birds edition
>>4458547No no no!!! You can't like those cameras I simply will not allow it.
>>4458547Micro Four Thirds... home.
>>4458549Do you think the thread will be entirely gearfagging or will there actually be m43 pics?
We all know the only "m43" pics posted here will be from huskyfag and her Sony.
>>4458554Micro four thirds confirmed good for nothing but making youtube clickbait!>>4458561That guy must be so proud. He traumatized /p/‘s worst gear thread.
>every tripfag mentioned on nu/p/ is a nophoto or notphotogGrim
>>4458547Not my best birb by any means but my most recent. They were quite upset with me so I left quickly.
>>4458576Who is nup?
>>4458577
>>4458576the trips are the only people on /p/ who consistently post photos...
>>4458580
>>4458582
>>4458583
>>4458583wow!
i see better shots from d750 and 5diii budget chads. clearly mirrorless isnt actually easier to use lol.
>>4458592BbbbbbbbBUTT my m43 has better DR, chud.
Didn't snap any building corners today.
i was reminded by this thread of the existence of my 4/3rds olympus e500 and i will bring that to work tomorrow, expect some plane photos i like how this camera has a really deep rich look to its photos. its the kodak ccd + olympus cfa. >>4458600>>4458592my e500 has no dynamic range, this thing just falls flat on its face if you ask anything above iso 400, its pretty retarded actually. even the 6mp konica ccd + 10mp pentax/sony ccds i have work better at iso 400-800.it cost $140 locally with a 50mm f/2 prime that apparently is a retarded desirable lens in 4/3rds mount
>>4458612i do like the artistic expression (read: unique look) i get out of itits pretty fun to use all things considered, but the awb isn't accurate at all. i prefer my konica minolta 5d, it can give a similar deep saturated look with more versatile DR/better details from the larger sensor (apsc vs 4/3), but the olympus glass is really sharp all things considered.this stupid camera actually makes me wanna pick up my first not-vintage camera (olympus em5 mark iii). i think i would be served fine by m43 considering most of what i shoot is with telezooms and as long as i get better image quality than my phone i'm happy (almost certain since olympus glass is great).
>>4458613anyways olympus em5 mark 3 or a pentax k1 mark ii, and i kinda feel like the em5 has a better place in my collection since its half the price, way better autofocus, and a lot of my pentax lenses are apsc anyways
>>4458614>even m43 is better than pentaxoh no!current rankings according to assorted /p/ usersfilm > phaseone > hasselblad> canon = nikon > sony > m43 > pentax > fujifilm
>>4458581In the real world you're not awarded just for participating. >Sugar has never posted a decent photo and rarely posts anything in focus>Huskyfag has never used zir camera for anything other than test shots and is also an animal rapist suffering from psychosis >fe2fucker just a fatter clone of sugar (not easy)>cANONI don't think i've ever seen cANON post a photo other than that fatguy mirror selfie>RPuserbraindead newfag gen alpha>clueless faggotas described
>>4458644i don't care about any of that, where is your m43 bird photos loser
>>4458645bird phots fucking suck, they're all the same, especially the wikipedia tier shit that gets posted here.
>>4458626>phaseoneSay his true name.
>>4458644>SugarModern day ansel adams>HuskyfagA talented landscape photographer who has shot professionally>fe2fuckerLewis baltz the early years>cANONPosts a lot of photos with his trip off, mostly landscape, all well received, from a VPN, so his snaps dont get IP wiped when he names the
>>4458613Four thirds looks a lot less flat than micro four thirds. The vintage sensors didn't cope as hard and embraced their low DR and resolution. Micro four thirds tries and fails to compete with better cameras.
>>4458644>clueless faggot>as describedNo argument there really.
>>4458654Absolutely pathetic.
>>4458657>the air gap in the mirror box makes the light more 3dhahaha thats great
>>4458657The vintage sensors also came out during a time when they were trying their best to convince people to switch from film to digital. That's why they along with the Nikon D200/D40-60, KM 5D, Canon 5D Classic, etc all have a similar look. It also has to do with the strong CFAs used on the sensor itself (the Sonys from the same era have weak CFAs and need more editing despite using similar CCD sensors as Nikon for example)
>>4458644Rekt and kekd.Incidentally, I've purchased an M43 cope cam to add to my collection - an E-P7 with the 40-150 kit, plus a panny 20mm 1.7. I shall report back on IQ when it makes its way out here from the orient. The seller just informed me that Nippon is taking the week off, and I only hope it gets here before the tariff king spots it at the border.
>>4458657https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x77sPknyRQOlympus E500 vs EM10 Mark IIIOlympus colors just rock desu. If Olympus used bigger sensors they'd sell a lot more cameras. Imagine a FF OM-1.
>>4458602that looks like Proust
>>4458668M43 system can't have an APS-C sensor can it? (like Sony and Nikon have both APS-C and FF cameras with the same lens mount) The lenses are too small in diameter, righ?
>>4458695negative. same issue EOS M mount had; mount is at capacity.
>>4458693The book? Les Miserables I think, it's not mine.
>>4458654absolutely correctthere's more talent in sugar's swollen index finger than there is in this entire thread and the huskyfag-doghair complex genuinely outdoes most of /p/ despite working with less than ideal environments (a bunch of dead grass and ugly pine trees and a farm littered with 100 years worth of garbage respectively)
Does anyone have either of the OM-5? Can it do exposure compensation in manual mode when iso is auto? Or can it change iso with a wheel?> Empty churches with transparent doors.
>>4459023> exposure compensation in manual modeWell, I just had to look it up and it can.
>>4458668There was rumors they were looking at making a medium format camera. Probably a GFX/Hassleblad competitor.
>>4459081> tfw it's an m43 twin lens reflex
>>4459141Square format sensor would be incredibly based for a dtlr. Even if it was M44... M1? Still pretty cool. Wouldn't buy it, but it sure would be neat!
>>4459081M4turds weird lust for dx medium format is like when a 5’2” guy fantasizes about being 6’2” simply because normal height is 6’0”meanwhile people who are already 6’0” dont care that other people are 6’2” and people who are 6’2” dont care that people are 6’0”. they are all brothers in laughing at manlets. such is the relationship between 35mm and 44mm sensor brahs. aps-c (5’10” king of manlets) can hang too
>>4459141That would be incredible
>>4459150Anon take your gay fantasies to a different board. This is for talking about photography not your ex boyfriends
>>4459152>he starts thinking about gay sex when people taller than him are mentionedWho’s gay here? Not me
>>4459153>I'm not gay I just like thinking about tall guys and how I'm such a short guy
>>4459156I’m normal height (6ft) and use a normal camera (ff)
>>4459168You shoot 8x10 as well? Based.
> Took a bunch of photos with Oly kit lens at f16-f22.> They look awful.Yeah, I'm a retard.
I like just like how some of the older cameras are pretty cheap for what you get and the smaller sizes are really nice for vacations as an amateur at leastI just got an old GF3 with kit lens for 100 eurobuxThe previous owner was unfortunately a smokerI read positive things about baking soda and vinegar that I’ll try out
>m.zuiko 50-200 f/2.8 coming sep 10th>it's huge and whiteWell ok I guess. I'd rather have a lighter and smaller 50-200 f/4 like the Panny. I use the 40-150 2.8 with a 1.4x for this but the whole setup is way bigger and heavier than the Panny. (No sealing is a no go for me, I frequently shoot close to or on the ground and water.) I bet this stupid thing will be close to or over 2kg. At least it appears to have IS.
Just how many X0-Y00 zooms an average birdfag needs?
>>4464232To be fair it's weird Oly makes so many 80-300 equivalents and not a single 100-400 equivalent, a standard zoom range for birds. It's also weird to me we don't have a nicer 150-600 equivalent, they're all plastic and soft and slow at the long end.
>>4464180>this stuipid thing will be close to or over 2kg>for a 100-400mm f/5.6 equiv.>on a camera with 800 base iso>it's probably also $1500+Like... I don't get the point. So, you're gonna have a lens as big as a full frame lens, that costs just as much (or more considering used market), with specs that are slighty worse to about the same, on a body/sensor that's not going to be able to do it justice even at base ISO. No really, someone try and sell this to me and make it make sense because I don't know why you wouldn't just get an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or Nikon equivalent.
>>4458614>>4458612I was gonna suggest looking for an E-5 or E-510 since those have newer sensors and way better DR, E-5 has the same sensor as the E-P1 and E-P2 so it also supports video
Dang it, I got a nice E-P1 and E-P2 from auctions on Buyee and both pages said they were fully functional.The E-P1 didn't have a picture of the screen turned on but the E-P2 did and it looked fine.They arrived today and both show show an orange flashing IBIS light, indicating it isn't working.Can shipping damage IBIS?The E-P1 came with a 40-150mm f4-5.6 so it's not a bust luckily and I still got my money's worth.I'll just use stabilized lenses on them and learn to ignore the flashing IBIS light.
>>4464994All my cameras with IBIS were shipped to me and still have functional IBIS. Early Pens were cheaply made though. Sorry for your loss anon.
>>4465005Thanks anon.I found old forum posts that mentioned IBIS breaking being an inevitability on the old Pens.It's a shame but oh well.That aside, the old designs are really nice.I know the era has passed but man I'd like to see some of that design incorporated in new cameras again.
>>4465015They're great, but feel antithetical to OM's current plans, which is frustrating. I had hope with the 17 and 25 f/1.8s being given a version II we'd see a pen... I guess it's not impossible.
>>4465039Indeed, I fear the OM-3 is the closest we’re getting instead
>>4465152I cannot help but think this line is straight from OMDS markeing: "maybe if we say OM-3 is a successor of Pen series, more people would buy it".
>>4465162I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re thinking:>Only if people buy enough of this 2000$ model, we’ll consider making a new 1000$ model
>>4465182except what they're actually thinking is>I wonder how many suckers are going to buy this $2000 camera before we sink the company for good and retire
