>>4333778
I still can't get over selling my EOS M.

Full frame is superior in every way, but that little thing had SOVL

>>4333778
>mogs
with which lenses? lmao

>>4333786
The sigma primes. But let me guess, you "need" more?

>>4333778
Even the G1X mogs m4/3

>>4333791
It's not exactly hard to mog a format that was only good because applying the same features to larger sensors was beyond camera processors at the time

>>4333808
And what features would those be? What time period are you referring to?

>>4333783
Still have my M+22mm. So much SOVL.

>>4333778
>>4333783
>>4333786
>>4333787
>>4333791
>>4333808
>>4333817
>>4333865
Rent free

>>4333778
Imagine falling for non 1 or 5 series Canon bodies. Intentionally gimped slop designed to bait people into upgrading.

List of acceptable Canon bodies
>Any 5D
>Any 1Ds or 1Dx
>R5
>R3
>R1

Otherwise GTFO jeets

File: hydrate.jpg (39 KB, 720x714)

39 KB JPG

>>4333778
New to the hobby in general, but why do people pursue m43 when modern apscs mirrorless frames are just as small? Especially when things like a Sony Alpha/Canon r50 exist. You get an extra stop of light going from m43 to apsc right? Or am I misunderstanding that.
Not looking for a gearfaggotry/brandwar response, but actual reasons why people would want a m43 over an apsc(let alone FF for some of the prices).
Like I could maybe understand the ultra high density ones for wildlife specifically due to the crop factor, but those are pushing 2k+ like the OM1 but your pushing into high end, high density FF prices with that with SIGNIFICANTLY better light transmission and iso performance in general.

>>4333875
I just think they are kind of neat, and for me they are just a second cameras for fun snapshits

And I can just throw my GX85 into a backpack and forget about it

>>4333878
That's valid I guess, especially if it's not a main camera and more of a novelty to you.

>>4333875
>You get an extra stop of light going from m43 to apsc right? Or am I misunderstanding that.
Not exactly, usually you get around a stop of cleaner noise at a given ISO, but whether that comes out in practice or matters is a question of debate.

You do not get a free stop of light by using a larger sensor.

>New to the hobby in general, but why do people pursue m43 when modern apscs mirrorless frames are just as small?
Sometimes it's not strictly about the size, but rather maybe you really like a certain lens that happens to be a crop lens, or maybe it's about the form factor of the camera. Or maybe you like the image character of one sensor's output over the other. Maybe a certain camera just fits your hand better. All modern cameras are going to look good, it's not like there is a massive difference between crop and full frame. I'd recommend now to newfriends that they start with a used FF, but that wouldn't have been true 5 years ago, with how much the prices have dropped on FF, unless you're doing something specific like sports or wildlife.

Personally I'm interested in the M5 because of a combination of it's small size and the fact it's kind of interesting as a dead mount camera, I know none of the lenses are great, but I'm curious. I already exclusively use variable aperture lenses, so the fact the lenses aren't "pro-tier" literally doesn't matter to me. It's a very cheap system and I think it has potential as a travel/ EDC setup.
>>4333865
>>4333783
Can you guys post some photos, I'd like to see some

>>4333887
Yes, you do get a free stop of dynamic range with a larger sensor

Please hold back your flat earth tier bullshit. /p/ can only handle so many foolturd BTFOs in a week.

>>4333888
>Yes, you do get a free stop of dynamic range with a larger sensor
retard alert

>>4333888
>Yes, you do get a free stop of dynamic range with a larger sensor
that's invalid

>>4333888
>Yes, you do get a free stop of dynamic range with a larger sensor
Would you care to try and explain that one, fag

>>4333897
>>4333893
>>4333890
Not him but APS-C has one more stop of dynamic range. That's it. A larger sensor gathers more light. It's just a fact of photography.
>inb4 muh equivalenceeee!
Basically never matters IRL. There's a reason mft is fucking dead.

>>4333873
>Any 5D
The 5D MkI and MkII were the 6Ds of their time.
Even the MkIII and MkIV didn't get an EOS-1 shutter mech.

>>4333875
>You get an extra stop of light going from m43 to apsc right? Or am I misunderstanding that
In theory, you get the same amount of light per photosite, if you use equivalent lenses.
The problem is that full frame and even APS-C equivalent (m)4/3 lenses are uncommon or nonexistent.
The other issue is that the smaller the photosites are, the more light is lost (proportionally) between the microlenses and to the semiconductor traces around the periphery (unless it's BSI).

>>4333887
>Personally I'm interested in the M5
Not before I get mine.
Don't drive up the prices for me.

>>4333924
Dunno about the mk1 but the mk2 is rated for 250k actuations, while the 6D is rated to but rarely makes it to 100k. Thats the only important difference between them.

>>4333926
What's the functional reason you'd get one over say an R50?

>>4333929
I'm not referring to the life expectancy.
Their X-sync is less.

>rarely makes it to 100k
Do you mean that they're not used that much or does the 6D have reliability problems?

>>4333931
Custom modes.
The M5 was also part of a mature system with all features fully implemented, unlike the RF mount in which only some cameras/lenses have a dedicated M/AF switch, multi-function shoe, hybrid AF support...

>>4333934
>Do you mean that they're not used that much or does the 6D have reliability problems?
bit of both

>I'm not referring to the life expectancy.
I know, I just dont think thats as important as shutter durability

>>4333936
>I just dont think thats as important as shutter durability
From what I can tell, shutters are rated mostly while used in burst mode.
Shooting in single shot, continuous low or short high speed bursts greatly extends their lifespan.
Conversely, cameras with framerates <6 don't see nearly the same benefit since they're so slow to begin with.

File: _MG_2183_proc.jpg (1.38 MB, 1000x1500)

1.38 MB JPG

>>4333887

File: IMG_4638-c_proc.jpg (1.73 MB, 1200x1500)

1.73 MB JPG

>>4333945

>>4333778
what stupid model is that anyway, untitled.jpg

>>4333865
>zero portraiture potential
meanwhile it took me the exorbitant price tag of $150 to get a small 90mm equivalent portrait lens for my Olympus Pen that allowed me to take beautiful photos of my friends.
what ef-m counterpart is there? lmao no fucking lenses

>>4333985
>what ef-m counterpart is there?
100mm f/2

>>4333990
Holy shit are you fucking stupid?
>buy compact mirrorless
>want to take a photo of a person
>take out a gigantic full frame lens with a gigantic adapter
Lmao fucking delusional nophoto

>>4333985
The only actual EF-M lens I ever used before selling my EOS M was the 22mm f/2.0... My other lenses were all adapted EF lenses which I still use regularly with my full frame body.

APS-C is crippled as fuck compared to FF, but the compact size makes it fun to use.

>>4334001
>compact size
>with adapted full frame lenses
These two don't go together

>>4334003
The 32 mm (50mm FF equivalent) f/1.4 STM is an EF-M lens well suited for portraiture.

It's good glass, make no mistake.

>>4333996
Then get the M6 MkII, 32mm and crop, nigger.
Also:

>EF 100mm f/2
>gigantic full frame lens
Try consuming something other than xenoestrogens.

>>4334013
>dude if you don't take a log with you all the time you are a basedboy!!!!
Nophotos keep nophotoing!

>>4334015
After you.

>buy compact, feature rich body based off recommendations
>Practice, figure out what you enjoy and do most often
>Buy huge telephoto to for whatever field of photography youre focused on
>Still use other more compact lenses when needed. Generally enjoy the body size and weight regardless of Lens choice
>Faggots on the internet larp as professionals and insist youre a retard for getting a small body

>>4334017
>be faggot
>buy into dead system with no lenses
>have to adapt full frame glass in exchange for poorer quality, bigger size and weight, and having to use an adapter
>cope by saying it's what you wanted all along

>>4334020
Youre a bitter troglodyte who refuses to believe joy can be found in places you don't agree with. You're allowed to be wrong on the internet champ, just go be a useless faggot elsewhere

>>4334029
Joy can be found shooting with a 2005 digicam. You are a gearfag in denial

>>4334033
>Hurr durr, people enjoy expensive things and that makes me mad

You could have just said you're poor anon, we forgive you

>>4334034
I thought part of EF-M's appeal was that it's cheap.

>>4334051
Apparently still too expensive for someone

>>4333875
doesn't m43 adapt more lesnes than other mirrorless mounts?

>>4334106
No, nikon does

>>4334020
You dont need more than the native ef-m lineup. “Alive mounts” like fool turds are packed with scam garbage like olympus pros and anusonic “leicas” and worse (mmmm 24-120 f5.6-8, the best idea for a lens evar, oooo $500 manual focus 50mm f1.8 thats soft wide open nice, can we get a rebranded sigma zoom)
>its so sharp, the sharpness shart from lenstip!
>photo is blurry, better change your line to STAHP PIXEL PEEPING ;_;

>1.6x crop
Wow this BTFOs mft, what will Cannot come up with next, a 1.9x crop camera with only third party lenses (that must be licensed because walled garden ecosystem)?

File: IMG_0153_v2.jpg (1.7 MB, 3240x2160)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4334203
idk anon that sounds an awful lot like m43

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.3.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	RF50mm F1.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3240
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:26 15:35:02
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	3240
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Medium
Focus Mode	Unknown
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	16.390 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	33

>>4334114
Native ef-m lineup
>zooms
>two average primes
>some third party manual chink lenses
Literal tourist mount

>>4334554
Canon's management is more to blame for it since they were so scared of it intruding on DSLR sales
It's the same reason Canon didn't kill the EF mount until the 90D

>>4333778
I use m43 as a main camera and I take pictures regularly with it. Stop gearfagging and get over it.

File: IMG_9950.jpg (332 KB, 1043x1388)

332 KB JPG

>>4334558
Ok just dont pretend its better than superior sensors
For one whole year

I bet you can’t go one year without claiming its better than a larger sensor

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1043
Image Height	1388
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4334569
You have been getting trolled by someone who doesn't even have a mft camera lmao

>>4334590
You’re dangerously close to losing the bet

Why do you losers insist on arguing about shit that barely matters?

>>4334606
It all really just comes down to people's instinctual need for validation.

>>4334593
Its better than a larger sensor because its easier to piss you off with the smaller one.

>>4334569
Full frame sensor:
objectively better performance when considering just the sensor
requires 5x the investment in the body to get a competent kit of lenses
heavy and large af lenses, you don't like carrying it with you
because you never practice you suck at photography

m43 sensor:
literally inferior
but good enough
lenses are cheap af especially used and still high quality
carry your entire lens collection with you in your camera bag if you want
carry your camera with you everywhere because it's compact and small
because you're always practicing you get good at photography

Yeah, maybe a full frame camera generally performs better, but at the end of the day, does it matter? A modern m43 sesnor outperforms a lot of professional DSLR sensors. If they could do it then, why can't you now?

If you can't take good pictures on m43, you suck at photography. That goes for landscapes, portraiture, even night (understanding the limits of your system, and how to work around those limits, is a part of getting gud).

So, you just mad that m43 photographers take superior pictures because they actually take their cameras with them and practice a lot.

>>4334769
some good points but I routinely take pictures at ISO 3200 and above where image quality of m43 sensors fall the fuck apart
I really truly wanted an m43 kit but when the noise performance of ISO 800 on m43 is worse than ISO 3200 on FF then well I just can't
speaking about bodies from about the same time period ofc

>>4334769
>requires 5x the investment in the body to get a competent kit of lenses
Not really. FF lenses have gotten absurdly cheap, even native mirrorless glass.

>inb4 but i meant snoy gm-
Stop pixel peeping and I mean that literally. 200% view on a retina display/100% on a cheapo one is morally wrong except for checking focus. Also stop buying HR bodies. I know lensrentals gearfags might have told you some BS about "system MTF" but an awful lens with softness and crap rendering that doesn't resize out on a d850 actually does look super sharp on a d750.

>>4334781
Like seriously have you kept up with photography at all, or are you just a snoy GM chasing gearfag who went broke and gave up?

M43 is generally the same fucking size as FF now. Just worse in every other way. If you were fine with m43 DOF stop down every FF lens twice, and enjoy your flawless optics.

>>4334776
>the noise performance of ISO 800 on m43 is worse than ISO 3200 on FF
What?
Are you keeping your aperture the same?
Set your aperture to two stops faster than the FF. You'll end up with similar depth of field and an ISO two stops lower, and roughly the same amount of noise. ISO 800 should have a similar amount of noise, not worse than 3200 on Full Frame.
(And because m43 lenses don't need to be as large, they're cheaper and easier to manufacture so they tend to do a lot better at lower f-stops in IQ).

Also, AI denoise helps even the game a lot. Normally I hate anything mixing AI and photography, but this is one of the times it's actually based.

Also, there's a lot of technical reasons that m43 is going to perform better than you'd expect just based on basic theory. For example, the photosites on m43 sensors are tuned to be biased in favor of preserving dynamic range in lower light (at the cost of dynamic range at the higher end, which we know to ETTR anyway, right?) (this is why a lot of m43 cameras used to have native ISO starting at 200, the sensors are inherently more sensitive), or computational methods like Panasonic's Dynamic Range Boost.

With all of that, I fully do expect a Lumix G9ii at f/4 ISO 800 to outperform a Sony A7C at f/8 ISO 3200. The images would be equivalent except, for the reasons I've said above, the G9ii would probably have LESS noise. Because of Dynamic Range Boost, the g9ii would probably compare favorably in dynamic range, too.

G9ii will cost a small premium right now for getting into a system with cheaper, smaller, lighter weight lenses. I think that's pretty fair as it stands now. But the G9ii is still a pretty new camera and will continue to drop in price and the A7C is hitting the flat part of its deprecation curve -- in a year or two, the G9ii will be much more similar in price.

>>4334781
>lensrentals gearfags
god I hate roger cigala that self righteous prick so fucking much.

>>4334783
>M43 is generally the same fucking size as FF now. Just worse in every other way.
this is true for mirrorless cams in general. "small size" used to be a selling point, now look at it

>>4334781
FF lenses have gotten cheaper, but so have M43 lenses. Panny Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 costs $800 new right now, or $500 used. A Sony 24-105mm f/4 (less range and higher minimum aperture) costs $1200 new, $700 used.
The Sony is like 33% larger and twice the weight.

I shoot full frame myself now, and I'm really impressed with how cheap, small, and lightweight the system has become, but for an equivalent lens of similar quality, m43 can still save hundreds of dollars per lens, will be smaller and lighter. Even when FF lenses get similar in size, they still typically weigh around twice as much.

>>4334783
The bodies are around the same size. The lenses are where the difference comes in. High-end M43 lenses tend to be around the size and weight of low-end FF lenses, or FF lenses designed to be compact and lightweight (which often comes with other compromises, such as reduced focal length range, and often reduced IQ). Then you have M43 lenses designed to be lightweight/compact. There IS NOT a full frame lens like Panasonic's 12-32mm. There just isn't.

It has some compromises, but if compact size is important to you, the Panasonic Lumix G100 with that 12-32mm lens is a wonderful everyday carry camera. Sometimes I miss that degree of compactness and light weight even with my Sigma fp w/ 45mm (one of the most compact FF setups on the market).

>>4334784
The bet's lost and they're flat earthing already
>SET UR APERTURE 2 STOPS FASTER, MUH EQUIVALENCE (or was the FF supposed to step down because the blurriness of the background is unacceptable?)
>most lenses are piss ass slow, like the "panny leica" 24-120 f5.6-8, actual fucking garbage
>have to go MF only and overpay for baby butt soft hipster garbage for a whopping f1.8
>base ISO bottoms out at the noise but not the exposure of FF ISO 400
>G9II: Is the size of a fucking R6II, with the autofocus cops of a Z6 mk1

Where's the other tidbit of flat earthing
Oh yes
> the photosites on m43 sensors are tuned to be biased in favor of preserving dynamic range in lower light
>the sensor are more sensitive because base ISO is 200
That's the ISO label. M43 is known for labeling almost a stop slow in order to game reviews. There's no other rational reason
>Fully do expect a Lumix G9ii at f/4 ISO 800 to outperform a Sony A7C at f/8 ISO 3200
Given the exact same amount of light, it absolutely would not. The G9II would in fact be slightly underexposed because of ISO mislabeling.
>Because of DR boost
AKA stacking a 2 sot burst at 120fps, wow, if nothing moves and 1/60 is good you might be able to squeeze it down to APS-C performance

You people are absolute idiots

I bought m43 before actually thinking about the shit you said and I was heavily disappointed. Now I hate it, and I hate you.

>>4334790
Full frame has no market for garbage like f5.6-8 and f8-11 zooms. Canon tried, no one buyed. It is too close to phones.

>>4334794
You're really relying on mixing stuff up there instead of comparing ceteris paribus.
You sucked at photography so bad that you couldn't take good pictures on m43 so now you hate it and people who can take good pictures on it.

You rely on brainlessly clicking the shutter button and relying on the camera to do all the easy work for you, then cropping in post to get anything resembling a good composition, don't you?
In which case, sure, I can see why m43 doesn't work for you.

File: em1(old)vr7.jpg (58 KB, 599x312)

58 KB JPG

If hypothetically I saw this, and hypothetically I owned a fucktonne of Olympus e-waste, in all likeliness this would not make me want to "upgrade" to canon APS-C

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	RUBEN U
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4334802
Yes because going from 2x to 1.6x crop isn't that huge of a leap. You do get magic Canon bullshit, but if you're going to invest in a new set of glass, you get an R8 at minimum now

>>4334796
>If someone doesn't like my garbage camera, they must suck at photography
/m43/ threads have the worst photos ever so nah

it's garbage
>B_B_B_B_B_B_UT FULL FRAME IS AS BAD IF YOU STOP DOWN AND RAISE THE ISO A TON
I shant be doing that sister

The funniest fact about equivalence is that in real life, you almost never would have to shoot "equivalently". Some nerd would whine that your background is slightly blurrier and you cheated, but people would care more that their skin wasn't made of bayer branded sandpaper

>>4334866
Build quality seems pretty mid on the entry level FF canons. Dunno would rather just get a lumix S1 or something

>>4334876
Correct, but my point is buying even an R7 - Canon's ***best*** APS-C is not much of a better alternative build wise either for the cut in IQ you're getting.

Don't get me wrong, I own an APS-C R series and love it, but fuck Canon and FF is objectively better even if you have to deal with plastic fantastic.