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
>>4465188kek
>>4465182> Look up OM-5> 1700 Europoor money with kit lensWtf are they thinking?
>>4465387Having a huge old used market with highly depreciated lenses and bodies that are not materially different from new drives camera makers to sell more pro and expensive gear. If you are buying a dedicated camera in the year 2025 you most likely want a kit that is "pro" in some sense, ESPECIALLY if you are buying new. This puts 2025 m43 in a very rough spot. People criticize OM for abandoning their low end gear but it was the best move they had, even if it's a losing move. (I love my m43 gear for what it's worth and think the market is stupid and not the end all for quality-- Pentax would be far better represented if that were the case and Fuji APS-C much less so, for example)
>>4465410>om5>high end>proLmfao. M43 is inherently low end. The all plastic om5 makes it even worse. The 20mp om3 is pure idiocy. Om system is a fucking joke. A literal scam brand. At least the g9ii does SOMETHING (high speed camcorder that looks almost like apscope)
>>4465414>anon fell for the price = quality meme again
>M43 is inherently low endtrvth nvke
>>4465505M43 being a poorfag/cheapskate system isn't a secret.
Ok, I promise to not complain about OM Workspace for at least a month. Today I learned that apparently Fujifags have to process images in-camera (and with the exact camera that shot the raw) if they want to get Fuji's own color science.
>>4465039Monkey paw. They turn Pen into "vlogger" camera: no sd card, no mechanical shutter, only continuous autofocus. That would be $1500 plus tip.
>>4465387grey imported mine for £800, the nips get em cheap. 5 year warranty from the importer.
>>4467015That must be body only, right?
>>4467076nope, body and the 40-150 kit lens, £879 delivered from cotswold cameras.
I bought my first camera and it turns out it's a Micro 4/3, whatever that means. What now?
>>4467090I'm afraid you might have to actually take photos.
>>4467094Preposterous
>>4467089Well, I guess it's not as outrageous as I thought; 1700 is with the f/4 lens that costs 600 Euro on its own. Still outrageous how everyhing in Japan is less expensive than in Europe, where we are constantly fucked by taxes, VAT and what not.
>>4467164oh yeah its fuckin obscene the markups we get, thankfully uncle chang lies to HMRC all the time so i rarely pay any import taxes on anything really. Where were you seeing it for 1700 with the 40-150 f4 pro?
>>4467315I meant the 12-45 f4 pro.
>>4458613>>4458614imagine looking at this irl and thinking "yes, this is beautiful" lmfao..thank god i live in beautiful switzerland and not in a concrete jungle hellhole
>>4458547I hate m43 youtubers. That new 50-200 from Olympus they all yap about how it's small and compact. Hell you fucking retards - it's the same size and weight as the Nikon Z 100-400 while being 1000 Euros more expensive. kek
>>4458547hey, it's former m43 anon who sold all his gear to invest in bitcoin and get a fuji macro four thirds.just wanted to say I bought a Nikon Zf after test driving a fuji GFX lol(would post other photo but 5MB limit)peace out
>>4467857It's almost a pound lighter actually, not unsubstantial. It's about the same size, probably because the m.zuiko zooms internally (unlike the Nikon).
>>4467857Exactly what I think of whenever someone is like MUH FOURTURDS is so LIGHT and COMPACT.Nigger, you're slapping on lenses the same size as FF tried-and-true that have half as much aperture size. M43 marketing relies on the fact we arbitrarily slapped f/stops on the barrel to sell lenses instead of the pupil entrance size. The same way phones rely on talking like they're big boy cameras "we're totally using a 28mm lens guys, and it's f/1.9 that's so good and wide and omg foolturds in shambles".>>4467859A difference I'm happy to admit to, but it still shows that for the low low price of more money than full frame and 1/4 the sensor area, you too can save 200g off your hiking kit. Woo.
>>4465387yeah that's why I got a Nikon Zf insted. for the same money. (without a lens but I already had Nikon glass and that f8 equivalent zoom kit is a joke anyway). OM is peak retard. even used their cams are way too overpriced.
>>4467321>24-90 f8>600 euroswhew
>>4465387its $900 in america body only brand new and $6-700 used, +$300 for mark iimaybe your market sucks
>>4467863Bro what's wrong, you've hardly touched your $1000 general purpose kit zoom
>>4467861> Comes to a schizo containment thread to lie> Lie is pointed out> I admit to lying heheYou gearfags are pathetic.>>4467863> Creamy_dreamy_cummy_yummies.txt
>>4467877I'm not whatever anon you think I am, and I'm admitting the four turds is lighter because I'm not in denial like you thirdies are about your fashion accessory cameras.I can admit my opponent's victories because it makes it easier to point out their failures.In this case your f/8 kit zoom paired with your micropeen pixel pitch and horrible sensor tech and debayering that costs more than a legit big boi system, all so you can save a few hundred grams for your basedlet wrists.
>>4467862yeah micro four thirds is quite shit. i tried it for a while and stuck with nikon ff. even shooting "le equivalently!" the difference is real. it's just oversized 1". better to get that sony zv-something pns instead if buying a small camera.mind the difference in light color (it's actually the color of the light)
>>4467870https://explore.omsystem.com/fr/fr/om-5-mark-ii-silver-12-45mm-pro-lens-kit
>>4467882
>>4467882yes there it isthe sony zv1aka rx100v but paradoxically cheaper
>>4467882>>4467884So equivalent settings dont actually work? wtf lmao
>>4467883grim its 100 euro more before converting euro to usd, once converting 1700 euro = $2000 usdmight unironically be cheaper to fly to nyc and buy one https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1900663-REG/om_system_v210071su000_om_5_mark_ii_mirrorless.html>>4467886why would it, its a smaller sensor. smaller sensor = higher iso/shutter speed/aperture needed vs larger sensor
>>4467886No.m43: panaleica 45mm f2.8 wide open iso 1600ff: 24-120 f4 kit zoom 80mm f5.6 iso 6400caveat: shot months aparthttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4454569/#4455121>>4467888why would you do this to yourself? just buy an older one instead of blowing z5ii money on a phone sensor. micro four thirds isn't even that good in broad daylight. it underperforms vintage dslrs.
>Pentax confirmed >>>>>>>> olympissPentaxsisters we're better than something!
>>4467870>$900 for a re-badged EM5.3 which already was a re-badged EM5.2 you have it so good over there in the US! based market!
>>4467890Equivalent settings do work anon.You just have to buy a G9II, stick to lenses costing at least $1500 each for an f2.8 prime, and shoot in pixel shift!
>>4467890> Out of focus picture of a dog in trailer parkI don't doubt that better gear makes bad photos a bit better, and I don't doubt that current OM gear is bad for the price. But this photo is bad not because of gear.
>>4467898>ohhh noooo your image quality example snapshit isnt a work of art. i can see grass that isn't a putting green so this is clearly a trailer park.that's a campground not a trailer park. thanks for the tacit admission you have literally never touched grass.>out of focusit's in focus. that's the sad part. it's a zoom. m43 zooms that don't cost as much or more than comparable (better) lenses for bigger sensors are just like that.i would rather use a sony than micro four thirdsbehold the a7c and its 28-60 kit zoom, at a whopping iso 6400
>>4467902Anon, you bought into 3 different systems to haphazardly snap your backyard animals. Then you proceed to argue that OM is not good value for money. At least shoot the night sky or something.
>>4467902>behold the a7c and its 28-60 kit zoom, at a whopping iso 6400but le fool frame is so huge and heavy! you literally have to carry 100g more!
Micro four thirds was never meant for photographers. It was meant for the "family photo" market that made poorly shot SOOC jpeg vacation 4x6s with purse sized. Especially that market in japan, where ultra casual vacation cameras were a thing for longer than they were in the west. It is huge engineering challenge to get the quality on par with a 16mp APS-C DSLR, optically and electronically. When the family snap market dried up due to phones, olympus tried and failed to appeal to photographers by adding tech gimmicks that photographers barely had any use for and therefore olympus died. Panasonic went for the amateur video market instead, since image quality is borderline meaningless for video but the small sensor size enables faster readouts and less heat generation for less money.So in the end, olympus made garbage and spending more than $350 or so on an olympus body is for idiots, and panasonic made really good camcorders for the money.Anyone viewing an m43 photo at the full 16-20mp, with web browser scaling, is going to be disappointed. These cameras were never meant to spread their 20mp across 72dpi. That's hard to make look good even if you own a hasselblad because bayer hits its limit fast. They were meant to squish it down into a 300dpi 4x6. An 8x10 for photos that people would never be able to look closely at, maybe.
>>4467905I take photos of more than thatnot for /p/ though. i'm not the kind of person to post hastily censored shots from other peoples weddings on the same site as /d/.>bought into 3 different systemsI had and sold the m43 shit for about what i paid for itthe a7c was bought underpriced and sold for an extra $50most of the cameras i've bought i sold for break even/a small profit jej. do people really do it any other way?
>>4467907most people who insist on m43 are kind of gearfaggy and speculate about scenarios where the gimmicks might matter, and end up spending $$$$ to un-disappoint themselvesif you just shoot it has nothing over aps-c and is more like less convenient 1"
>>4467909> Out of focus tilted photo of a bride against blurred rubbish binsYeah, /p definitely lacks that.
>>4467909anon tell me more about the a7c. is it actually not shit? considering one. why did u sell it?
>>4467906Side note but it's crazy how they managed to make the OM-3 lighter than the a7c, but it has a stacked sensor, a real shutter with better flash sync speed, much better weather sealing and ibis etc.
>>4467911
M4turds btfo again, kek.> inb4 muh equivalence
>>4467914I take it back. I want you to be my wedding photographer.
>>4467916Depends on how many times you plan on getting married.
>>4467913Then they proceded to make it twice as large and expensive. Clown world.
Doghair, huscuck, and corgearfag are the same person and you’re all being trolled
>>4467919He also posts about how he's the only worthwhile photographer here when he's never taken anything of merit.
>>4467910>he has a fuji "now"Stop falling for it
>>4467920Watch out. Next he’ll show up as doghair and defend himself.
>>4467919You're giving us a lot of credit for keeping up a lie with that much complexity over years of posting on multiple boards.If there was any real evidence of us being the same person it would be posted constantly. The charade would have been over long ago.I really enjoy the schizo theories you guys come up with, so I'm fine with it.
>>4467910sorry huskyfag im unironically considering either a om5 with a 20mm pancake like you had (or 14-32mm panaleica lens) or a z30 w/kit lensi like how it slim it feels and a comparable sized apsc isnt gonna have a viewfinder or flash i also dont want to pay 2x for a a7c and pancake lens
>>4467913it's lighter because it's made of plastic. also stacked baby sensor is irrelevant because it's a baby sensor with worse IQ than some 10 yo fuji x-tranny sensor
>>4467912The a7c is a good camera. I liked it more than the a7cii and took it on a few hikes with my dog. The 300% pixel peeping zoom/dog fur rendition/distant pine needle quality is not as good as some other cameras because of the AA filter, but it has soul, and doesnt have the zombie skin issues of the a7riii/a7iii and the jpegs can be good if you mess around with the profiles so color calibration isn't an absolute must. Just watch out for the bad batch of magenta tinged rear screens. I think most of the hate for it is because it's not as good of a vlogging camera as snoy pretended it was and some people like looking through viewfinders more than they like getting nice photos later.Micro four thirds literally could not take this picture (iso 100 -2ev) which would be sad, because my dog was being very cute>>4467937I never owned and can not recommend an om5I had an em5ii and toyed around with an em5iii (spoilers: it isn't any better than the em5ii at all)
>>4467960em5iii = om5same shit just gains live nd mode, a extra stop of stabilization, and truepic 9 vs truepic 8i have a ff dslr at home this would be just a edc/car/travel camera
>>4467940Pretty sure the OM-3 is made from metal.
>>4467910>most people who insist on m43 are kind of gearfaggy and speculate about scenarios where the gimmicks might matter, and end up spending $$$$ to un-disappoint themselves>>4467913>gimmick copesProphetic… is huscuck lisan al ghaib? His dog does look like timothee chalamet
>>4468021>a real shutter with 1/250 sync speed is a gimmick>high fps without rolling shutter is a gimmickMaybe you are just retarded
>>4468065>sub stop sync speed difference meaningless since lol hss >high fps with low rolling shutter is a gimmick because high FPS is a gimmick especially with micro four thirds crappy autofocusThe vast majority of legendary photos were shot with <10fps cameras10fps+ cameras have mostly produced a lot of time spent culling and only keeping the first oneHigh FPS is a professional feature for people who get fired if they do not get some permutation of a specific shot like the first kiss, so they can just spam shots instead of exercising timing skills. Unfortunately for the overpriced-micro-turd (aka OM3) micro four thirds is not a professional format and sucks so bad it gets turbomogged by a used canon 5ds
>>4468065My phone shoots 120fps!
>>4459081>They call it the OM-X to reference the cancelled modular system
>>4467990They should do a "bleeding edge" body that's retro-styled but has hyper-advanced features like debuting the 50mp sensor, 8k video, high-speed flash sync, and Z-axis IBIS (sensor moves forward and back like a Contax AX film plane)
>>4468200Also they should call this body the OM-4 to reference the original OM-4 film camera being the most advanced of the OM film bodies
>>4468200They should start making ff cameras that accept m43 glass with an adaptor.
>>4468207yeah, just include a 2x speed booster and be done with it. desu I had this thought today about nikon and them making """medium format""" cameras. they could just include a 1.25x speed booster with the camera (like they did with the FTZ adapter). hell most Z-mount S glass is good enough to fill a digital medium format sensor without terrible vignetting without a speed booster at all.also why are we calling this 0.79x crop shit even medium format? that's more like full frame+. hell even the small real medium format 6x4.5 has a crop of 0.62x ... proper medium format like 6x7 starts at 0.5x crop.fucking marketing assholes
>>4468200They aren't doing shit. The company is gone, they're just being milked by a venture holding firm. There will be no new innovation, just rehashes.>>4468207You want to adapt lenses that project an image on half of the sensor and expect that to go well? So, you just want to get like 6MP out of your 24MP cameras or?
>>4468216i see two options:1. they make a FF with a 60mp/80mp sensor or something like that so the m43 crop mode is 16mp or 20mp. but that's unrealistic and would be too expensive2. they add AI based in-camera upscaling to their 24mp/33mp full frame body that would upscale the m43-crop image to 20mp resolution.
>>4468216>>4468264Yep, they'd need a 80MP FF sensor, but if they had one, that would be a way to sell more gear while keeping the core audience of m43 lunatics.
>>4468283>Core audience of m43 lunaticsLess than 1% of the market? A dying minority as more and more accept that the a7c is a good camera or some fuji is better?We have this guy who sounds like an ex-mu-43 goon readily admitting that there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5 >>4467960Olympus is cookedTheir only way to live after they're done milking this doomed from day one digital shit is to restart a film camera production line. The OM-1n and OM-2n can not be too difficult to produce. They're dead simple SLRs designed around the manufacturing capabilities of a japanese warehouse full of 40s and 50s level tech. All of the lenses are already designed as well and making them to the same standard would be cheap as chips. That's basically what china does with ttartisan etc. And because film shooters are idiots and a low volume market, they could just make them exactly like they did before, for the same price adjusted for inflation, and charge $1500 for a metal box. And actually sell a ton. What's the competition? $6000 leica and $800 pentax fixed lens half frame.
>>4468290Not that they have any other audience.
>>4468290>A dying minorityyou don't know how right you are. the average m43 user is 74 years old by now>there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5there isn't. there's even a downgrade as the em5.2 had a metal body while the om5 is plastic. only difference is 16mp vs 20mp and the om5 has finally the "favorites menu" where you can save menu items to. oh also some computational crap that no one uses after they try it out once
>>4468290>We have this guy who sounds like an ex-mu-43 goon readily admitting that there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5I used both as well and (anecdotally) found the om-5 to be noticeably better, PDAF AF is a huge improvement too even if it's not om-1 level.
>>4468325PDAF is a meme for static subjects, olympus tracking AF is a meme period and relies on every zoom being f8-11 to save itselfI demoed it once and the pdaf was only noticeably better for single point af-c otherwise its a mess. Slightly below the level of a decent canon DSLR ie: 5div. I think their cameras outside the epl are kind of a scam. If it doesn't pocket it's pointless gram shaving gearwank and might as well be aps-c at least.Even that one petapixel shill will take his gm5 out over the various meme olympuses
>>4468325>PDAF AFlol I forgot what PDAF stood for>>4468327>PDAF is a memeCan't agree, maybe other CDAF systems are better but the e-m5ii struggled
>>4468329E-PL7 CDAF is pretty goodHow hard is it to focus on trees? Maybe your lens was broken
>>4468330I take photos of critters when I can too :3
>>4468331AF-S could take this photo 100%
>stop lurking /p/>actually go out and take photos>have tons of fun>realise the only thing that ever matters on 4chan is engaging with the board hobby>paradoxically this means you'll spend less time here because you're actually doing the thing>but it also means you can ignore anyone that doesn't prove they engage with the board topicAnyway here's a picture I actually like.
>>4465594Yeah, you plug the camera into the computer and the desktop software apparently uses the camera “color module” or something. The only pros I see who actually shoot Fuji just use Capture One, which apparently does a close enough job
>>4467858How are you liking the ZF? I’ve been looking at it, and it’s at the super high end of my budget range, but I like what it offers. Only problem is that it’s kinda big and the Z lenses are stupidly huge. I know reviewers desperately crave le edge to edge sharpness, but I just don’t care that much. I’d way rather have a lens with some vintage vibes at the same size/weight point as older AF glass. So ZF plus 7artisans jank lenses, I guess hahaThat or a7C, I guessI’d lose the retro controls but it’d be smaller. Granted, Sony files apparently take a lot more work to be processed, which would also be a pain. Thoughts on the comparison? >>4467940
>>4468330Another anon. My E-P7 refuses to focus on furry animals, a black cat is a lost cause. If pdaf impoves it, it would be a win.
>>4468509lmao I owned an E-PL7 brief while and also noticed it struggled with feathers and fur. Going Canon was night and day for AF. That shit is magic.
>>4468482The zf can use auto-manual-focus (trap focus where you hold down the button and it fires whenever its in focus) at the same time as subject detection. No other cameras can do this at the moment. So the ZF can use leica M mount lenses almost flawlessly.The sony can't adapt any old manual lenses at all without fucking up the corners noticeably. It can only use new designs.>Sony files apparently take a lot more work to be processedOnly in lightroom. In my opinion both sony and nikon files benefit from a better default preset from cobalt image or RNI and canon+capture one or canon+DPP is the only full frame color science that's good period.
>>4468482I like it. Except for the huge Z glass. BUT here's how I cope:For everyday shooting I have the small 28mm f2.8 - that's compact enough so I can carry the cam all day with me and not really mind the size/weight. It's not as compact as an A7C but it's good enough.When I take out a bigger lens it's always for dedicated photo stuff so I don't actually mind the size at all. Ergonomics aren't an issue at all when you don't do the stupid one-handed shooting. Just support the lens with your left hand and it's a non-issue. I don't even have a grip attachment.My only problem is that I'd love to have a compact 35mm lens. 28mm is just a focal length I don't really enjoy. I already got an E-mount adapter (Viltrox) and I'm going to get the Snoy Zeiss 35mm f2.8. According to the internet that lens works well with the E-Z adapters from Viltrox and Megadap. So that sould be my EDC setup then.I don't shoot manual glass so I can't say anything about that.What I really like about the Zf is the autofocus. It's finally good enough to get my hyperactive 4yo kid in focus. My Z6II and my OM-5 always struggled with that. With the Zf it's not a problem anymore. But that's a pretty niche use case on this board I guess.The IBIS is good but not as good as that on the OM-5. And when shooting thunderstorms I miss Live-Time.If you don't really need the retro style body take a look at the Z5II - it's the same camera in a modern body. I think I would have bought that but it wasn't announced yet when I got my Zf and now I like my Zf so much I won't sell it.Having said that I'm going also to test the A7C in the future. It's a soulless piece of shit but it's really small so might be the better EDC camera. But then again the Zf is going to get in-camera grain with the next firmware update so I don't think I'll switch away from the Zf. (I recreated some of my favorite C1 looks in NX Studio and nowadays I shoot 90% SOOC JPGs so the grain feature will be killer for me).
>>4468647apologies if i'm mistaken (i don't know much about raw processing, barely know anything about lightroom,) but isn't RNI only film sim and not a camera-specific calibrated formulation like cobalt image?picrel: my own first camera, previously used to borrow my dad's 6d+kit lens
>>4468725don't listen to colorscience fags. they're the younger version of boomer noise fags
>>4468743Color science is "real" but not in the way gearfags say it is (tied to specific sensors)There are two hardware aspects that influence colorSensor metameric error (when the CFA dyes spectral response can't discriminate between two colors under certain lighting) - this can be quite high or quite low for cameras people say have good color, because they were only ever looking at jpeg profilesAnd lens color cast (basically, the glass itself is colored no matter what you do and filters out and enhances some colors)The rest is arbitrary software. Defaults may not be good. No camera brand has 100% good jpegs (cameras have limited processing power to run demosaicing, nr, etc, and the profile is made to appeal to best buy demo room peeps). Very few cameras have a 100% great default profile in any raw editor. It is merely that some editors are better to start off with than others but color critical photographers must calibrate their shit.
>>4468756So color stretching would be a metameric error?
>>4468759No "color stretching" is a zimbabwean word for "i am out of money". It sounds like english due to a weird coincidence.
I received a deal for a GX9 with a 12-32mm pancake lens and 35-100mm lens for 700 eurobux and it's really tempting meI love my GX7 but I've been a worried about the dial not always responding and I read that the GX9's design would remediate that issue
>>4469335The GX9 is really an upgrade compared to the GX7, both from an image quality and an ergonomic standpoint. It's my main camera and using it is a real treat.
>>4469337Thanks anonHave you ever compared the two?I really like the protrusion on the GX7’s grip and it feels great in my smoll handsThe GX9’s seems more slim compared to it
Redpill me on GH4 for photography.
>>4469345It fucking sucks. Buy an aps-c camera.
>>4469371>nophotoAny camera made within the last 10 years is good
>>4469374Then your phone is better than oversized m4turds
>>4469375>nophoto
>>4469374>/p/ be like>u can still take good photos t. paid $800 for a 14yo phone sensor>the good photos they dream about: trashy cunts getting naked - free art points>the photos they actually have: building corner
>>4469387t. wedding photographer counts hairs on bride's butthole, needs 60MP
>>4469338Yes, I went from the GX7 to the GX9. It was hard at first to lose the grip, but I have mainly small primes and I just got used to it. The extra megapickles did not make me look back.
>>4469399Thanks anonI decided to pull the trigger on the deal I've been interested in a 35-100mm for holidays anyways and this'll probably be my last crazy expenditure since I'll be getting married and have a kid next yearHaving a more reliable camera to take pics of the kid will pay off in spades
>>4469387The photos Jeremy, where are the photos?
>>4469433Congratulations (for the kid, lel). Having a portable camera really makes a difference. My child really became my number one subject.
>>4469442Thanks anon!Any photo tips for kids besides keeping in mind that they'll probably do anything to make you mess up shots?
>>4469458Try getting high aperture lenses if you are shooting indoors, they're moving quite fast. Aside from that, you'll have time to experiment and improve.
>>4469466Thanks anon I've got a Linux 14mm and 20mm that should cover it I hope
>>4469470nta but i like the 20mm fov for indoor stuff like this! that's a beautiful lens too
>>4469433start saving up for when the little one starts walking and then running. you'll need something with good AF ... or you will have to shoot burst and fish out 20% keepers.making this hardmode is that many of those images will be shot indoor in your home. where I suppose you don't have harsh and bright lighting. so you will need fast shutter speeds and wider apertures and high iso to get useful photos out of it. but then again shooting wide open means lesser depth of field means more missed focus. so yeah.toddler photography is probably the most demanding thing on this planet when it comes to equipment. I can't imagine anything else where the conditions are so stacked against you. :0when my kid started walking I had a Z6II ... which couldn't keep up with him most of the time. now he's 4yo and I have a Zf and it's much better. his movements are way more predictable and the current gen Nikon AF manages to track him properly. but the Z6II was hopelessly outgunned.enjoy the baby phase with your gx9 - it's a fine cam for when you don't need action shots. but start saving for an OM1 or G9II ... should be less expensive a few years down the road.
>>4469499Yeah, excellent lens indeed! I switched to the Panasonic Leica 25mm for the faster focus motor, but it should be plenty in your case.
>>4469499I've only used it for some low light stuff at night so far and I loved it Can't wait to take more in-house pictures with it next year
Some I took recently
>>4470036Acadia is gorgeous
>>4470036>>4470038Damn, really nice shots.
Saw this review about the new Olympus System OM-3:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T98sYhOX78The photos look extremely pleasing and very close to the 35mm film look (I'm a film shooter for years now, don't really touch digital).Does anyone know if that camera has that looked baked in or is it some heavy post-processing to imitate the look of film? Because if it's baked in I'm buying. I'd just shoot jpeg, I'm not into editing. I take my film pics as they come out the lab since they already look perfect to me that way.
>>4470235that bitch is into heavy post processing
>>4470236I would give her some heavy post processing, if you catch my drift.
>>4470236So it does not actually have the film look. Oh well.Gonna do Canon 5D Classic jpg's then, at least that's got some aesthetic by default. Only issue is the extremely limited dynamic range, it only seems to take good photos indoors imo.
