I would like a small, retro style camera for hobbyist / snap shitting type photography. Image quality is important to me, but not the end all, be all. I do not want a full frame type camera such as the ZF. I already have a D850, and actually owned a ZF for several months, before getting rid of it as the lack of grip and overall hugeness made it very unfun to walk around and shoot with. Between the OM-5 and some Fuji cam, which is the best choice?
>>4486018Stop being 4chan-brained. Be normal. Get a sony a7c and a 35mm f2.8.
If you want small, retro, discreet, full physical controls, and IQ that's a clear step above a smartphone, nothing beats the Olly Pen e-p7 with a panny 20 (40mm equiv). Get one like this that's already located stateside to beat the Donny tax.https://www.ebay.com/itm/227104719248
>>4486020any reason to prefer this over the oly for example? I'm a hobbyist so I don't really care about marginal iq gains. The sony seems much larger, more expensive, and tbqh fugly
>>4486021I love the look of that cam... will investigate
>>4486020>>4486022
>>4486022Its anything but marginal. The olympus is essentially stuck at iso 1000 and cant use an autofocus lens faster than f3 unless spending sony money… then it can use a whopping f2.4. People will say 800 but the oly sensors are actually less sensitive and need more exposure at 200 than a sony iso 800. >>4486024So some fat tard from reddit scraped the seal off another model… who cares. You repost this and others a lot. Who pays you? I think i know who else you areKill phrase: fujifilm doesnt make good cameras. shooting raw is easier and faster. Now reply.
>>4486026As I mentioned, I have a D850 already, so I am accustomed to FF performance already, I don't necessarily think that the Sony is going to outperform my nikon if I want to go FF... I don't really shoot at wider apertures than f/5.6-f/8 anyways, which is why I'm not concerned about going to a crop sensor. The ISO issue is a little more relevant, but I assume that modern software can mitigate this...?
>>4486018I would just go back to the Zf and get a gripAre you a small person with short hands or a woman?
>>4486018OM has really nice colours sooc, but OM-5 is way to small for my hands...I own a OM-3 + OM 20mm 1.4 + Lumix 35-100 2.8 and I use it way more than my Canon EOS R.
>>4486028this is specifically what I said I would not doI am 6'2", 180lbs, 245 2 rep bench, but thanks for your input ;)
>>4486028more to whit, the combo you just described is larger and heavier than my D850 and a worse camera setup in every way
>>4486018Your best choice is to stop shitting up the catalog and fuck off to the gear thread faggot.
>>4486027Software can not add info the sensor couldnt record. ISO 100 is ISO 100, and you can use that shit everywhere, every day. Micro four thirds is pointless unless pick one>using long macro lenses or bird zooms for funsies>being /p/ brained and memeing yourself into thinking the only brand that sells anywhere near as many cameras as canon is somehow super shit (its clearly not, but the existence of the $1000 used a7c makes the om-5 totally fucking useless so it has to be for some terminally online fanboys here)>being super poor so its the only way to get a decent modern QOL mirrorless instead of a canon m50
>>4486018does this thing take old OM mount Zuiko glass?
>>4486040this is objectively untrue though? Equivalent focal length lenses for m43 and apsc can be tiny compared to ff lenses especially modern "optically perfect" ones. Mirrorless ff lenses have this insane case of bloat, even old dslr lenses are minuscule in comparison and have comparable IQ in many cases
>>4486037(you)
>>4486040i personally dont like the a7c because ff glass is huge and expensive the only way ff glass is small is if you're using a film era prime >>4486018why not pick up a z30 or z50ii, the z dx 16-50 kit lens is okay and a nice little pancake so its surprisingly portable
>>4486048actually had a z50ii, it's huge, as big as a z6. I don't like that the z30 lacks an evf. Is there a particular advantage of the APS-C over m43? I'm leaning towards the oly because I like how it looks and it seems like the glass is tiny, sharp, and gets great reviews
>>4486048Sony and canon have the only normal sized lenses that arent plastic junk like the nikon small primes. Canon even has the only real FF pancake. The samyang and zeiss 35mm f2.8 lenses are both smaller than most film lenses and about the same size as the nikkor z pancake with its hood (actually the other half of the lens body, containing the filter threads) and as far as i know sony is the only worthwhile* ff mount with a small portrait lens (sigma 90mm f2.8)*l mount would be worthwhile if the s9 werent dedicated to being absolutely worse than the a7c to keep it off the leica Qs toes
>>4486050m43 users are like ken rockwell. they call everything sharp when nothing is. The 17mm f1.8 (35mm f3.6) for example is pretty mediocre but they call it tack sharp. the 25mm and 45mm are actually sharp. but its a bunch of f3.6 primes, on cameras that are basically stuck at iso 1000 at their lowest setting. it can get gross quick and not because of muh bokeh.
>>4486052I already said previously that I never shoot below f/5.6 so f/3.6 is already way faster than I need. I did note the lack of a good 35mm equiv in the m43 ecosystem though.....
>>4486051plastic junk is small and light though, im coming from all-metal film era lenses and its fucking gay how heavy it is. if you're dropping and banging lenses around hard enough the plastic is a issue you're probably decentering the glass elements>>4486050larger sensor = better low light and iqiirc the oly glass doesn't get sharp until you pay a decent amount if you didnt like the z50ii that's fine, i was cross shopping the z30 and om5 and they fit damn near the same in my pockets at the camera store, the nikon has smaller lenses while the oly lens sticks out a bit unless you do a ez lens which sucks optically. i'm fine without a evf.
>>4486054I did like the kit lens a lot for the z aps-c but there are either no or only one prime, you either rock the kit lens or basically go fuck yourself in the nikon ecosystem
>>4486053Lenses improve the more they’re stopped down. A faster lens doesnt need to rely on as much color/contrast sapping, DOF falloff weirdening corrections to look good at f5.6. Hence why an m43 "f3.6" can often be larger than an FF f2.8 and m43 is very much the mirrorless look (flat). Classic photos looked better because undercorrected lenses clean up better stopped down and dont need shit for editing.
>>4486030okay lady hands
>oly lenses aren't sharp>oly lenses need to be stopped down>oly lenses are expensiveAnything else?
>>4486065Looks like fujiworms or one of those shitty plastic nikon lenses
>>4486065That looks great, but if you're going to start reposting this, you should also include some 100% crops to really hammer in the point. Also a good reminder most systems can look great when downsized to 9mp.
>>4486066Sorry anon, but the only worms here are in your mush brain, which appears to be melting from all the seething
>>4486018OM-5: Better AF, better weather sealing, RAW pro capture, long exposure helpers (live time, live comp), star auto focus, insane IBISFuji: More expensive, AF not that great, IBIS only on premium bodies, questionable weather sealing (again only premium bodies), the smaller cams (OM5 sized) dont have IBIS and weather sealingImage quality wise they don't differ that much. Both are baby sensor so you get noise no matter what. But for low noise you got a real Nikon camera so you're coveredFuji is very over-priced right now. At 50% of the price they sell at they would make more sense
>>4486026>OP: I need a fun small snapshitter camera>retard: OMG MUH ISO MUH APERTURE MUH EXPOSURE JUST GET THE HEAVY FULL FRAME OP AND BUY THE ONLY SMALL LENS THATS ALSO 15 YEARS OLD AND HAS SO ANNOYING FOCUS BREATHING THAT IT EVEN ANNOYS YOU WHEN YOU JUST TAKE STILLSthis fucking board
>>4486030I'm same height/weight OP and I too had the Zf. I found it extremely annoying to take with me just for fun shooting. It was OK for dedicated photo stuff but then again I'd get a proper gripped plastic blob body like the Z5II for that. I sold my Zf and got an OM-5 for the fun EDC stuffI still have my Z glass and a Z6II for when I need best image quality. But for everything else I have the OM-5 and it sparks joy
>>4486053there is the 17mm f1.2 from olympus - but that's the same weight, size and price as the Z 35mm 1.8S lol. (and I like the Z rendering way better)don't get me wrong - I shoot m43 - but it's strictly a fun system. not a primary system when you need image quality. m43 tards are delusional when they think their shitty OM1.2 can replace a Z8, R6, etc.Don't spend too much money on m43. Dont get the retarded oversized and overprized """pro""" lenses. For that weight/price you can get a FF lens and be better offBut absolutely get a small m43 body and the small lenses. They're fun and a joy to take with you.
>>4486070Noise is merely a symptom of the lack of light. If you want less noise, you add more light, not buy a new camera. Its that simple.
>>4486073The a7c is the same size as the om5. The sony 40mm f2.5 is smaller than the om 20mm f1.4 (40mm f2.8). The 35mm f2.8s are half as big.
>>4486070>its the rapefugeeYeah ignore this guy. He’s constantly melting down over m43 and doesnt really use his cameras.
>>4486073/thread.
>>4486083Panasonic ewaste and an om5/a7, are not comparable cameras. A buzzy ewaste 40mm f3.2 and the shittiest 35mm f2 ever made are not comparable either unless the prize is shittiest lens ever.
>>4486078he doesnt sound like hes melting down he sounds like hes saying theyre fun to use and great as a second camera but not a serious camera system i personally dont like how expensive om5s are still. $7-800 seems to be the floor for them and the lenses are surprisingly pricey and more importantly bulky...if they were cheaper i'd pick one up but im waiting for a decent nikon z30 refurb ($380 w/16-50 lens). 20mm f1.7 lumix is like $300 which isn't horrible>>4486055yeah not gonna lie that's my biggest problem with the z dx cameras, but that said if its your second camera you already have a d850 which shouldnt be too bad to lug around with a prime. all the small sensor cameras (m43/apsc) have pretty big primes anyways usually.
>>4486084Sorry, not buying your $1350 brick!
>>4486087>i personally dont like how expensive om5s are still. $7-800 seems to be the floor for them and the lenses are surprisingly pricey and more importantly bulky...if they were cheaper i'd pick one up but im waiting for a decent nikon z30 refurb ($380 w/16-50 lens). 20mm f1.7 lumix is like $300 which isn't horribleyeah, but everything is expensive nowadays. you cant find anything modern below $1000 new. used prices are even more retarded. just look at what a gx9 will fetch you. essentially ewaste still going for $700the bulky m43 lenses are those pro lenses I'd never buy. they're as big and pricey as their full frame equivalents. so I wouldn't touch those. the cheap 20mm f1.7 is more like the lens I'd get for my fun edc m43 camera. I personally prefer the 17mm f1.8 but also have the 15mm f1.7 - both small and the optical quality is reasonable for what they're intended fornikon z dx has its issues. i looked into it but meh ... there's like a handful of lenses that aren't full frame. i don't think there's even a 50mm ff equivalent dx prime atm
>>4486018it probably doesn't matter which you pick. and in the off chance it does matter, no one here is going to be able to make the discernment for you. so just pick which suits you better or get both and sell the one you don't prefer
>>4486018Pick whichever, you'll find problems with any camera eventually
>>4486088>people talk about the a7c>bring up a7cr>people talk about 35mm f2.8s>bring up 40mm f2 and act as if you were told to buy itYou must be indian to be this stupid-1000 IZZAT
The thing with this purchase is, I'm not worried about achieving the ultimate image quality possible. I already have a ff camera which is objectively better in every regard than the sony recommended as far as IQ goes. I was looking for something small, not incredibly expensive, and with small lenses, which I would be more likely to just carry around day to day than the D850. I did go ahead and pull the trigger on the oly, I'll post my impressions here when it arrives. For reference, I have owned Nikon z6ii, z50ii, and any number of DSLRs including the d850 I currently have. I'll try to do an objective comparison between the IQ i'm used to seeing and the oly. If I don't like it I'll just return it but we shall see.
>>4486189its not any smaller or cheaper than a sony. just worse. go even tinier. buy a ricoh griiix.
>>4486195Considered it, but there's lots of things about the ricoh that I don't like. Shitty autofocus, no evf, shitty battery life, not interchangable lens, dusty sensor, hella expensive, etc.I picked up an om-5 for appx 600 usd on a black friday deal with their 25mm and 45mm lenses. These lenses appear tiny, there simply isn't anything in the FF ecosystem to match them that I know of.
>>4486088>full frame is small and che-ACK!!!
>>4486020That's the most 4chan-brained thing to say. I've seen this exact combo shilled a lot (by (You))
>>4486195>le ricoh street memewonder why it's only spoken about in the context of street photography? becuase the colors on that piece of shit break down as soon as you don't have nautural lighting.
>>4486249>becuase the colors on that piece of shit break down as soon as you don't have nautural lighting.
>>4486020>35mm lensLieterally brainrot tier focal length. Go for 50mm or 28mm lens.
>>4486265>50mmoh, the default kit lens focal length. Very patrician.>28mm Oh, the default smartphone focal length. Very patrician.I can tell this is your second year being "seriously" into photography.The acceptable focal lengths from wide to normal are:>42>35>24
>>448626750mm is ubiquitous but has its virtues. 28 and 35 belong in the same trash can. Wide but not wide enough to be interesting. Always talking in equivalent terms here of course, on APS-C they become interesting as they become 45 and 80 equivalents.
>>4486270>80That's the 50, I meant 55mm equivalent for 35mm
>>4486267>The acceptable focal lengths from wide to normal are:>42>35>24This is some intermediate-level autism. You are now no longer a beginner.>>4486270I unfortunately agree with cANON which pains me, but he's right. Anything from 28-70 is pretty blah in terms of what the focal length is doing for you; not that good photos cant be taken with them per se, but that there's nothing interesting about them that makes them stand out.70mm~ to 200mm give you some nice telephoto compression without being bird-grade distances away, and 24mm and wider is where interesting perspectives can be forced, or the photo puts the viewer in the scene itself. Both useful.Regardless, if what makes or breaks your photography is the focal length you're given you're not a very good photog. You should be able to make anything work theoretically.
>>4486272That just sounds like you don't know how to take interesting photos at normal focal lengthsIf you have to rely on wide or tele to make interesting photos, you probably have to lots or room to growIf you think 28-70 is a boring zone, that is also some intermediate - level autism
>>4486267Wrong.Wide: 14, 18, and 24 only if architectural.Normal: 35 or 85Long: 600+, and you should need a cart to wheel it around.
>>4486270I don't like this comment
>>4486281>That just sounds like you don't know how to take interesting photos at normal focal lengthsIt's almost like focal length alone, a photo does not make. The important part is the subject, lighting, and composition. The thing is show me ONE photo you've taken inside this range that would stand out among a photobook of your peers. It's not impossible per se, but competing with every phone within the 24-35mm range, and every camera made in the last 120 years within the 40-80mm range means there's a whole lot of people with a whole lot more talent than you or I in this weight-class.
>>4486315I take 95% of all my photos in that rangeThis >>4483549 and >>4484925 are all in that range btwLooking forward to seeing your interesting photos next
>>4486315>oh shoot, we're not supposed to link/post photos when asked anymore and comments should be low effortI don't like your comment its bad
>>4486319Every photo there (except a few I didnt care for but not the point) is technically good. Great even. Well done. I forgot about every single one in about a third of a second after closing them. Every single photo looks like it would fit decently well in a wallpaper competition or a curated instagram page. Unsarcastically, nice, and well done. I still forgot about them all basically instantly, and so would literally anyone else other than yourself.And the reason they're all so forgettable, is because your subjects are rocks leaves and skies. I like a good landscape photo, but I don't give a fuck about other peoples' landscape photos because there's nothing to them. There's no substance. Nothing special or eye catching. You spent money on the gear then read about the techniques needed. You bought the ND filter, you bought the tripod, you bought the wide aperture lens.Don't confuse my sardonic demeanor as trying to put you down or talk you out of it, but there's just plainly nothing special about your photos.>Looking forward to seeing your interesting photos nextI don't buy in to the nophoto arguments. If me not posting a photo is enough for you to discredit my arguments, then I am no longer interested in genuine debate.
>>4486333Sorry some of the photos are a few years old so you are no longer allowed to talk about them outside of the context of shit posting
>>4486333And if you being too scared or lacking in confidence to post a photo here, that's all I need to know you aren't half as good as you think you are
>>4486333What are some memorable photos to you?I post so I can get better, help me
>>4486337>Counters with the nophoto argumentDisappointing. I've posted photos here before plenty. They have nothing to do with this topic of conversation. We're discussing the usefulness of certain focal lengths and their ability to add to a photo's character. Sigh.
>>4486351And it would be nice to see the work of the photographer I'm talking tooIf you've posted before should have no problem linking themSorry to hear you don't have enough confidence in your work I guess
>>4486257This is just different white balance, paid anti-sony jeet2000 izzats have been deducted from your account. Total sony & pakistani victory.
>>4486240why use the meme 40mm video lens, instead of the smaller zeiss 35mm f2.8 with better color rendition
>>4486356Go remake it with whatever lenses you want
>>4486257Sorry the source for that image is over a year old so it can no longer be taken seriously in any capacity, that image is now for shit posting onlyNew rules, I don't make em
>>4486356
>>4486018I'm waiting for the release of a digital OM-2 with access to that 50mp sensor Sony was hoarding away for nonexistent glow-op products
>>4486674all the more recent OM cameras can do a 50mp composite handheld I believe by snapping several pics in a bracket and combining them in the RAW
>>4486257a7v
>>4486267So you assign quality value to a focal length based on a lens’s popularity rather than its actual quality. The lack of critical thinking on this image board never ceases to amaze me. Besides, your claims are factually incorrect.>50mm. Oh, the default smartphone focal length. Very patrician.The default kit lens in film times, are we still living in the film times? Welcome to the year 2025, please enjoy your short stay.>28mm. Oh, the default smartphone focal length. Very patrician.The default smartphone focal length is 26 mm, not 28 mm.You still need to explain why the popularity of a focal length supposedly makes it bad and you’ve failed to do that. The actual problem with the 35 mm focal length is that it’s boring, sterile, and lacks any real character. Perfect choice of a focal length for anyone who is dead inside. I rather live my life fully and that is why 28 mm is a good focal length. I can get close to my photography subjects and actually connect with them to the surrounding life in a way that 35 mm fails to do.>I can tell this is your second year being "seriously" into photography.I can tell you haven’t even finished high school. Go do your homework and come back later, philosophy 101 might actually help you.
>>4486684This woman is simply incompetent. I have not seen anyone else fuck up as constantly as her. She dies not know what white balance does and leaves every lens wide open. People like this are why phone cameras exist.
>>4486674The lenses cant resolve it. >>4486678Except with the bestest $1500 panafeica f2.8 noctitroon, where psms is a sharp but CA ridden photo, the lenses cant resolve it! Its just bigger blur. Also, literally everything will move more than 1 pixel, including the fucking air, so pixel shift is a gimmick for scanning. It takes hours to fix those files just to get m43 closeish to the quality of a cheap d800 rig>at least i didnt have to use a $15 tripod! -gay men
>>4486810its underexposed too. gotta keep the sky between the leaves blue!
>>4486810>leaves every lens wide openI remember doing that when I was a noob, excited by the novelty of a short dof. years later I looked back on all my shots & learned why you don't fucking do that. But I didn't try to make myself a youtube celebrity out of it jfc get a job holy shit HOLY SHIT three picture captchas, a 2min wait, a gibberish slider captcha, and another fuckin you know what it's not worth going through all this to post
>>4486074>the fucking length of that 35 1.8God I hate mirrorless FF, what a joke. That stupid non-bounceable flash will produce unusable results with those lenses btw
>>4486815Its not that its mirrorles, its that the designers cater to idiots that shoot subjects on the edges wide open and complain about spherical abs, ca and coma on the edges at f1.x
>>4486816That's every lens designer now though.
>>4486815don't talk bad about that flash. this gives you the much wanted zoomer point'n'shoot flash esthetics
>>4486828I just want it to be able to turn and/or point up. The FL-LM3 is the perfect mini flash, sadly OM System in their infinite wisdom has deprecated it and the OM-5ii cannot use it. (Luckily there's no reason at all to buy an OM-5ii over an OM-5.)
>>4486810>She dies not know what white balance does and leaves every lens wide openGood morning saar!!!
>>4486836you're right - if you want that fl3 you should stick with the om5. I just got the om5.2 because I dont give a fuck about the fl3 and the winter cashback + 5 year extended warranty was too good to pass up. my new om5.2 with 5 years warranty cost in the end (got my cashback yesterday) only 100 euros more than a good condition used om5.1 - so it was a nobrainer to get that.were it not for the cashback I would have gotten a mark 1 but I guess I lucked out :3
>>4486873The irony that you’re replying to a post made during peak first world hours, at the exact time india wakes up>>4486896IBIS doesnt work of animals bro only rocks and twigsOr does m43 just look this bad?
>>4486908>Or does m43 just look this bad?probably but at least I take it with me when I go to the horses. never took my Zf with me because it would bounce funny when riding. the om5 I dont notice
>>4486916Too bad you’re too autistic to just be normal and use a sony a7c or a fujifilm and a small prime.
>>4486920if I wanted a huge camera I'd just take my Z6II with me
>>4486923m43... I kneel
>>4486020kys faggot. >>4486018they are probably both good cameras. the fuji is way more expensive. the best thing you can do is go on fickr and look at images from the camera.
>>4486896ironically a bounce flash could have saved this photo from being blurry. pretty horse though!
>>4486981bringing a flash to the horse stables is a brain dead move
>>4486811These issues didn't stop Sony, Nikon, Canon, or Fuji when they released their high resolution models. In my own experience a higher resolution sensor can help to sharpen a lens that's "soft" wide open
>>4486923why u compear 35mm f1.8 to 34mm f3.6?>35mm f2.8>32mm f2.8 (bigger)oh no no no
>>4487162>it can't understand that some people just don't want it's employers e-waste
>>4487162>compares f/1.4 to f/2.8???
>>4487167this is one of the oddest things about the equivalency thing... Fx.x is fx.x on ANY SENSOR. The different DOF on each sensor is a FEATURE, not a bug that needs to be corrected which is the assumption that underlies the idea that 17 f.14 = 35 2.8
>>4487170>>4487167>photo class dropoutsF/ is a ratio. A 35mm f2.8 and 17.5mm f1.4 have the SAME aperture size -12.5mm. A 16mm f1.4 has a little more DOF because its an 11.4mm aperture but also a wider fov like a 32mm f2.8. So basically that shows a bigger lens with a smaller aperture. A 50mm f2 has a 25mm hole on any sensor. A 100mm f4 has a 25mm hole on any sensor. A 50mm f2 on the turd format has the same FOV (ish - its 4:3) and same DOF (because same aperture) as a 100mm f4 on FF. This is related to why m43 does not get free DOF and is still diffraction limited at f5.6 (~=f11), but thats the size of the airy disk (glow around pinhole) vs the size of the tiny pixels. M43 = cameras for retardsDavinci painted chapels and was a math wizYou photograph blurry leaves and think better cameras are worseThink on dat nigga
>>4487190None of this has anything to do with the question at hand and frankly most of it is factually wrong
>>4487195If you lack the intelligence to understand that an arbitrary lens label is an elementary division problem then you lack the intelligence to create new ideas and will never be a good photographer or even an ok one.
>>4487170this post is actually stupider than "per capita is just a theory". you’re hitting flat earth levels of retarded.
>>4487196Obviously that’s not what I’m referring to you moron, your claims that m4/3 lenses are all diffraction limited to 5.6 however is nonsense. Most will got to f/11 like any ff lens and macro lenses will go to f/22 or 32 again like any macro lens. You are a brain rotted retarded faggot
>>4487198> fx.x isn’t really fx.x they just call it that because it’s like a conspiracy man
>>4487199Oh okay, you cant afford a panasonic. Make it f8 for the blurry 20mp. f5.6/f11 is the last stop for the slightly higher res cameras because their pixels are smaller. An f8 setting on an m43 camera has the same aperture size as an equivalent lens set to f16 on an FF camera. 25mm/8 = 3.1. 50/16 = 3.1. The DOF is the same. The ratio of the airy disc and pixel size stays effectively the same although the math is more complicated. This is math. You cant word your way around it. M43 does not have free DOF or diffraction free shooting. It might have such soft lenses (not hard, tiny pixels need lenses with tinier issues) that stopping down past the diffraction limit still improves IQ, because the aberrations are worse (bigger) than the diffraction blur. This last part is common and you cant afford the nice m43 lenses hence your confusion. >>4487202Fx.x is the focal length divided by the apparent aperture. A 35mm f2.8 and 17.5mm f1.4 have the same aperture. A 20mp FF shooting at f16 and a 20mp 4/3 shooting at f8 have the same diffraction blur. Go back to school.
>>4487205blah blah blah except it turns out that since diffraction is a function of pixel pitch, your beloved 8 pentillion MP snoy suffers from it worse than a M43 cam will. The difference being that M4/3 lenses are made for the higher pixel density and can resolve the image properly, whereas your snoy ewaste can't, thus showing the effects of diffraction at f/8 or before
>>4486920>fujifilmwhy would you want that soft shit with no ibis and worms? see how we can get autistic?
>THE foolturd is now cherry picking notoriously soft kit lenses and bragging about the "advantages" of a 16mp camera being blurrier than a 36mp camera all the timemicro four thirds user characteristics:insecuritygloatingignorancestupiditylack of critical thoughtweak tiny armsfrail wristsreceding chin and hairlinepoor posturecat owner
>>4487208cry more faggot this shows normal Olympus zooms showing no effects of diffraction up to f/11 just like…get this… any given full frame lens
>>4487202The f/ratio is a ratio. If you don't understand what that word means then just admit it. And if you don't understand why it being a *ratio* is important versus total aperture size then you can't be helped.>>4487206>your beloved 8 pentillion MP snoy suffers from it worse than a M43 cam willFF @ 24MP = 6umFF @ 45MP = 4.39umAPS-C @ 24MP = 3.93umFF @ 61MP = 3.79umM43 @ 20MP (4:3) = 3.35umAt least try to get some facts straight before blindly flinging shit. Your super cope format would need something like a 80MP FF camera to compete against before actually winning out in diffraction. AND that's ignoring literally everything else the format does worse.You M43 shills are either paid or hobbyists with buyer's remorse. You can't argue against how physics works.
>>4487209Anon you retard. The gx1 is 16mp and you can see it get softer at f11 where it should (because its 16mp). A theoretical 16mp FF would diffract at f22. The 24-70 f4 za is also literally the worst standard zoom ever made and no one uses that shit (no one uses a giant 24-200 f8 either desu)16mp is going to be lower res vs an equally good lens on 36mp regardless of diffraction why do you even compare theseYou argue like a fucking indian. There is no logic here. Just your izzat shit applied to sensor sizes.
>>4487208>foolframe cuck making fun of a smaller sensor and not using medium formatHahahahahhaha retard
>>4487213>w-well full frame is smaller than another formatone you dont and cant use? so what?but since you are clearly indian, now i know what. i see why you think this "gotcha" works. i have actually consulted with jd vance AND elon musk last friday to figure out how this works over a few rounds of EDH so bear with me. in the indian izzat system, if rajesh calls pajeet weak, pajeet can not say "no i am not" or "no, you are" because neither of those take away from the izzat points held by rajesh, and pajeet has just lost his own izzats. rajesh has to be insulted, not contradicted. so if pajeet tells rajesh "but you are weaker than sanjay", rajesh loses the izzat he won from pajeet (pajeet does not get his back) thus he fails to escape his caste and gain the privilege of using toilet paper. it seems rajesh and pajeet are losers because both their izzat scores went down. but in indian culture, a jeet can still win by dragging someone down with him.
>>4487216>sensorlet schizo essayohnononono
>>4487220Sorry suckdeep, but you are all out of izzats.
>DO NOT REDEEM THE FULL FRAME SIR SONY IS NOT AN OPTION!
>AHHHHHHH SONY SAVE ME NUMBER 1 IN THE WORLD
why is the equivalence autism always present for depth of field but not for the exposure triangle? how often are people looking for super fast lenses so they can shoot photos of one eyelash and half an ear in focus and everything else BOKEH'D TO THE MOON versus wanting to use faster shutter speeds for the same exposure?
>>4487211As usual this is just a lot of dishonest garbage from someone who just blindly hates a sensor size of all things. As you point out even though the pana camera is “just” 16mp it has a higher pixel density than even a 60mp full frame cam. So the lens at hand is the equivalent of a ff lens showing no diffraction at f/22. This is pretty damn good lens performance. You then go on to claim that ALL good ff lenses will perform like this. That’s obviously bull, every ff shooter knows that above f/11 is the diffraction danger area. No ff shooter would dare f/22 unless it was with a macro lens.I simply don’t know what you’re trying to prove with all your retarded jargon. It’s literally like a dunning Krueger thing. Will a m43 lens diffract? Yes obviously. Will cheaper or lower quality ones diffract around f5.6? Yes. Will nicer ones go to f11+ without showing signs of diffraction? Yes. Does this provide a marginal though noticeable performance enchantment over the diffraction characteristics of most ff lenses? Yes. Given the literal evidence that was presented itt and sans some schizo spergout do you have an actual argument against this?
>>4487216Wtf is this insane rant lmao. You seriously seem mentally ill
>>4486018Ugh stop fucking around and just buy a 5D mark 2 for a fifth of the price.>It's too big!!It has like an extra 5cm in height over a fuji. Grow up.>It's too heavy!! it weighs 850g and the om5 only weighs 400!! How am I supposed to lift 450g?!?!If you're an adult and you can even perceive the difference in weight between these two you need to kill yourself immediately. >The mirror slap is too loud for street photography!!Ok stop being a child predator and it won't matter.>But I need a fuji because I want iphone tier image quality with the instragram filters applied in camera!!You got me there, the 5d2 can't do this.
>>4487256Op already has a d850 illiterate freak
>>4487256>Schizo having another meltyWho are you arguing with?
>>4487261So? That camera is a piece of shit. My point is that he should at least buy on decent camera since he doesn't have one yet, and that said camera is only 200 dollars away.
>>4487262Not sure what you mean but you sound assmad so lol
>>4487264>d850 is a piece of shit>just get a 5diiWhat the fuck man lmao
>>4487266d850 costs as much as many brand new cameras and just isn't as good. It has dogshit autofocus, access to mostly dogshit first party lenses (which is why the indians that use them all use third party) and has putrid green colour casts. you'd also have to be a retard to have bought one new after the d810 lens mount fiasco, which the d850 also suffers from. tdlr expensive and takes bad photos and is built poorly, none of which the 5d2 suffers from lol
>>4487340this man smokes crack
>>4487341good argument, ill take my W now.
>>4487341Its the micro four thirds shill. They lie out their ass and samefag all fucking day long to try and force a meme where the only good FF cameras are coincidentally the largest, heaviest, and worst performing, so therefore m43 is the better choice. That is all it is. All the sony, fuji hate on /p/ is this too. It is nothing but some thirdie olympusonic shills lying, samefagging, and trying to force memes so at a glance it looks like the only /p/ approved FF cameras are bloated junk and the om5 is an upgrade. And no, they arent indian. By their confession they’re muslim rape rats, not hindu rape rats.
>>4487348Yeah im shilling micro four thirds, thats why i reccomended a 5d mark 2. The famous micro four thirds 5d mark 2. Retard.
>>4487348idk who you're accusing of shilling m43 lmao I'm shilling a d850 and he's shilling a 5d
>>4487352I mean 5d shill is wrong and a retard but still
>>4487351>im recommending a very heavy and shitty andient ff camera with the same dr as a m43 camera in the m43 threadSeen this samefag setup before. Its the text version of those pxlmag camerasize things where the FF camera gets the worst giant lens ever and the dogshit 16mp panasonic ewaste gets the pancake.
>>4487348You unironically need to take your meds
>>4487356Genuinely, what are you talking about? Seriously, what on earth are you trying to say? How did you give yourself psychosis over camera brands?
>>4487348>OM5 vs Fuji vs 5D vs D850>AAHHHHHH THIS THREAD IS ABOUT SNOY!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR MY SNOY!!!!
>>4487354>no argument GG thanks for conceding :D glad you admit that ur nikon is ewaste :D
>>4487356>>4487348Looks like you’re hitting a little too close to the truth nuke!
>>4487340you need help, man
>>4487491Looks like you need help judging by that photo
>>4487491Which phone is this
>>4487548Looks like it was taken with a used Sony a7c and edited in Lightroom to make it black and white (to hide the ugly greens)
>>4487586correct
>>4487548Apple OM-5
>>4487348>trying to force memes so at a glance it looks like the only /p/ approved FF cameras are bloated junkIntredasting. That may be the reason why dslrosaurs are pushed so hard.
>>4487356>pxlmagGarbage site, gets sizes wrong all the time.>>4487348MFT is mirrorlesscucked, and you don't really need the biggest camera to have a good camera. SL2 mogs every Sony out there with its tiny size and massive reach, by the sole virtue of not being a mirrorless scamera. Enjoy your fake Moon "photos" in an ever nearer future enabled by an EVF I guess, fed.
>>4487190>>4487205>>4487206You hold a grudge against the Minolta RD175 and use M43 as its placeholder since they have the same crop factor
>>4486836>Luckily there's no reason at all to buy an OM-5ii over an OM-5.)The sand beige color is neat though
>>4488447what I like in the MK II over the MK I:- the menu system (it's really more thought out)- usb-c (it's not quick charge but it's power delivery so I can attach a power bank for long exposures)- the new grip (it really makes a difference. I dropped my MK I all the time - my MK II not even once yet)what I dont like:- the semi transparent focus rectangles in the EVF- the missing S-OVF modewhat I dont care about:- missing fl3 supportnow don't get me wrong: if you get a great deal on the MKI get that. if you have a MKI then don't get the MKII. but if your MKI got sold for bitcoin (like mine) and you want back into the infinite comfyness that is the m43 system then the MKII is a no-brainer. I got mine for a great black friday deal + 5 years warranty + 200 Euros cashback.I live now in a camper/trailer because my wife kicked me out. But it's worth it. I live for my art. And I love my OM-5 II more than I ever loved my stupid wife.
>>4488453I imagine your wife was mad the few times you took a photo of her, it had nasty olympus colors, no real bokeh, and phone quality, and she was frustrated that you were wasting so much time and money on what is essentially an android phones camera stuck into a retro larp body - a teenagers toy. Used to obsessively take generic photos of twigs. And now you’re calling an underexposed photo of alcohol in a cuck shed your art.I love watching gearfag snapshitters destroy their livesShe kicked you out because you cycled through a half dozen digishit cameras ranging from $500 to $1500 each and gambled on bitcoin to have a shot at purchasing an overpriced /p/ meme while spending hours trying to argue to 4chan that a smaller sensor was somehow better than a bigger one. HA. You fool! You destroyed your life trying to "own" the "fool framers". You lost so much money swapping cameras around, so much time trying to get /p/ to relieve your buyers remorse, and now you lost your wife. Should have stuck with your one good full frame camera instead of being a gearfag, gearfag! You never shoot anything but the inside of your house and street signs and literal twigs 5 minutes from it. Whats 100g to you, if you never climb mountains, you’re not wandering streets of brazil doing portraits of hobos? KEKI will now go eat lunch with my wife who enjoys it when i take high quality photos of her massive rack with my massive sensor. Cya later cuck shed boy. And remember, if you just stuck with the perfectly functional camera you started with and actually did photogaphy (like portraits) you wouldn’t be drinking alone in a camper right now.
>shoot m43>destroy marriage>end up homelesscant say we didnt warn you k3k
>>4486808>The actual problem with the 35 mm focal length is that it’s boring, sterile, and lacks any real character. Perfect choice of a focal length for anyone who is dead inside. I rather live my life fully and that is why 28 mm is a good focal length. I can get close to my photography subjects and actually connect with them to the surrounding life in a way that 35 mm fails to do.if 7mm is the difference between connecting with your subject or not then the lens isn't the problem you soi ape. Talking as someone who just bought a ff 15-30mm and my favourite lens of all the ones I own is still my EFS 10-18mm on my m50.Also agree i personally don't like 50mm. My go to is still a ff 28-70. If I'm going for an up close portrait I'll use the top end of the range. If I want environmental portrait I'll go to the bottom but the 40-60mm range is usually useless to me outside of edge cases. But the issue isn't 50mm or 40-60, it's me and my shooting style doesn't suit it. I can get great photos but they aren't the ones I like to take.
>>4486074thats a flash? Assuming its useless with that 35mm casting a shadow across 80% of the frame.
>>4488455Daily reminder that faggots like this are literally always no photos and furthermore can’t even tell the difference between ff and m43 images when they’re posted kdjxh
>>4488455its time for your meds anon
>>4487196>>4487205>the chad innumerate vs the virgin mathameticianI wanted to see this thread as I was intrigued about ops conundrum between two systems I'm unfamiliar with, now I want to thank all of you brandcuck shitters for giving me cancer with your nigger wailing.I can take amazing photos with whatever system you give me, op should flip a coin and the rest of you faggots should just do a flip period.
>>4486355>paid anti-sony jeetSorry chud, but snoy dominates in India. You could even say it's the jeet's brand of choice. Meditate on this.https://www.amazon.in/gp/bestsellers/electronics/1389175031
>>4488477but i have also seen plenty of wite piporu using snoyny
Op, despite what brand shills say, images from any modern mirrorless camera are all indistinguishable unless one looks very closely at the raw file itself and tries to manipulate it in extreme ways, pick a camera that you like and don’t worry about relatively meaningless things like sensor size
>>4488482Dont lie bro. Or is this more if and only if only instagram matters bs? We have phones for that
>>4487235please respond
>>4488484where's the lie?
>>4488490The entire post>>4488485Equivalence includes the noise from ISO… sort of. There is no free anything, no advantage. And no one wants to start at f5.6 and end up stopping down past a blurry f16 to finish deblurring the lens. Higher end larger sensors can outdo equivalence (which is the sort of part) ie, by having less noise at iso 800 than m43 does at 200, especially once scaled down to the same 20mp, and fast lenses reach their sharpest point before the diffraction limit. A 20mp m43 is generally only as good as a 12mp ff from ages ago that only had 4 usable ISO settings, equipped with a crappy lens from 1983.
>>4488492that's literally not an answer. If I posted an image taken with each of the three popular sensor sizes, what do you think your odds are of correctly identifying each?
>>4488494>If I posted an image taken with each of the three popular sensor sizes, what do you think your odds are of correctly identifying each?Not amazing because we're not giga autists like you are. However, your m43 shot is going to look a lot like a smartphone photo and probably will be given away as garbage (even if we cant identify it as m43; i.e. a rose by any other name is just as shit).APS-C and FF sensors have a decent amount of overlap where they're indistinguishable but this is normally well-lit, low ISO, moderate DoF shots. If you post a handheld night photo it'll be piss easy to tell the difference.DMF sensors are virtually the same as FF except with a higher MP count (read: shit colour accuracy and noise handling) so as long as you aren't cropping it, again, a difficultly lit scene will give it away as being shitter than something else.There is no quiz, there is no prize. Nobody except the mega spergs are going to be able to pin a sensor size to any given photo they look at (and there's still ways to imitate worse/better sensors so gl).Normal people take a look at the photo, and go either that looks nice or that looks like shit, and M43 photos overwhelmingly take the latter.
>>4488497so you're saying you wouldn't be able to tell
>>4488494If you’re d700 fag its pointless. A lot of older ff dslr shit like the 5diii and d700 perform exactly like m43. Maybe sharper on the 5d3 unless you bought a $800 prime for your m43. If you’re corgifag its pointless because he doctors his tests and posts thumbnailsI have my own photos taken with SIX sensor sizes (1", m43, canon apsc, sonikon aps-c, ff, crop mf) and i can always tell especially when i used two different cameras with the same lamp. 1" and M43 always look EXACTLY the sameCanon APS-C often looks worse than m43 but ISO 800 and under it had nicer shadingSonikon APSC and FF are close and noticeably better than m43DX MF has no real advantage over a z7 or something and really looks exactly like itOld DSLRs like the d700, 5d2 look more like m43 than apscReally old ones like the 5d classic and d200 simultaneously look better and worse than m43 and are actually a better choice than m43… and modern FF.
>>4488498Anyone could tell if they could use the two cameras with the same pair of hands in the same scene. Your cherry picked botched ff ewaste photo vs perfectly executed base ISO ETTR’d photo taken with $3000 of gear comparison isnt really needed or useful. The world moved past m43 for a reason. And its not a conspiracy, a capitalism, or a consumerism. Its just really close to phones as a format and m43 raws have only slightly more latitude than a jpeg.
>>4488503ok sooo you're saying only the person who actually took the picture could ever tell. Very compelling yes m43 btfo
>>4488504So the most important person? The one who knows which shots they passed up because m43 is phone tier by ISO 800?Lets not forget equivalence is a theory, not a rule. Testers use equivalent settings. Photographers use the best settings they can. Dishonest 4tranners like you and corgifag put your micro financial mistake ($3k of crop gear) up against a botched photo or something taken with junk like a 5d3. Exif is gone and before it was gone it was edited. Huskyfags em5iii vs z7ii tests are the only ones I think were ever honest.
>>4488505>Op, despite what brand shills say, images from any modern mirrorless camera are all indistinguishable unless one looks very closely at the raw file itself and tries to manipulate it in extreme ways, pick a camera that you like and don’t worry about relatively meaningless things like sensor sizeOK sooooooooo my initial post was correct and you're a bloviating faggot, as per the usual for the geardos on this board
>>4488506Except they dont unless your comparison is ISO 1600+ FF with shit lenses vs base ISO M43 you spent $1000+ on. And extreme ways… nigger, +1-2 exposure and an extra stop up on the black level is not extreme. Its fucking standard.
>>4488508neat. I raised the shadows +4 ev and brought the highlights down -5ev in this. What's the issue?
>>4488506you owned that gearfag hard
>>4488511most cameras from the past 15 years or so excluding glaring exceptions are simply more than adequate for hobbyists, people who claim otherwise and then ree about muh dr and all this shit are missing the forest for the trees, optimizing dynamic range to squeeze out the extra .000001 stop simply doesn't matter to someone simply trying to enjoy a photography walk, but a nice form factor or something that simply makes you happy does
>>4488520wholesome
>>4488509For being the least challenging and least important subject it looks like shit. >>4488520>Youre just a hobbyist… you dont NEED… you dont DESERVE…Do you actually believe this shit or are you just poor?
>>4488543This is 4chan. Anyone shooting bricks has no friends or family. They have no job. They collect welfare by lying about having autism. What do you think?
>>4488543you seem like a very negative person lmao. You seem to genuinely hate photography and only love consuming the latest item from x multinational corporation. What exactly is wrong with you ?
>>4488543There is a man here who is literally homeless and used to financially depend on his wife. Of course they’re poor.
>>4488545>goes full lefty/pol/Whats next, its the jews? Anything to avoid confronting the fact that better looking photos look better. Sorry you cant afford a better camera.
>>4488543yeah very few people on /p/ have ever taken a photo that means anything and even fewer have held a job that pays more than the median wageif you never even took a picture of your parents, sister, brother… let alone a girlfriend or wife… why would quality matter? it looks like shit but its just a brick wall with ugly cars in front. it looks like shit but its just a tree. it looks like shit but its just a stray cat. etc. how can better looking photos matter if the subject is worthless? these are 4channers. they have no lives! their only sense of self worth is shopping better, like a redditor but poorer
>>4488544>you’re supposed to hate where you’re from and not cherish the things around youYou might seriously have a mental illness
>>4488549If where you’re from is a blurry brick wall with some blurry shitty cars in front photograph something else and then move
>>4488545> love consuming the latest item from x multinational corporationMost people here recommend cameras based on the used market retard1/10 attempt at politicizing should have just called it jewish brainwashing
>>4488550>People live in places with buildings made of brick? Balderdash! You should just go up to your summer beach home and take photos there!Ngmi if your approach to photography is to actively avoid photographing the place you spend most of your time.Not everything has to be a vacation snapshit. If he missed focus he missed focus and should be shit on appropriately, but you're just being a nigger for no go reason.
>>4488552You spend most of your time in a dirty parking lot behind an old warehouse? Idk sounds like if anyone is being a…
>>4488559I wasn't the anon you were sperging about, and you're also clearly just talking shit for no real benefit. Please trip yourself so we can filter you in the future.
>>4488566>blurry brick wall defense force to the rescuethe blurry brick wall is not going to have sex with you
>>4488568Trip yourself please.
>>4488505>Lets not forget equivalence is a theory, not a rule.I have no idea what the fuck people mean when they say equivalence here. It's a basic principle about the effect cropping has on an image. It is not a theory. It can't "not work" in practice. It's very clear cut and basic. You can argue about the subjective effects of equivalence all you'd like, but the simple matter is that cropping by some factor has the appearance of more noise, a higher f number and a longer focal length by that factor. That's the beginning and end of "equivalence."
>>4486240Jesus christ and i thought Zf is large. I forgot how big full frame dslr's used to be...
>>4486018just buy an x100vi
>>4488505>Photographers use the best settings they can.Wrong, as proven countless times by fujislugs. However, the best settings for most photos are at f/2 and above, with most being around f/4-f/16, which are perfectly within reach of Four Thirds. What you can't do is bokehwhore or take ultrawide shots with FT.
>>4488509Looks like shit. It'd look better with bracketing but the subject (or more accurately, the lack thereof) doesn't really warrant any effort. It's not even a real photograph, it's just an image.
>>4488543It's not about deserving but about having no use for it. If you're incapable of competently operating an advanced camera and unwilling to learn you'd unironically be better off with a full auto point and shoot.
>>4488590>how big full frame dslr's used to beJust the D850 and similar ones.
>>4488552>I spend most of my time looking at a wall and pitying myselfNice confession, but if you were worth a damn as a photographer you'd realize the art isn't just capturing whatever is front of you. That's not photography, that's mere imaging. Maybe go down there and look for an interesting angle if you want to show how much you cherish that weathered warehouse. Play with the light. Maybe photograph some insect on the wall you like so much. You'd probably thought "I'll fix it in post" when you snapped that garbage. Then you polished the turd the best you could. And here we are, with a poorly exposed snapshit of nothing.
>>4488599Who the fuck are you talking to you schizo
>>4488599>the negative gearfag was this well known triphomo and shitty photographer himself posting incognito and samefagging himself all along Embarrassing display desu
>>4488604To the guy who shot the broad side of a warehouse and still had a miss)))
>>4488605Are you unironically accusing me of shooting that shitty warehouse?
>>4488607No I’m unironically accusing you of being the same retard geardo who posts the same exact spec masturbatory garbage in every thread and then shits on everything someone else posts when everything you yourself post is also universally recognized as garbage
>>4488608Except what I actually said goes against what you're accusing me of. An auto P&S would be better than shooting garbage with the idea of "fixing it in post".
>>4488595This is a meaningless and masturbatory statement. You’re saying more of a truth about yourself than anyone else. Cameras are not hard to use. How to do better than you would with fool turds: ISO 100Wowza. People used to shoot ISO 50 only.
>>4488611>heh, I underexposed this at ISO 100, it will surely look better lifted in post than if I had turned the gain up
>>4488614The 3-3.5 extra stops of highlight data say hiFill flash says hi>its not the same photoIts a better photo. Also, if its a zf or r5 or similar superior camera its going to just be slightly ahead of equivalence all the time
>>4488547better camera don't automatically make better photos, retard
>>4488548imagine you take a high ISO noisy photo of your grandfather who then dies. what a pity. it was noisy so you had to delete it.
>>4488618better camera automatically makes better photos. yes, its true. stephen shore has a career just because he wasnt too pussy to shoot 8x10. et tu, sensorlet?
>>4488620>was granddad always green and blotchy>no, that was just my olympus camera’s sony sensor. i should have bought a canon… or just used film ;_;
>>4488617zf/r5 is twice the size and weight of the om-5now add the huge z/rf lenseswhy are you retards comparing a compact EDC camera to heavy plastic blob pro bodies?
>>4488617That only applies to high DR scenes where trying to extract max DR from a single exposure will likely yield inferior results than bracketing. It's the RP In the mountains shooter dilemma, he was convinced his shitty exposure would be salvaged by an extra stop when it was obvious he botched it. In other words, skill issue. MFT can use flash too.
>>4488625Zf is an EDC size camera lol
>>4488654I could write an essay explaining how far off track and unrealistic you are but this is the board of idiots that think an f1.2 on m43 has free DOF and the same exposure and you are only one rung above them. I wish we had huskyfag back. Bless his autistic jewish heart. He actually used all this shit simultaneously and was happy to demonstrate fourturds shortcomings and photos only FF could even take in real time down to technical minutiae. He just got sick of repeating things to idiots I guess. He fucked off somewhere and is probably dicking around with a d850 now, shilling nikon DSLRs as anon.
>>4488669Kys
>>4486020>efcs blocks ur bokeh in ur path
>>4488669your mental illness is showingtake youre meds
>>4488673>>4488678Am I not correct that someone once tried to educate you shills with photos, got sick of it, and left? An example for the rest of us. He who thinks he can prove fourturds shills wrong, wastes his time. They can be objectively wrong and continue lying the next day as if nothing happened.
>>4488680>malding retard has a schizo menty b because someone on the photography board actually enjoys photography and not his gay gear masturbation, ep. 992749202748
>>4488681Your typing makes you sound drunk, high, or absolutely losing it.
>>4488681>i actually enjoy photography thats why i furiously shill and lie to convince people to spend more money on phone tier camerask
>>4488683I’ve never done it but ok sweaty whatever makes you feel calmer and more in control of yourself
>>4488684You sound a bit flustered and ESLy
>>4488680he didn't "leave". he got arrested for animal cruelty and sexual abuse
>>4488683>m43 sisters: the OM-5 is fun and sparks joys>schizo retard: STOP TELLING PEOPLE m43 IS FUN THE SPEC SHEETS SAY ITS NOT FUN ONLY FULL FRAME SNOY IS FUN EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT FUN BUT THE SHEETS AND CHARTS SAY IT HAS TO BE FUN MOOOOOM WHERE IS MY MADS THE SHADOW PEOPLE ARE BACK
>>4488729>>4488680He's alive he posted on /k/ a while ago. He has a Z7 and keeps shilling H&K.>>4488731Better cameras are also fun, spastic ESL bro, not just the em5iii re-re-release. Nice buyers remorse doe.
>>4488729Accusing better photographers of being zoophiles is rude. Poor 8x10 eggGod gets the same treatment. Is it all you?
>>4488669I don't think his tests were scientific enough.
>>4488737I member >dog didnt move>indoors>t-the lighting changedLarger pixels having better shadow recovery and more sensitivity was already known to real niggas anyways
>>4488745>shadow recoveryeither you're too retarded to get a proper exposure in camera or you're retarded to think that shadows need any recoveryit's a sign of the autistic mind to try to show everything in a picture
