>>4333130
Lolympus has worse focus than DSLRs

M43 market for the cheaper stuff at least has exploded, looks like the price of everything is going up honestly

Who knows what the market will look like in a year from now

>>4333130
How much would you try selling the D700 for?

>especially older ones
Not that old.
The D800 is the sweet spot of desirability for Nikon's high resolution bodies.
People thought the same thing about Kodaks, but they're still selling for the same prices they were 20 years ago (14n and SLR/c excepted)

>Should I sell now or should I wait a year or so?
I'd wait until Panasonic withdrawals from the m4/3 partnership.
Then, you can get something cheap.

>>4333130
Why you downgrade

File: IMG_20240705_163338_727.jpg (140 KB, 853x1280)

140 KB JPG

>>4333146
Idk prolly 400 with all the accessories plus the box. Hoping the d700 will be the next d70 hype in a near future.

>>4333150
Idk, fun.

>>4333158
>with all the accessories
Like what?

>>4333162
Everything included in the box when new

>>4333164
What's its shutter count?

>>4333132
>Nooo don't get the system that has never missed focus
>Keep your factory-backfocusing repair shop boomer DSLRnosaur
the fuck dude are you retarded or something? suck a nigger

>>4333190
How racist, what does the color of a person’s skin have to do sith Olympus having the worst implementation of phase and contrast af in the industry?

>>4333190
>That has never missed focus
We're talking about m43 here right? The autofocus is sub-nikon. Sub-fuji, even. All the FPS is just to try and catch the split second the autofocus accidentally passes the focus plane through where it should go. It is an absolute, objective downgrade in every way. Worse lenses, fixed 5.6 "pro" zoom lol, worse autofocus, 4x the noise at every ISO without benefit, etc

A sony a7iii with a rain bag would be better. and more durable - there is no "weather sealing" in the camera world that actually works. All that has been IP rated, has been IP rated saying that water gets in and the camera just doesn't break immediately because freshwater doesnt break cameras immediately anyways.
>BUT WITH DSLRS IF YOU BUY A VOIGTLANDER f0.8 PRIME THE FOCUS SHIFTS BACK FROM WIDE OPEN!!!!
Who fucking cares? If it bothers you drop $2k on a nikon zf/canon r6.

Or just use a DSLR like 90% of nat geo, olympics, etc photographers are still using

>>4333199
motherfucker i am not reading that

>>4333198
They were cucked out of owning a well-endowed sensor so they attempt to associate anyone who wasn't with ethno-sexual perversion.

>>4333202
>saaaaar olympus m43 never miss focus
>DLSAARnosaur need repair shop boomer backfocus factory my saar redeem the m43
>No, it's shit
>NOT READING SAAR

File: 1716184555301638.png (492 KB, 460x854)

492 KB PNG

>>4333202
>>4333209

>>4333130
I bought an m43 once.

It never left the house. I brought my film camera instead. It's that bad. You will return it or dump it on some arthritic boomer. The sole reason m43 still exists is because birdwatchers dont care about aesthetics, and it doesnt even have to have truly good autofocus for real, nonbird photography, they care about being able to identify birds and it works better than holding a smartphone up to binoculars.

>>4333130
Depending on the type of photography you do this may be a good or bad idea. It'll be lighter at least. If you can afford it I'd keep the D700 and pick up an E-M5.3 or OM-5 and one of the f/4 lenses. The 40-150/2.8 is beautiful though but it doesn't exactly feel like a light and portable kit (although compared to a D700 and equivalent lens it would). Lenses that make sense for MFT, either small, cheap, or at least small for what they do:
- Olympus 12-100/4; huge range, dual IS, sharp as fuck
- Olympus 12-45/4; tiny standard equivalent zoom with 1:1 equivalent macro on FF
- Olympus 8-25/4; great for video and UW to normal, complements the 40-150 nicely
- the f/1.8 Olympus primes; tiny and sharp, "throw one in your bag just in case"
- Olympus 60mm macro, 2:1 equivalent, tiny and weather sealed
- Panasonic 20/1.7
- PL 15/1.7
- Panasonic 9mm f/1.7, beautiful small and weather sealed
If only weather sealing worked between brands.

>>4333289
The 40-150 f2.8 is unironically larger than the practically identical tamron 70-300 f45-6.3.

Most of these lenses are honestly, a fucking joke.

>>4333146
The aesthetic qualities of the D700 make it coveted in some circles, it treats color differently. Newer ones almost always produce duller stuff.

>>4333130
i own m43 and ff bodies, there isn't an appreciable difference in the final image quality wise and used m43 gear is way cheaper than the ff equivalents. i mostly stick to cheap vintage lenses for my ff body because of that.

>>4333322
I wouldn't get a MFT simply because the optical viewfinder is the last stand of implicit photographic integrity.

File: E-1_vorne.jpg (529 KB, 2288x1712)

529 KB JPG

>>4333324
come home, white man

File: DSC_9445_s.jpg (1.24 MB, 998x1500)

1.24 MB JPG

>>4333289
With the D700 I do motorsports and equestrian sports, completely as a hobby, zero pro work.
But I also miss having a casual system camera that isn't the Leica. I have used the D700 casually in the past but it gets old quick.

>>4333167
129k

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	858
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2832
Image Height	4256
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:06 00:06:35
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	66.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	998
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4333322
This poster is either lying, or paid $2000 to post 1mp jpegs for his internet nonfriends

m43 bodies are unironically too small for my massive hands. I even have to install battery grips on my 5D2 and 3 bodies to get a full grip.

>>4333385
>129k
That price seems steep then.

>>4333442
perhaps

>>4333394
lying about what? without peeping/exif youre simply not gonna notice the difference.

>>4333448
Are you one of those people who has a dogshit tiny low res display or only works on, god forbid, a phone, whose idea of "pixel peeping" is anything larger than 1000x666?

You can get it sort of close, if you never shoot in dim light, and pay out the ass for slow m43 premium primes (wow, f2.8 equivalent, fast as fuck, and it was only $1000), but in most cases m43 sucks balls

>>4333453
>Are you one of those people who has a dogshit tiny low res display or only works on, god forbid, a phone, whose idea of "pixel peeping" is anything larger than 1000x666?
aka an instagram poster

>>4333453
>he doesnt know
Your nice camera can look as shit as m43 if you follow the equivalence rules and shoot at f16 iso 12800

File: DSCF1521_2.jpg (341 KB, 1000x667)

341 KB JPG

>>4333456
I hate the equivalence meme, why cant people just take a format for what it is and not try twist themselves up in mental gymnastics

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2021:01:15 06:11:30
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	8000
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-15 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4333291
The Olympus 17 f/1.2 is the same size as any FF 35mm lol

>>4333463
It's the same size as a nikon z 35mm f1.4 and bigger than a canon rf 35mm f1.8 lol!

Dead system receives no good work. There was a short period where they almost cared. It did not last. Then again, olympus and panasonic has never been known for optical excellence, or even character. Even the OM film lenses are simultaneously bad and soulless.

>>4333210
>>4333209
>W-what??? I'm wrong!!
>W-well i'll just call him indian!!! because he just IS oKAY
lmao one reply and 4 responses from one butthurt repairshop boomer. dont u have some out of focus birds to jack off to retard?

>>4333130
If you want to try it out I would rent an olympus for like a week and see if you immediately hate it before selling your current stuff. It's a polarizing format and the real reason to use it is due to the very specific lenses that are available for it. /p/ is full of gearfags who specubate over the size of each others bokeh balls. If you are a good photographer the huge depth of field can let you compose some incredible pictures but it's much harder without having the background separation of of lower apertures. If it sounds interesting to you it's definitely worth trying purely because it will get you out shooting instead of arguing with whatever me and the mouth breather that comments below this.

>>4333468
>indian argumentative techniques: just keep talking like you live in your own world where you're always right

>>4333473
>huge depth of field
It's literally nothing that's not achievable on better formats

Mostly you are spending the same amount of money to give up 2 stops of aperture on the average lens and 2 stops of dynamic range even at base ISO just so your birdwatching lens can be smaller

>>4333476
I'm not saying it defies the laws of physics just that there is more m43 lenses that are built to be sharper at smaller equivalent apertures. So your telling me there is a 35mm full frame lens that is sharpest at f11, weighs under 200 grams, and is dirt cheap? Cause I think that niche is pretty much only served by mft.

>>4333473
I mostly take photos with a narrow aperture nowadays, i'm kinda over the bokeh look

>>4333480
>there is a 35mm full frame lens that is sharpest at f11, weighs under 200 grams, and is dirt cheap
nikon's old dog, the 50mm f1.8 af-d.
peak center sharpness at f4.0 to f5.6. weighs 150 grams. costs 70 bucks used.
point?

>>4333482
canon's plastic fantastic EF 50mm f1.8 II reaches peak center sharpness by f4.0, weighs even less at 130 grams since it doesn't even have a metal mount, and costs less than 70 bucks used.
mftranny btfo

>>4333480
Diffraction limits are based on physical aperture size and pixel pitch… diffraction sets in earlier on m43 so it evens out *exactly*. Sorry. You are saying crop sensors literally have free DOF. They do not. They are essentially a subset of the superior format. Hence people still shoot deep focus on gfx100s.

Weight autism is all m43 has left and i simply dont respect it.

>>4333480
>sharpest at f11
ken rockwell levels of blindness. remember olympanon claiming this while posting full res diffraction smeared tree snapshits?

>>4333490
Yes, lol. What is it with lolimpiss users being talentless delusional retards? He isn't even the worst of the bunch anymore, there are even worse ones now. Unless it's still him. He did get shamed and humiliated into abandoning his trip after all.

>>4333489
Mmmm hmm. m43 diffracts at the same equivalent DOF, give or take. BUT, there is a way you can actually get around this - by using a stupidly high resolution body, applying diffraction correction (AI sharpening magic) to the raw, and then downscaling to the same 20mp as m43 Then you will have really good sharpness even at the smallest aperture the lens offers. Although UHR bodies are diffraction limited earlier due to the smaller pixels, the resolution allows you to cope.

File: k lol.png (151 KB, 2325x1547)

151 KB PNG

>>4333480
>i'm not saying it defies the laws of physics
You are tho.

>>4333491
It's an m43 thing

I've seen them claim, get this - that micro four thirds has free exposure because the light MUST be more intense! They often demonstrate this with a fake infograph showing the smaller sensor moving closer to a cone of light. That would actually mean all mirrorless cameras get free exposure which doesn't happen. In reality we use f/stops for a reason - they expose the same with every focal length because the light gathered IS a function of the focal length and actual aperture size, which is what f/stops are calculated from. An f2.8 is an f2.8 everywhere. A wider angle lens exposes the same with a smaller aperture than a longer f2.8 because it's gathering more light from the whole scene, while the longer lens is seeing more distant light.

The lens is bright or it is not, sensor size can only find more vignetting.

What m43 actually changes is the "sample size" of the "light study". Since it has a smaller sample size, errors are more apparent and harder to distinguish from the correct results.

>>4333502
They need to believe. Since mfturds stopped being small and cheap, they have very little, except counting individual grams, and very slow telephotos.

>>4333481
That's why I got an Olympus E-M1 mark II. I saw some really interesting street photos and wanted to try it out. It was only like 500$ on eBay and I figured I would be more likely to take it cycling with me. Honestly it being so cheap has really caused me to take it places I normally wouldn't take my Sony. I've gotten some pictures I've been really happy with that kind of got me to rethink what I was doing before just cause I didn't have to think about wether or not it was worth the extra weight. It made me want to shoot more.

>>4333483
Lol That's not 35mm or sharp at f11. The Olympus 17mm f1.8 reaches its peak IQ at f5.6 (f11 equivalent since you seem incapable of understanding basic math). That full frame would be better for low light but otherwise it seems like your a bit of a sensor size queen.

>>4333532
>peak IQ at f5.6
>nooooooo I want my lens to sharpen up later not earlier!!!!!
do mftrannies really

>>4333532
So would a ff lens on a low res body retard

>>4333642
This is one of the many consequences of amateur gearfag test sites like lenstip

The FF glass gets tested on UHR bodies that diffract at f5.6 and a clueless mfturd thinks MFturds has better iq at a deeper dof based on the amateurs imatest results on a r5/a7riii

Never mind that if you shoot that uhr ff at f11 anyways, apply diffraction correction, and export at 20mp, it will still look better

>>4333130
>>4333130
Why not take a hammer to the balls instead of using mft? It’s still trying something new as you seek, and you’re already thinking homosexually may as well go full eunuch.

>>4333130
>Should I sell now or should I wait a year or so?
If you can afford to wait a year, just keep it. You'll get bored of mft before then and wish you had your d700 back

>>4333532
you are literally claiming foolturds breaks the laws of physics

lenses get sharper when stopped down until the lens diffracts
on foolturds 20mp-24mp this happens past f5.6
on ff of similar res this happens past f11
only on high res ff does it also happen at f5.6 but then ALL rules of “equivalence” are broken and no longer apply because the resolution is significantly higher

most lens tests are done on high res bodies to gather the most detailed info about the lens, but if you have a 24mp ie zf your lenses will all get sharper until f16!

>>4334638
Careful, you say it too much and they start appearing and clogging up the local KFCs

>>4333703
>Why not take a hammer to the balls instead of using mft?
He wants to savour the moment.
You can only rupture your testicles twice.

>>4335250
With modern medicine and HRT you can grow new balls .