly. Also repeating the same insults over and over just make you look mad.

>>4333362
>shooting things in trees
And dealing with backlighting. I probably missed more shots trying to avoid it than anything else.

>>4333378
>is not as in focus as it should be
and there it is
my work here is done!

>>4333381
Yes, because he missed focus by a few feet. It doesn't change the fact that you thought otheriwse because Darktable highlighted the high contrast areas against the sky.

You don't have to admit it, but at least you learned something ITT. You're welcome, by the way... but try to be less emotional in the future.

>>4333388
>his photo is in focus, just not as much as it could be
>shiftinggoalposts.jpg
Learn what the focus peaking colors mean in Darktable, that's your homework assignment!
Just because you learned something for the first time does not mean anyone else did

>>4332863
>says focus wasn't missed
>>4333381
>now says focus was missed
And there it is. My work here is done.

He's one to talk about moving goalposts... all this butthurt over not knowing how Darktable works and being handed the manual. Imagine getting this upset over learning.

>>4333395
Oh you are that autistic anon that argues over nothing then copies others posting styles after getting repeatedly btfo
I recognize your specific flavor of asshurt LOL

File: pp9001.jpg (1.6 MB, 2304x1732)

1.6 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4333398

it's ambush you retard, lurk moar. the guy who posted perfectly focused birb shots with razor thin dof for a fucking decade now

>>4333401
>it's a namefag!
and?

File: pp9002.jpg (439 KB, 1521x1142)

439 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4333395
om-5 gearfag guy has never hit focus even with the 35mm S on his now dead z6

of all the people who actually needs nicer autofocus than m43 shitters, rather than just wanting it because fucking with MILC focus controls makes DSLRs feel luxurious, he's one of them

>>4333395
Darktable butthurt is justified. Doing the developers work with that program is a massive waste of time.
>calibrate your camera bro
Yes that's why we don't like sony either

The monthly cost of using real software is equal to one hour and five minutes as a starting mcdonalds cashier.

>>4333406
>never hit focus even with the 35mm
how is that even possible, you don't have to focus with those most of the time

>>4333404

and he schooled you on focus /\ing :^)

>>4333407
Diopter misadjustment? Legally blind? Drunk?

>>4333401
>ambush
doesn't he fuck dogs?

>>4333407
Some people just can't take photos, man. They don't care and just want to be in the club. They think pushing a button is enough and will defend it. Others just want to play with software they don't understand like >>4332863 who is prob just the same guy who got roasted so hard he abandoned his photo, lol. They type exactly the same too, in all lower case point form.
>>4333411
People who joke about stuff like this were likely molested in their childhood.

>>4333411
No, all dogfucking rumors are made up by one schizophrenic cat/dinosaur person who followed one of his "enemies" here when the pet photo competition was crosslinked on /an/.

>>4333378
Based exif reader

>>4333408
Ambush regularly posts as an anon, just so *you* know :)

>>4333411
Is ambush huskyfucker? Or are there multiple dogfuckers on this board?
>>4333412
Wrong, not my photo (I've posted several photos that ARE mine ITT fyi)

>>4333418
There isn't a single good photo in this thread so you obviously suck.

>>4333420
Why don't you post one then? Break this thread's good photo hymen :)

>the guy who doesn't know how to use darktable also takes bad photos
Imagine my shock.

>>4333424
Everyone knows how to use darktable

It's a question of if it's worth your time to
>buy the test charts
>profile your camera
>profile your lens' distortion characteristics
>write lua scripts for basic features like before/after preview
etc

Only free if your time is worthless. Anyone who brags about using it like it means they are more competent in any way is an absolute buffoon just like your average shitnux faggot because the actual procedure is fisher price levels of easy. Simply follow a tutorial. It's just a horrendous waste of time.

>>4333424
Have you figured out what the different colors mean for Darktable's focus peaking yet? LMK when you do and I'll grade your response accordingly

>>4333430
>subject distance: 6.82 m
Exif don't lie, anon
Get your eyes checked too

>>4333432
Come on, post the user manual for Darktable lmao, why quit learning when you are on a roll today

>>4333413
What made him his enemy?

File: omgcomputers!.png (138 KB, 942x606)

138 KB PNG

>>4333433

>needs a program to tell him if something is in focus or not
>can't just look at the photo
>doesn't even know how to use the program
>ignores the program's own warning about the sky
>ignores the bright cloud right behind the tree
>still insists the tree is in focus
>already admitted it isn't in focus
>ignores the exif that proves the tree isn't the subject
>admits he's a snapshitter

You have been thoroughly btfo. Also an algorithm thinks it's likely AI. You now have to believe this because a computer said it.

>>4333436
??? Are you feeling ok?

>>4332646
Whole pic is blurry man
>>4332922
Focused on the top of the pole
>>4333106
>>4333121
Boring blurry snapshits
>>4333126
>posting literally any snapshit to avoid being called a name
Snapshitter.
>>4333217
Boring dark centered birb snapshit with heavy handed NR, sharpening, and banding
>>4333399
Dark, boring
>>4333405
Back lit backyard snapshit

Why are the olympus threads always the worst on the board?

>>4333439
>backlit
Clearly sidelit blindfaggot

File: 20240623_0066_01.jpg (1.18 MB, 3898x2638)

1.18 MB JPG

Ayy lmao

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OM Digital Solutions
Camera Model	OM-5
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:05 18:16:47
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3898
Image Height	2638
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4333436
This website is why I still shoot film

>>4333439
alright man, post your building corner of your hut in bangledesh with your nikon exif so we can call you a nigger and get this over with

>>4333217
How often do you think about gay sex? Would you like to sit on my lap? I can make you a good girl.

File: crying soyjak.png (100 KB, 406x411)

100 KB PNG

>>4333362
>Y-you cant just say that..!

File: carlos.png (138 KB, 350x350)

138 KB PNG

>>4333446
>clearly sidelit
Yeah... the backside.

>>4333474
>muh computer showeded me colors dat tolded me tree in focusss

You take shitty photos and had to be taught the basics of darktable on /p/, lmao. The ultimate noob.

>>4333479
I think you have me confused with someone else, I only entered this argument because I saw an opportunity to post a basedjak

>>4333479
Schizo much?

>>4332863
If you don't know how something as basic as that works, you shouldn't be using Darktable. It's for advanced users and we all know you aren't using a ColorChecker. Try Raw Therapee instead. It's still an advanced program but it's easier for newbies who just want to move some sliders around from a decent starting point. Or better yet just shoot jpeg because your camera will make better decisions than you at this point.

>>4333503
Darktable is for people who gave up on art and just calibrate cameras

Rawtherapee is for fujifags that can’t afford c1 (a minimum wage levels of cheap program)

>>4333506
That too yes, but he has nothing to lose being a kid who wants to play around. I wouldn't advise him to pay for anything that's for sure. Really he should just stop larping and shoot jpeg until he gets past the basics. This applies to every photo in this thread actually.

>>4333506
The anon you are replying to is /p/'s resident schizo that shits up every mft thread
He has not posted a single photo to this date and repeats the same garbage over and over again in order to farm (You)s

Fuck me, remember when this thread had a **focus** that wasn't shit flinging?

>>4333451
Nice and sharp as it should be

>>4332646
Lets see your photos taken with a real camera, I am guessing that they are not better than this snapshit.

>>4333512
Nobody needs to do anything to shit up mft threads, your photos do all the work on that front. It's not because of the format either, it's because you all suck at photography.

>>4333598
>Is a bitter fuckwit
>Why is nobody supplying me with good content to consooooooom

Don't worry mate, we'll be over here enjoying ourselves while you edge yourself

>>4333599
Yet you are miserable in every thread and cling to brandfagging over the act of photography.

>>4333608
Take your blood pressure meds homie

>>4333610
You misunderstand, I love opening these threads and laughing at the pics.

>>4332502
Its probably the best EM camera and one of the best M43rds.

>>4333610
See what I mean? He will happily shitpost his way to bumplocking the thread if given any attention
Like a weed that keeps coming back

Why do you niggas insist on bitching as a full time job. Just call each other a faggot and move on

>>4333617
How much "better" is the em5 iii? Like in what real world situation will the extra megapixels make a noticeable difference? For example, for a use case like macro?

>>4335494
It's equally shit

Do you know how "nothing" 4mp is? 24 to 48mp is barely anything

>>4335496
Is this the Bayer bullshit I've heard so much about?

>>4335494
>Like in what real world situation will the extra megapixels make a noticeable difference?
when you print at 4x3 meters but even not then because if you put your nose to the image then no amount of megapixels is enough. and when you look at the image from the intended distance then any amount of megapixels is enough

honestly stop sperging out about megapixels. it's all just marketing. 90% of people just post to instagram or 4chan anyway. also the higher res you post here the more idiots will be there who will look at the image at 100%, put their nose to the screen and sperg out about REEE THE IMAGE IS BLURRY MY PIXEL PEEPERINO SENSES TINGLE IM AN INCEL I WANT TO GET LAID OR I GO ON A SCHOOL SHOOTING RAMPAGE

that's all you get from high megapixels.

>>4335494
IMO 20mp is where you start hitting the flat part of a log curve in terms of MP vs. IQ. 24mp is nice because it gives you some nice cropping ability and a marginal increase in IQ. 30mp gives practically no meaningful increase in IQ but does get a healthy amount of cropping ability. Anything more than 30mp is gratuitous and is people who have no skill and just smash the shutter button and rely on cropping and editing in post (ie. average SNOY user) (or for a few other niche uses).
Note: my argument here isn't that more megapixels doesn't increase IQ, but you do get to increasingly marginal increase in perceived IQ as you continue to increase MP count. And through the magic of print upscalers, 20mp is where you get to the point where you can print basically as big as you want and it's still going to look good (even if you look closely -- sure, the details won't be there, but it won't look bad).

>>4335711
I do like the ability to crop for macro, and retaining iq when cropping on m43 is already fairly difficult right?

Pixel size matters as much if not more than sensors size and I’m sick of pretending otherwise

Bigger pixels have better color and capture finer tonal gradations. The only correct way to have more than 20-24mp on FF is to get a bigger sensor. APS-C should top out at 10mp. The bigger pixels are what really created the “CCD look” of low resolution digital.

>>4336033
Isn't a smaller pixel to sensor size ratio also good for low light photography? Something about the larger pixels being able to pick up more photons?

>>4333165
YELLER spotted

File: LS911_Digital_Back.jpg (60 KB, 400x377)

60 KB JPG

>>4336033
Are you truly living the big pixel life or just bullshitting?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	299 dpi
Vertical Resolution	299 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:28 08:19:20
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	400
Image Height	377

>>4336121
Woah, one big pixel

>>4336053
NTA but yes, it's why in same cases the r6mkii is better than the r5 at low light performance. The trade off is cropability where the r5 will shine if you didn't have the reach.

>>4336115
CORY spotted

>>4332733
How do you like yours? I found one for $500 firm with a 2000 shutter count, 12-32 and 45-150 Panasonic lenses and it seems like a decent price but it also feels like I can hold off and try to find a 5 year old Nikon D5500/5600/7500 or even a Z30 for the same amount or a Canon R50 for a little more. I'm hesitating because the Panasonics always come up for sale on retail close to that amount and the GX85 specifically is like 8 years old so it likely has the worst software and autofocus, but the camera itself has a ton of features.

>>4336033
Laughs in 40mp aps-c. Difference in real world use is that you can crop more if you shot with good light. Other than that the "color and tonal gradations" look pretty identical. But maybe that's just fuji.

>>4337642
Don't buy Canon R50. Get R10 at minimum. Yes I know they're bigger, but you want a fully mechanical shutter and you won't get it with the R50.

NTA, but I use the 45-150 on my Olympus and if you want a decent telephoto it's good. Not great. But if you want optical excellence you buy a FF camera not M43. $500 seems like a fair deal especially with the two lenses since you'd pay $100-150 each for those anyway.

As always it depends on what kind of photography you're into.

File: a904488ecd367e5e561432cc4(...).png (552 KB, 878x509)

552 KB PNG

>>4337679
R10 is like $3-400 more, so its hard to justify. Canon is running crackhead deals on their refurbs. I just saw I missed the R50 + 18-45 Lens Kit restock for $520...while the R10 with the same lens is $800. Is the difference that dramatic?

The other cameras I'm considering is a used Nikon Z30 ($500-600 on average with lenses, for example I just missed one for $583 with a Nikkor Z 16-50 + Sirui 35mm 1.33x Anthropomorphic Lens + Filters), used Sony ZVE-10s ($600 on average, sometimes can be found with the lens) and pic related if it's still available.

I'm about to go to B&H + Adorama to finger-fuck some cameras.

Don't laugh, but I only considered the R50 because Reddit won't shut the fuck up about it after lurking and Ken Rockwell likes it. It seems like a great beginner camera purely due to the software/processor being shared with the R6/R8

>>4337679
I forgot I wanna do some motorsports photography + traveling, honestly just looking for a upgrade from a phone camera. I'm stuck with a pos android that can't focus for shit.

I like the M43 format because of the smaller lenses required for the same focal length which is why I'm gravitating towards it, it would be nice to have a small camera I can take shots asap with on the fly. But at the same time the larger sensor + more up to date software of newer APSC cameras gets you better photos with what seems like a lot less effort

>>4338217
Don't get the cripple hammered em10 dude.

At least get an em5. For cheap. Much more than $500 and you might as well man up and get a DSLR with a real sensor.

Honestly if you approach shooting M43 like shooting film, is not that bad

>>4338235
>>4338224
Update:

My favorite cameras in order

Pentax KF (I found it surprisingly easy to use, and for $700 new/$500 used it's a great value, the ergos worked for me and it's lack of touch screen wasn't a big deal cause it was pretty intuitive, if anything too many features for a novice. Being one of the cheapest full size old style DSLRs is cool and I loved the shutter sound)

Canon R50 (absolutely idiot proof, it's a perfect first camera for retards and I think canon did a great job with the software on the camera, nearly impossible to get a bad shot, my only complaint was the telelens making it look like im holding a stinger missile if I have to take aircraft photos)

Nikon D7500/Nikon Z50 (they felt nice in hand, especially the D7500, and the lenses were smaller than the Canons imo, also felt pretty easy to use, I liked the D7500 slightly more for it's faster shutter speed and chunkier ergos that made me feel like a pro but the Z50 had a touch screen and better software)

Sony A6400 (insane how fucking Adorama has it for $750 when most sellers charge the same for a used camera + it just werks also a great camera despite /p/ shitposting about snoy)

Least liked:
Sony ZV-E10 (hard to take a photo with)
Nikon Z30 (disliked ergos + fuck not having a viewfinder stupid shit)
Olympus M10 Mark IV (firmware was fucking stupid to use, would rather use the R50)
Pentax K3-III (TOO many features and not used friendly for a retard)

None of the Panasonics worked. BH did not charge them and they didn't have any of the M43 lens Lumix cams at Adorama, only the $1000+ full sizes at which point I'm spending the money on a Sony or a Canon R8/R10 sorry.

Honestly it's tough between the Pentax KF and Canon R50. I really liked how idiot proof the R50 was while hating how big it was physically once you got anything other than the 18-45 lens.

>>4338371
Pentax pentax pentax

File: P7170008.jpg (378 KB, 1843x1229)

378 KB JPG

>>4338371
>holding a stinger missile
May I introduce you to one of my astro setups

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL7
Camera Software	Version 1.4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:17 20:32:49
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>4338217
>>4338224
I bought an R50 totally of my own introduction into photography with no real basis other than independent research and specs. Considering I was also learning basics at the time from the ground up, I attribute that to not getting the R10. I'm also a tight ass. I had no idea every redditfag and tuber was shilling the R50.

That being said I actually really like the thing. Sure I'd like more bells and whistles but I paid $800(AUD) with the kit lens and an R6MkII costs like $3000. No mech shutter is a bit shit for certain things, but I bought it originally just to make memories, not BOKEH. Will also note that the EF adapter + an EFS telephoto makes the thing look memefessional.

I now own a pair of M43 cameras I got for like $500 together with a kit lens and have gotten a few cheap lens additions; maybe $800 total investment in M43 kit vs. $1800 for the R50 kit. I find I take my M43 more as a "daily" and the canon comes out when I purposefully want to take good photographs and astro.

Both are great kits, and in a way the Olympus M43s covers the R50's weaknesses. IBIS and Mech shutter paired with a fuckin' diamond sharp macro prime is a killer combo I could not recommend more.

>>4333106
>Some fun cheap lenses, the folding kit zooms by both olympus and lumix are pretty cool, obviously not that bright but reasonably sharp and its a fun gimmick.
I'm bumping this old thread to ask if I should get the Lumix 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6, Lumix 45-150mm f/4-5.6 or Olympus 14-42mm pancake/chunkier version? I prefer the long end, so if I were to get a prime I'd probably go for the 30mm macro, but I suppose that's not the funny little camera lens I'm going for. I do have more serious cameras for critical shooting.