>>4347495
It's not much better than a phone and you cant even see the light of the scene because the viewfinder is a tiny TV

Once you learn how cameras work you can sell that for $500 on ebay and get something good like a nikon d600

File: 8a2.jpg (59 KB, 890x860)

59 KB JPG

>>4347496
>It's not much better than a phone

>>4347499
In the same way full frame is not much better than aps-c, and no one can tell without zooming in 200% and starting an autistic argument about how negligibly shallower DOF is "heckin cheating the law of equivalence"

micro four thirds is not much better than 1", aka, these phones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_camera_phones

>>4347500
>full frame is not much better than aps-c
so its mental retardation, got it.

>>4347505
I dunno how to break it to you dude. Full frame is not much better than aps-c. It's just not a massive size difference. In fact, aps-c foveon is visibly better than full frame bayer and 4/3 bayer looks better than aps-c xtrans.
>inb4 muh high isos
Yes you have an extra stop of usable ISO for every bump in sensor size, with an intermediate half bump for DX medium format and another half to 54x40, that's all it is besides a negligible improvement on sharpness sharts. I guess full frame is totally heckin better if you're using a snoy G master lens with pickel shift mode but who really cares about that

And just like that, this camera with such a small aperture kit zoom is really not much better than a phone (especially with apples quad bayer tricks giving them effective free sensor size)

>>4347505
Nobody can tell the difference, doesn't matter in real life

>>4347507
I have OP pic and it's great fun for doing street, in a way you couldn't really achieve with a phone. And isn't this why we do this shit - because it fulfils us? Slowly rise from the massive black dildo up your ass.

>>4347510
Spare us the fetishistic homosexual dildo prose, dude, you could have just left it at "i do street photography".

why can't this board ever be normal

>>4347519
Normies collect funko pops, get started

Nice looking camera desu

File: OM-4T-1.jpg (2.97 MB, 2787x2216)

2.97 MB JPG

>>4347526
i always thought they looked disproportionate and cheap compared to the real olympus

like the chinese bought the brand and made toy cameras

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 30D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 Windows
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2787
Image Height	2216
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2006:07:22 13:53:56
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2787
Image Height	2216
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4347529
I mean, I prefer the Nikon Zf, but they're in the right direction. Yes the real (by which I mean film) ones look better. That's nice. I mean it's hard to say which of the vintage 35mm SLR cameras looked the nicest, they're all pretty good.

>>4347505
He is mentally retarded yes, but you can also let people have fun with what they got, faggot. M43 has poor DR and noise but it still mogs anything that isn't a flagship phone.

>>4347534
The ZF also looks cheap. How much weed was nikon smoking when they designed that? Did they hotbox the whole building?

>>4347546
the choice of plastics on some parts of the ZF are questionable at best

>>4347552
The scratch-tastic plastics, the weird blend of a pasm switch and analog dials, a jpeg setting on the video mode switch, which is where nikon would usually put the drive mode selection, instead of where nikon has always put the video/stills switch, all the menu diving needed to control something as simple as auto ISO or subject detect because you get so few custom buttons, i could go on and on. Its almost like they fucked things up on purpose to sell the Z6III better when normally people would look at the half stacked DR issue and go "nah, no one cares about rolling shutter in video, and 10fps has always been enough".

>>4347546
I mean I haven't seen one in person.

>>4347546
>>4347580
>>4347534

I've held one and used one for a short period, and they're definitely better built than the ZFc. They're honestly not that far off the feel of an FM2n, metal body, but pretty much everything else is really cheap plastic. The dials don't have a very nice feel when you turn them, they're too stiff and they feel fragile. Feels like it would break, not unlike the shutter speed dial on the real FM2n. I'm glad someone is making such a product as Canon refuses to release anything that isn't a grey blob. The Olympus Em5 1 and 2 are built better, but it sort of a moot point as they're way older and no way near as good as an actual camera.

>>4347500
>actually click on that list
>its all point and shoots released in the last year that cost as much as a full frame and happen to make calls and chinkphones

>>4347496
>It's not much better than a phone
>>4347500
>full frame is not much better than aps-c

by extension:
>ultra large format is not much better than large format
>large format is not much better than medium format
>medium format is not much better than full frame
>full frame is not much better than apsc
>apsc is not much better than m43
>m43 is not much better than a phone

conclusion:
>ULF is not much better than a phone

>>4347631
>Muh zeno's paradox, you cant beat the turtle!
Although there are infinite divisions the space being divided is finite.

>>4347631
Nah medium format (645 sized+) is much better than full frame

It's a threshhold where the imaging area is finally large enough for literally any lens to look amazing unless you blow it up a shitton, which you won't, and on digital where every realistically used ISO looks as clean as the other.

>>4347496
>It's not much better than a phone
It mogs my s21 ultra even with the kit pancake lens

>>4347631
67 film is based and everything else is a huge compromise. it's really that simple.

>>4347687
They're just retarded. Phones look like fucking soulless dogshit, m43 cameras with adapted vintage lenses make such awesome snapshits. If this isn't a bait thread by OP to say phones are better than m43, then look into getting some adapters and vintage glass OP. Enjoy being able to go into public and take pictures without looking like a weirdo with a giant fucking camera. Idk about the rest of the people Itt but I'm an amerishit and I've literally had homeless schizos think I'm gang stalking them shooting with DSLRs.

>>4347762
>m43 cameras with adapted vintage lenses
wow, a crop factor of 2
a 35mm becomes a 70mm
lol only shut in retards who photograph pornographic plastic figurines all day think this is any good

>>4347762
>literally had homeless schizos think I'm gang stalking them shooting with DSLRs
gtfo, gangstalker

>>4347764
I'm to busy going outside and talking to women to care brother.

>>4347507
This is the story of how a 1/2.5 sensor is JUST AS GOOD as a Hasselblad medium format sensor.

>>4350925
Faggots just cant understand that sensor area is king.
>B-b-but your phone!
>1/2.3" sensors are great!
>So good! Good enough! The one you have with you!
I wonder why pros don't just use their phone, are they stupid?

>>4350931
>muh pros, muh pros

>>4350940
Pros have to shoot in less than ideal conditions to just get the shot and get it good instead of making excuses like a fujislug/panasoi
>theres not enough light
>can you stop moving
>im doing real, thoughtful photography here
So they need the intersection of phone easyness with camera quality

People with kids care about what pros use, quite a lot, because they also shoot in less than ideal conditions and want good quality. If you don't have kids, well, you only need an olympus ep5 to take photos of your cat.

>>4350954
I have a kid and a Panasonic GX9, and I think I'm faring well enough, thank you.
It is good quality and small enough to never hesitate to take it on a ride.

>>4351043
Wow your kid must be pretty slow

>>4347495
Absolutely love my E-M10 ii. Has a lovely organic feel to it whenever I shoot. It wants you to be happy, that's the vibe I get every time I pick it up.

>>4351047
You're just bad

what if its cursed bro?

the faggotry of discussion when m43 comes up, damn.
Ok, yeah, medium format generally has better IQ than full frame, which generally has better IQ than APS-C, which is better than m43, which is better than 1", and so on.

So what?

Eventually 1" sensors, 2/3" sensors, etc. will perform as well as older FF cameras as technology improves even without computational tricks as long as there is R&D interest.
The fact is, m43 sensors on anything from the G9 or newer are "good enough" to the point that the average wedding photographer probably isn't going to take photos with noticeable differences in image quality.
When I switched to FF from m43, not one person noticed. No one said, "wow, anon, your photography changed overnight. Did you get a FF camera?"
No one is looking at your photos that closely except for you. They're not going to see a difference. They don't give a shit. They're probably not even looking at your photos, get over yourself.
m43 strikes a nice balance between small enough to keep lens size, weight, and cost down, while being large enough to give creative control of depth of field, etc.

>>4351104
based

>>4351104
>m43 strikes a nice balance between small enough to keep lens size, weight, and cost down
yes, but at this point APS-C from sony / fuji / leica does it too.
Samsung NX was the perfect size bayonet, but koreans can't execute.

>>4351104
I bought a $800 lens for my mft camera, took a bird photo (got a little lucky with the composition), showed a friend and they said "but you didn't take that right? You took THAT?" Not gonna lie it felt good. I'd say: getting lucky matters most, but picking a good lens matters too. It makes the image after all. Your sensor size etc matter less after that. If you have good lighting, know how to set your camera settings for success, and a fine sharp lens your sensor's job is easy. If you fuck those other things up all the time then having a good body might matter more, but to a large extent photography obeys the principle "garbage in garbage out."

>>4351104
Pure delusion with a dose of demoralization because only depressive faggotry can make such self flagellation appealing.

Micro four thirds = cameras for beta males
>nothing i do matters
>no one cares about me
>i deserve this and nothing more

>>4351111
Welcome to gear dependent creative hobbies, where you can find such lovely personalities as...
>the bucket crab seeing the world upside down:
>i dont deserve more. fuck me. you dont deserve more. fuck you. stop CONSOOMing. i am actually the moral one because i know i suck. you are vain and stupid. materialist. you probably have a tiny dick too. you aren't good enough for it. i'm not good enough for it. get back down here with the rest of us! i suck, you suck, dont bother!

>mr. only as good as your audience:
>well i showed my mom and she couldnt believe her special little guy was so amazing, so this must be the perfect gear. clearly, my skill makes all this shit irrelevant. i haven't seen your stuff but it sucks and if you show me i'll tell you it sucks.

>the anime ninja:
>the worse my gear is, the more authentic and true i am. i am the underdog. i am takumi from initial D. i can outdrive your metaphorical supercars with an old corolla. i can defeat 20 gunmen with a hand me down katana. while you were shopping, i was studying the blade. no i won't show you proof.

>der fuehrer:
>if you weren't a low iq slope browed troglodyte you could get a job like us real adult human men and afford whatever you want. "that's a lot"? no it isn't, you starving african. castrate yourself. you are too stupid to be rich. you're probably a tranny too. notice every significant person used THE brand. notice you're not significant. if you could be, you'd already have money. you dont believe it? post mansion? no.

>>4351115
>if you weren't a low iq slope browed troglodyte you could get a job like us real adult human men and afford whatever you want. "that's a lot"? no it isn't, you starving african. castrate yourself. you are too stupid to be rich. you're probably a tranny too.
I post like this and sound like this and fully agree with this.

>>4351117
1 is what happens when the point of schizo religious stuff about abandoning the material world to become a spirit misses the mark
2 is a common thing with underachievers
3 is what happens when you're an internet tough guy who watches too many cartoons
4 is what happens when you're an internet tough guy who takes corporate sponsorships at face value

Now here's the facts:
Gear only doesn't matter if you don't matter
It's your skill but better gear is also better

For me it's matching the camera to the end product. m4/3 is perfect for 4x6, 5x7, maybe 8x10 at base ISO. It's also okay for scanning film, not like anyone wants to fuck about with drum scanning. FF is undeniably better but I don't want to throw $2500 of sony in my backpack unprotected.

>>4351108
Right, I use APS-C zooms with my FF camera (and I keep primes around for when I care about quality on any particular outing). It's a good compromise.
But if I didn't benefit from the low light performance of FF (I do a lot of available light night photography), I'd still stick with m43. Its lens ecosystem is a lot more fleshed out. APS-C lenses are treated as "the budget alternative to our good quality stuff" by most companies, whereas there's still a lot of lenses designed by Olympus and Panasonic when they treated them as first class products.
>>4351110
This is what format fags miss. Lens is the most important part of the equation as long as your body is "good enough". I'm not gonna say that OM PRO or Pana-Leica lenses match GM in quality, but they're still hella good.

>>4351127
>Lens quality
That's actually where m43 is throwing money into a black hole. Not one single lens hits the nyquist limit. Pixel shift quickly looks like upscaling in post.

The cheaper lenses, like the panasonic 20mm f1.7, olympus 45mm f1.8, olympus macros, and the middling zooms are actually the best in the whole system because they maintain the ethos of the system instead of trying too hard, surpassing fuji in price and size, and STILL missing the mark. Also, the slight optical inferiority has the effect of an AA filter while being significantly easier on the eyes.

>>4351127
worse lenses look better on larger formats. you get that delicious natural eyeball-like rendition and good sharpness instead of zooming way the fuck in on blur.

the ideal lens is sub-standard for the pixel pitch/grain density and enlargement size. flawless lenses look flat. simple lenses look dynamic and create the illusion of depth and motion.

>>4351111
Nah, what I do matters and people care about my photography. It's a nice side hustle for me. But people don't give a shit what camera my photos were taken on. Some of my more popular prints were taken on a Leica X1, a 12MP APS-C camera from 2009.
But if your hobby is viewing pictures at 200%+ zoom and use that to justify dismissing entire camera systems, you're missing the entire fucking point. Because the point is to create compelling photos. At least, that's the point that coincides with people caring about your photography. And if you're missing that point, then no one gives a shit about your photography except other autists circle jerking over pixels.

Are m43 cameras as good as FF cameras, all else being equal? No. Does it really matter? Not really. My FF cameras help me get my low light shots easier than they were on the G9, with a little more flexibility. But I was still taking good photos on my G9, and if you were to hand me a G9 again today, I'd still take good photos.

You can't take good photos on a G9? That's a you problem.

Are you happy circle jerking over those technically superior pixels? More power to you. But my hobby is creating compelling photos, I'm a photography enthusiast first and foremost, not a camera enthusiast. The only reason I'm here arguing this BS is because I'm bored waiting to go to work.

>>4351131
Nothimbut:
In your fantasy land, you are a beloved japanese street photographer and you can post grainy mush and get 10000 reposts from all the cool kids on tumblrgram while saying vague poetic nonsense about telling a story.

In reality, you're a larper, and I'm a professional who has had shots rejected outright because I thought I'd use a higher ISO to save weight on strobes that day. B^) That's why I know what's actually up. I told them "it's still a good photo" and they said "does not meet quality standards". You know, a good meal is tasty or it is not but not every restaurant will serve it dumped from pan to plate.

Camera quality mostly revolves around output size and cropping. If your output size isn't there, and you aren't short on lens, your camera quality doesn't need to be there.
Lens quality is a creative decision within bounds similar to camera quality but significantly looser, unless you are scanning.

That is all it is. You people view cameras like guitars. They are actually more like speakers and amps. You are the guitar. Pressing a button is just turning on the PA, which should be matched to the venue.

>>4351133
NTA; to continue your analogy, pro photographers like you are closer to studio musicians than songwriters. You care about blending in rather than standing out and expressing yourself.
>larper
Yeah, no one actually wants to be you lol

>>4351138
NTA: to correct your analogy, pro photographers like me are like Jimi Hendrix, creative with a lot of real work under our belts. Larp photographers like you are every "i can do that too, talent is born not earned" lo fi indi rocker or shoegaze faggot who thinks breathing near a janky fender offset and a pedabloard will turn you into kevin shields, or even funnier, j mascis, but at the end of 5+ years invested into music your greatest accomplishment is whining about gibsons and tube amps on /mu/.

>>4351139
pros: garry winogrand
>worked for the newspaper before breaking out with new ideas because he found he loved photography
larps: youtube influencer gear shill
>bought into photography because he liked the idea of being a photographer, ends up just shilling shitty gear and talking about his sensor size

>>4351140
pros be out taking pics while gearfags be vlogging “the last camera you need” shill vids

>>4351138
you finna get a sony sponsorship and start doing orange and teal?

>>4351139
Lmfao you’re full of yourself.

>>4351139
I hope some day you will find happiness.

File: me about to arrest your m(...).jpg (382 KB, 1900x1900)

382 KB JPG

>>4351150
Yes. And?

>>4351153
I hope you find happiness and deez nuts

Everyone itt needs to post their work. I don't trust any of you fuckers.

>>4347495
>anon's friend fatally run over by car
>anon inherits a pancake lens
What did the gf mean by this?

>>4351131
I fully agree, anon.

>>4351439
you're replying to a massive larper

>You can't take good photos on a G9? That's a you problem.
his entire premise is this. no one said they can't. so he's larping and arguing on a false premise to try and boost his ego. you can tell by the following exchange
>you arent a REAL creative, NO ONE WANTS TO BE YOU! I AM NOT JEALOUS! YOU ARE INAUTHENTIC!
basically a self btfo right there

reality of mft: its not like its unusable, it just fucking sucks. it's like "oh you cant go to work in a corolla? i am actually a racecar driver and..." no. no one wants to drive a corolla.

>>4351443
>no one wants to [use an mft camera]
Wrong bozo I love my mft camera. It's fun and smol. Didn't read the rest of your gay retarded post

>>4351478
don't feed the troll

>>4351480
Nice textures. What lens? It's dreamy and pretty.

I've seen Nikon, Snoy, Fuji, Leica, MFT hate, but I can't recall anyone on this board saying anything good or bad about Canon. What gives?

>>4351478
Most mft cameras aren't fun and small with these people lol
its all muh g9, muh g9ii, muh gh7, muh panasonic "leica" "noct"itron, "full frame will finally lose this time i swear" gearfag bs underneath the holier than thou larp parts.

There are two kinds of mft user, only one posts on /p/ very regularly, and its not the one you want
om-5+17mm+45mm+macro: "Photography is fun, and I dont want to spend $3500 on a sony a7cr kit, 'ats it"
g9ii+noctitron+leica something+100-400: "Fool frame btfo... fool frame btfo... any day now... any day now... hey you use full frame! did you know your camera fucking sucks a g9ii has more dynamic ra- COME BACK PLEASE DONT WALK AWAY NO! I DIDNT EVEN GET TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE VIDEO MODES!"

>>4351783
Hating canon is the only reason nikon used to exist
>Canon cripple hammer: the manifestations innumerable
>Blob design, stuck in 2007
>Forced noise reduction (milc)
>Noisy sensor (dslr)

>>4351785
>mft cameras aren't fun
>people use mft cameras for fun
gotta work a bit more on that bait, retard

>>4351788
>>mft cameras
>>fun
>gotta work a bit more
i agree retard you should get a job

>>4351785
The few M43 users that are the de-gearfagging type that have realised they enjoy the hobby but want a small lightweight kit are the actual champions of M43. Oly's 60mm macro on an IBIS M43 body is the single most accessible macro-results driven combination I've ever experienced. You can have it for like $600 and it can fit in my purse lmao.

>>4351792
>De-gearfagging
De-gearfagging is for neurotic betas, hence the weight obsession ("my arms hurt")

I use it because i'm borderline jewish and believe risking even a depreciating asset to the elements or diversity is for foolish self-impoverishing goys
>tools not jewels
>broke another $2000 toy but im totally rich hahaha doesnt bother me (honey, how many credit cards do we have)
Also because i'm poor

>>4351794
Eh, I see de-gearfagging as the gearfags who realise they can do the thing they want with a body and a prime or two etc. and trim down the fat. You don't really get bonus points on the shot for carrying around 20kg of kit at the time. Nobody gives a fuck about that. Yeah, birdies need their 800mm f/2 that's the price of a nice car, but lotta photographers just want good pictures of their life and what's around it.
>risking even a depreciating asset to the elements or diversity is for foolish self-impoverishing goys
Shoutout to the cave-anon who basically planned on breaking $1000 of gear once a year at minimum

>>4351798
>Shoutout to the cave-anon who basically planned on breaking $1000 of gear once a year at minimum
Truth be told, he and his peers seem rich enough to consider it a pocket change.

>>4351798
You're being silly

I shoot m43 because I am poor. Most people irl do. A sony a7cr/a7cii setup is really a much better camera. I can afford one, but I can not afford one twice, and in photography, if you don't buy your camera twice you never actually used it.

Buying a sony a7cii twice, used, costs $3600, not counting the lenses which cost $500+ each. If you lost your whole lens bag just add another $2500+.

>>4351785
>Hating canon is the only reason nikon used to exist
This place is full of garbage information, but once in a while I see someone get so lost up their own ass chasing their ideas that they actually tie the thread they're chasing into a bow around their neck, get it snagged on their own foot and strangle themselves to death with it.

Congrats, you have won the most obtuse fuckin thing I've read on the internet all morning prize.

>>4351802
its true

what did nikon ever have over canon? some techy sensor metrics and maybe some telephoto lens mtf charts. 99%, it was because nikon was using sony's sensors in better designed bodies. boomers wanted their dynamic range and sharpness for cropping that the 5div and 5dsr did not do as well as the d750 and d850. if you did astro you did nikon as well. then canon fixed all their shit sufficiently for everyone but the biggest chart fagging, 7ev push shadow peeping gear queers, and sony's bodies pulled significantly ahead of nikon (Z mount has been a disaster, in the intended context of being professional cameras) so nikon is slowly fading into oblivion since they are no longer "the camera for people who wont settle for canon". now sony is in the position of "canon won't give me this fractional dr/megapixel/lens mtf shart increase so i shoot this".

>>4351803
I'd foolishly expect most people to pick systems because of available lenses first (sports / wildlife aside)

>>4351805
Canon and nikon have practically identical lens selections, but canon can adapt more older SLR mounts.

>>4351798
>>4351800
thread is still alive >>4350989

>>4351785
>om-5+17mm+45mm+macro: "Photography is fun, and I dont want to spend $3500 on a sony a7cr kit, 'ats it"
literally me except the 60mm. i love that little 17mm even if my copy sucks and i wish it was a better lens overall, the MF clutch is just so damn neat and fun and i wish the other oly less-than-pro lenses had it like the 25 and 45
>muh panasonic "leica"
to be fair the PL 15 and 25 don't cost more than the olympus versions and they're very nice lenses (i'd get the 15 to replace my 17 in an instant if i didn't like the focus ring so much), you're right about the gigantic $2500 "leica"s though

>>4351803
skimming wall of text…
>why iz nikon gud tho?
>Z mount has been a disaster
>and other hits from the retarded age

oh boy

>>4351877
nikon be like
>autofocus doesnt work except for hobbyists snapping cats in af-s
>apsc dynamic range
>z8 sized “compact full frame” with worse fuji dials
>largest lenses

>>4351879
The z8 has worse autofocus than the dirt cheap canon r8. Nikon is a fucking joke.

The only people using it are gearfags with sony derangement syndrome

>>4351880
I know it matters to birders and some other photogs but damn, but AF has never been a problem for me since DSLRs were a thing. Get good.

>>4351881
The earlier z cameras had worse autofocus than dslrs. Thats whats even funnier. Nikon lost their market share overnight.

>>4351888
I'm using an original Z7 alongside my D810 and the 7 is considerably better. It doens't do eye tracking all that well, which other than tryint out, I have never needed so I don't really care. But I too watched all the reviewers point out that Sorny had better tracking, which when repeated by "influencers" via the game of telephone, became "Nikons AF is totally unusable and worse than vaseline smeared diving goggles". The expeed7 equipped bodies are even faster, but the original Z7 is by no means slow or unable to tell when a lens has found its focus. Get a grip ppl

>>4351888
Lets see, looks like the best selling camera body of the year is... oh shit, a $4000 Nikon Z8, for the second year in a row, and backordered for 4 months. All those people, so dum, with their blurry photos and lost market share bc unpopular cameras.

Nik had a slow start spending their time retooling their entire line of lenses, but caught up & has been whipping the shag out of your 5 year old perspective for the last three years. Oh that time when Nikon had a slow couple years, tell us about it again grandpawwww

>>4351894
only at one irrelevant retailer in one irrelevant country (map camera).

>>4351894
I can have it for €3250 delivered next week.

File: ultra large ULF.png (44 KB, 942x505)

44 KB PNG

>>4347631
true

there are only 2 sensor sizes you need, APS-C for fun, and MF for work.

>>4351922
will a 2007 gopro work? it shoots a still if you hold the button for a while

File: formats.png (14 KB, 1344x1056)

14 KB PNG

hoping i havent botched

>>4351922
FF for fun, MF (the real kind) for work = poor ppl
DX MF and real MF for fun AND work = jobhavers

>>4351848
The 40-150 f/2.8 is really nice and great to use. Most long lens photography is fairly snapshot in nature so it’s not like you’re really controlling the scene that much. The 17 and 45 give you so much for so little. When I miss m43, that’s what I miss.

Honorable mention on the 300 f/4; yeah it’s not the same as a FF 600 f/4 but it’s really good, and it’s not that expensive vs other teleprimes.

>>4352866
its just a worse tamron 70-300

All of this was really cool when we only had canikon DSLR shit. Now it's just cheap, and sony is mogging it (even the UI and colors, holy shit panalympus is worse than snoy there)

>>4352866
The 40-150 with the 1.4 teleconverter is my go to for wildlife. It's really a beautiful lens. I wish we had something like the old 50-200/2.8-3.5 but made smaller for mft... you can adapt but it's heavy, or use the panasonic 50-200 but it's probably not compatible with Oly sealing.

>>4352866
>>4351848
>>4351785
which aperture primes are you talking about? 1.8?

>>4352992
Yes the Oly 1.8s. The 1.2s are better but expensive and heavy. The 1.8s make sense for the system.

>>4352992
The f1.7/f1.8 primes. You can fit them in a pants pocket. Yes, normal pants, bordering on skinny jeans.

If you shoot near a lot of glass they have a weird property where they pick up the green tho. I don't have that problem on nikkor lenses. Lenses are complicated optical systems and if you can see anything looking through a lens its catching, reflecting, and filtering light.

>>4353029
>If you shoot near a lot of glass they have a weird property where they pick up the green tho.
is that the same effect with green spots appearing on phones' cameras?

>>4353029
>a lot of grass
Seriously, the green tint is fucking weird. Tilt the lens away from the green things IRL and it doesn't pick up the tint. The green light being reflected off the grass, goes into the glass and reflects around becoming a color cast.

Cheap lenses do this. A lot of sony lenses do this.

>>4353030
Phones computational photography runs multi auto white balance so you get weird unbalanced colors. Sometimes it fucks up. If you pay attention at the start of videos sometimes you can notice iphones "pulsing" colors as the camera processing tries to find what it thinks are correct color shifts.

>>4353031
>Phones computational photography
ah, so it's something different.

>>4351783
Because Canon does nothing exciting ever.
If you want a camera that does its job and NO MORE, look no further.

>>4353036
>canon
>"i just want to get the job done"
>the r8 has a purposefully small battery and one card slot, buy r6ii pls
>"i dont need all this video garbage, i am a photographer. ibis? call me when people can hold still for a whole second i dont need this fucking gimmick. i just want a normal sized battery and two cards because SD cards fail believe it or not"
>buy r6ii pls

>>4353039
>460 g
>no IBIS
fokin hell is wrong with them?

>>4353039
>Current canon lineup summed up
R100: How fucking poor could you be? Get a job.
R50: Small, light, basically M43 but for adults.
R10: Entry for APS-C. Still no actual features but you get a mech shutter here.
R7: Actual features but lel it's still APS-C

RP: I'm still poor but I actually want a decent photo.
R8: Didn't want to buy a used RP. Still no IBIS, go fuck yourself.
R6: Features start here. That'll be $2500+ saar
R5: Ah I see you're a """journalist"""
R3: Yes, I take photos of sportsball games, how could you tell?
R1: Yes, I genuinely regret my life choices.

>>4353069
IBIS isn't the part that hurts

It's the battery and the backup slot. With a high speed "no excuses, never miss a shot" type camera like this, cards get worn out fast enough to fail fairly often, and APS-C sized batteries die extremely fast. If it had the R6II battery it would have double the battery life. But then, a bunch of people would never touch the R6II.

>>4353113
https://www.custombatterygrips.com/store/product/battery-grip-for-canon-eos-r8

Doesn't get you the dual SD card slots but there's your battery issue solved for $130 instead of another $1000

>>4353120
>third party power source
>canon
Enjoy your explosion.

File: 1719225281425622.png (458 KB, 1154x804)

458 KB PNG

>>4353120
>$90 for a shitty 3d printed part
lmao

>>4353120
based pollack doing what canon't

File: Nikon_Z6_with_MB-N10.jpg (140 KB, 1100x825)

140 KB JPG

>>4351893
>Get a grip ppl
You first.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Zoner Photo Studio 18
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1100
Image Height	825
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:01:24 13:09:43
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	825

>>4352980
Something just a little longer would have been great. A 50-200 with the price/performance of the plastic fantastic 40-150, not even the f/4 Pro or the xbox hueg f/2,8, would have sold like gangbusters, especially since that segment is pretty barren other than the Pana 50-200 while Olympus has like 7 lenses that all stop at 150mm. Especially since it would have lined up perfectly with the whatever-to-250 kit zooms on entry level APSCs that also equal out to 400mm eq.
>probably not compatible
It isn't, the "M43 Standard" turned out to be a mess.

>>4352980
After finally buying a good printer, I realized that outside of crazy shallow DOF situations, format doesn’t matter. The only thing that does is lens quality. Most m43 photos look like dogshit because turd worlders are using the terrible 14-42 kit lens or 40-150 f/5.6 that have bad CA, flaring and poor contrast. And because it’s an amateur system people slap “UV Filters” on that have terrible terrible quality and crush contrast and quality.

>>4353704
for all 0 people that will view your 600dpi 5x7s yes

you basically figured out that downscaling is a form of noise reduction. printing downscales beyond what high end screens can do, reducing noise and retaining detail instead of making it pixellated.

>>4353712
A3+ looks fine.

>>4353713
based bad eyesight haver

>>4353713
Lolwut? must be a fairly soft printer compared to the lab I use

>>4347495
The E-M10 was my first serious changeable lens camera, it's great. Love the design and ergonomics and image quality was a big upgrade from compact cameras and phones at the time. The dual wheel setup for adjustment is good for learning manual mode later. You'll get the best results shooting in daylight conditions but it's also easy to do long exposures at night because of the image stabilization.