1/?This is the review of an OM-5 micro 4/3 camera. I am a full frame user, and I bought this camera to have a small, fun, attractive camera to take snapshits around town. I own or have owned a D850, Z5ii, Z6ii, basically every Nikon DXXX DSLR, D500, Z50, etc. This is my first M43 camera and I was not sure what to expect, so I am chronicling my impressions both for myself, and for other photographers who are looking for a small, fun camera. Ergonomics: This camera is outstanding IMO. For me the Nikon FF cameras are in this weird middle spot that is ergonomically uncomfortable for me. They are either too small or too big. The D850 and my D7500 fit my hand fantastically. I will always have a Nikon DSLR because they are so comfortable to hold and use. The OM-5 is smaller to hold than my Z5ii for example, and that gets it out of the uncomfortable middle ground. With the Z5, I’m always between holding it in front with all of my fingers, or just 3 – there isn’t really enough room for all 4, but with 3, it feels a little insecure. With the OM-5, three fingers fit perfectly. There is enough grip on the front and a great thumb rest on the back. The buttons are very well placed on the camera body for operation while shooting. Simply put, this is a very comfortable camera to hold and shoot. For reference, when I am walking around and shooting, I grip the camera the entire time in my right hand, and have a wrist lanyard for safety. This can be fatiguing with a larger DSLR (the D800 in particular had almost no thumb rest and it was agonizing to carry. The D850 is much better, but is just heavy and gets tiring on the wrist after several hours). The D7500 is extremely comfortable in this regard because of its blobmera shape and light weight. The Z series FF cameras are in the middle ground of just “ok”. The OM-5 was very good.TO BE CONTINUED
2/?Autofocus: Extremely fast and precise. Better than almost any other mirrorless cam I have used. It’s virtually instantaneous and difficult to describe in words. For this morning’s photo walk, I was using the Olympus 45mm 1.8. I understand that the Oly lenses all focus this fast because the focusing element is just one small element on rails, so it is only one very light element that needs to be moved to focus. Whatever the mechanism is, it is extremely good. Displays: EVF is fast and bright. Resolution looks good, but I obviously don’t have any objective data for this, it just looks good to me. Obviously it’s smaller than a FF cam and you don’t get the immersive feeling that a nice OVF like on the D850 gives, but it does the job. It’s also very fast and responsive; I sold my Z6ii in the past because the EVF took a long time to turn on after the camera was turned on, like several seconds. The OM was virtually immediate, though again nothing beats an OVF for this. The back screen also seems nice, though I don’t usually use the LCD to shoot so I’ve only used it to navigate menus.Customizability: Very high. I’m not going to do a full technical breakdown but the cam can be made to conform basically to any shooting style or preference. Seems about as customizable or maybe even a little more so than the new Nikon menus such as the ZF or Z5 have. Image Quality: This is the elephant in the room, the real reason that /pee will scorn any M43 camera and why I will also probably get flamed in the comments. I will attach images from a walk this morning so people can judge my comments for themselves.
3/?Simply; the IQ is very good. The lens was very sharp, and provided enough bokeh for me. I dislike shooting wide open on FF and usually stop down to 5.6 plus anyways, so I already knew that the DOF issue with M43 wasn’t going to bother me. Most of the shots that I will post were shot wide open, and as you can see, they were very sharp- I didn’t perceive a need to stop down to improve image quality. The lens is fantastic, and I understand that most of the Oly lenses are. The 1.8 aperture equates to about a 3.6 aperture on FF, which is frankly more wide open than I would usually shoot. I understand that M43 lenses typically can also focus much more closely than FF lenses, so getting good bokeh shouldn’t be a problem in most instances. Shooting a little stopped down, eg at f4 or 5.6 will give you very good DOF like most street photographers are looking for, without having to risk diffraction at f/11 or whatever on your FF lens. I am sure that there is a penalty in DR and ISO noise on the M43 sensor, I think that this is objectively true. However, I did not notice this in my shooting today, and frankly I don’t think that anyone not doing low light professional work will notice either. As you can see from the pics, it is winter time here where white people live, and the light is ass. I was between ISO 2000 and 4000 for all of my shots, which /p would have you think would lead to unusable images on M43. As you can see, after applying basic noise reduction (in Darktable, so no AI or anything very advanced), noise is invisible. I was able to pull the highlights and shadows as much as I wanted. I don’t think that hobby photographers will notice a big difference between this and FF for their snapshits, but obviously pros are gonna use FF for their specific needs and that’s fine. There was a little bit more chromatic aberration than I would probably see on a nicer FF mirrorless lens, but nothing uncontrollable.
In short, will I keep it? I bought the camera with the intention of trying it out, and sending it back if I didn’t particularly like it. I think that I probably WILL keep it. It’s very small, the lenses are significantly smaller than any equivalent in the FF universe, the IQ is pretty good if not totally incredible, it’s fun to use, unobtrusive, and simple and intuitive.
It makes taking casual photographs much more fun and accessible than a FF kit would. I was shooting with an appx 85mm equiv lens this morning, and it literally fit in my coat pocket. That’s impossible with an FF cam.
I know the SNOY pajeet will be here momentarily telling me just to shoot his sponsor’s product with a 35mm f2.8 and just to be normal, and my answer to that is no. I have some of the best FF cameras on the market already, and this does not fit the same use case.
The IQ simply is not as good as my D850. It falls short in several categories; but it simply does take quite good, very usable pictures which hold up very well unless you start intensively pixel peeping. It’s fun and small and portable. The cam was appx 600 USD and the lens was appx 200 USD. The simple fact is that an equivalent product to this does NOT exist in the FF universe, and to get close, it’s many times the price of this little cam.
These photos are really bad and are 99% just focusing on a random object to the side and blurring everything else out. There is nothing to improve. Start over. The base concept is bad. Mid 2010s wallpaper website photography. This is the photography equivalent of knowing how to strum maj7 chords on guitar and buying boutique pedals and accumulating guitars and amps regardless of skill. Man strums 3 chords, says his new $800 electric plank is comfy and brings something new to the table, imagine that. Ridiculous. Where are the living things? Where is the composition that isnt a vague blur? Where is the music? Fucking nowhere. Also, this overpriced pos is the same size as a snoy, and has worse iq than a fuji. Totally pointless camera. Might as well buy literally anything else >micro four thirds is yooneek!Really isn’t. It’s flat out inferior to aps-c and the same fucking size and price, just with more gimmicks that really don’t apply to good photography. No one pays almost a thousand dollars for "dont PIKSEL PIIP doe!". The entire point of using something other than a phone is the ability to crop, rotate, acknowledge that photos are enjoyable beyond limitations meant for an ancient windows pc on dsl internet (like 1000px limits), and that zooming in to look at stuff is actually fine. Because a phone takes a photo that looks good enough, in fact, just as good as m43, as long as it’s never edited and never bigger than the palm of your hand. So its phone photos with ILC inconvenience.
Only good gear thread
>>4486756saarGPT wrote this response. I specifically said I was a snapshitter, I don't claim to be an artist. You ignore or misrepresent everything I posted. I took a series of photos on a crummy day with bad light so I could post a review here, yes they're not incredible. Feel free to post your own.
>>4486733And yes they're shot with a wide aperture because if I didn't show that, the SNOY crowd would be chimping out that muh bokeh is impossible with M43
>>4486762>im a snapshitter but i cant even catch a living thing other than a plant in a photoK. Do better. Take a photo of a cat. >malding about indians and sony out of nowhereTraumatized. We should get a real rajesh in here to gloat over the "timmies” who do this.
>>4486763>teh SNOYS live so rent free in my head i take worse photos just to appease them>the actual sony users: hmm, yes, this photo would be best at f22A sad mistake desuImagine letting theoretical strangers on the internet affect your photos for the worse
>>4486762K so nothing to add about why your SNOY would be a better choice for my use case
>>4486771>my photosI took these pictures to post on 4chan so people who were interested in the system or were considering m43 for the same reasons I was could read my thoughts and see examples of images taken with it, and that's it.
>>4486772>randomly seething about sony againWhat does sony have to do with the lacking aesthetic of your photos? People shoot winogrand style street on iphone 5s.
>>4486776you quite literally brought up snoy in your initial response lmao
>>4486773I dont think a photo where everything is blurry except for a slice of a tree branch is that informative either. Do they not have cats where you live? People zoned out on benches? Anything with everything in focus?
>>4486780I know it's hard to imagine from calcutta, but here it's like 10 degrees F, cats and people aren't hanging out outside.
>>4486781Cats hang out when it’s -10 but apparently you think about pajeets so much you miss them
>>4486780but sure here's something with more in focus
>>4486782they absolutely don't lmao. This is my last response to you also as this has nothing to do with the content of my post.
>>4486785Yes they do i’m from ukraine. Your cats are pussies. There are even birds when its cold out. >>4486783What? Nothing is in focus. I think you fucked up. The gray car closest to the camera has the least fringing so i guess thats where the focus landed, so its technically in focus, but its on the edge so its still blurry with this crappy lens wide open at f4There’s hints of green on white edges everywhere else = out of focusMaybe micro four thirds is horribly bad, worse than an entry level nikon dslrOr maybe you lack skill
>>4486787Why did you focus on the parked cars closest to the window instead of the ones across the streetAll photos are 99% blur anyways so why not just focus on the window? It would be more interesting than a blurry martini bar in new hampshireYou could go somewhere photogenic like figaros at least ffs
>>4486789>the entire photo is green tinted bokehHoly shit man
>>4486795You got the background in focus! Unfortunately it’s titled and obscured by blurry twigs
So this is the power of micro four thirds...
Does micro four thirds just suck, like, the autofocus cant work, the levels are wrong, and the viewfinder coverage is poorer than stated, and there’s a magical creativity sapping aura? Because to own a d850, you HAVE to be better at this
>/m43/ btfo by their own photography
i like your pictures anon, if you really want a fun exercise to troll /p/ take some with the d850 and claim they're m43 and vice versa
>>4486725NOOOO DELET THIS YOU CANT GIVE ME BUYERS REMORSE FOR MY BUYING EXPENSIVE FOOL FRAME M43 IS BAD OK
These photos look marginally better than the ones I take with my Pixel 6. How old is your camera, OP?
>>4486827the files are downsized 10x to post on the web
nophotos literally SEETHING
>>4486789fixed CA, didn't have the lens profile enabled for aberrations before
>>4486788yes I think the AF caught the falling snow instead of the vehicle behind it unfortunately
>>4486768here's something alive if you insist
The snapshits are cozy idk wtf everyone is filling their diapers aboutAlso I love the look of the OM-5
>>4486854not artistic enough for the nophoto snoys
M4/3 =/= photography
>>4486856because its not a gay overpriced brickmera with a coke can lens, or.....?
>>4486856why doe people hate this lens systemt.flimshooter
>>4486857Remind me how much does OM-3 go for
>>4486725How much is OM paying you? I cannot believe they have fallen so far as to paying randoms on 4chan. You could have at least taken good photos. These are so soft and noisy, worse than my iPhone 17 Pro. Give up.
>>4486860great b8 but the funny thing is that there are people who unironically think like this here
>>4486861It really does look like a phone. Dogshit soft. Jpeg compression doesnt fuck images this badly and it tracks with the 100% crop 100% quality results the husky fag got out of his em5iii and the phonelike quality of the germong’s om5 so nothing new under the sun2025 M43 real resolution = 1/2 the megapixel number, equal to a 2005 dslrMost m43 lenses can not resolve to the cameras pixel pitchApparently the $1000+ 25mp panasois with $1000+ “fast” f2.8 lenses are the ones that only have crop factor working against them but they are also larger than better FF cameras and way larger than better aps-c cameras
>>4486858they hate us for our freedom (to have fun and take our small cameras everywhere with us)foolframers are bitter because their huge and heavy equipment prevents them from enjoying photographym43 just sparks joy
>i'm having fun, honest>NOTHING else is like it!>i have total freedom, thats why i never take photos of living things that might notice my cameraright, that's why you are always coping, and telling everyone how bitter the grapes arefool turds is externally the same as every other camera but its images look like phone photos and it has some useless gimmicks for gearfags to nerd out over before realizing they have 0 application in worthwhile photography because only rocks and leaves hold still for IBIS
>>4486895>my bitter rantit's ok anon, some day you will leave your house (and maybe even take your camera with you)in the meantime: I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE JOY MY OM5 IS SPARKING
>>4486893Oh is that the gimmick? It's small but also has changeable lenses? That sounds sick.
>>4486899Nah its the same size as everything else so m43 fanboys make up wild shit about how better selling larger sensor brands are le unusably bad and le worse and spam on /p/ all dayAll the gear hate you’ve ever read here had a little "even micro four thirds is better" tucked in somewhere. >>4486897Looks worse than a phone
>>4486899yes, and because it's small with small lenses the sensor is smaller, too. which means lesser image quality. but it's a compromise many are willing to take because you've got a nice portable camera system that's a joy to usenow there's people who spent a lot of money on their full frame gear - which is big and heavy. and they can't stand people enjoying "lesser" cameras so much because spec wise their full weight system is better and thus SHOULD be more fun. weaponized autism :)
>>4486900>Looks worse than a phonethanks, I hope so, because phones have AI raping the image to make it more appealing to normoids
>>4486899Nope. Its actually often larger than a fujifilm or a sony especially if you want image quality better than a phone. >>4486900Dont forget the shitty size comparison websites that make everything look dramatic when irl they’re all the same >>4486895Micro four thirds = only sensor size that needs a general because they spent fuji money on phone quality and snoy colors
>>4486897>>4486893>m4turd btfo by his own photographylooks like phone photos
>>4486901This is a fucking pox in every hobby community I'm in. People forming opinions based on the specs sheet rather than using the actual product and determining how they actually feel about it.
>>4486907>how they feel about the camera that is as expensive and big as 500 significantly better onesThe pox is brand fanboys coping instead of realizing they’ve been had and all industries are primarily scammy/predatory and lie to hook customersThe photos tell the story. These cameras were beat by phones ages ago, and yet these idiots are paying fuji money for the "new" one (thats actually the old em5iii released 3 times in a row) and pretending it is not somehow as big, as expensive, and worse. Just by telling themselves. And of course by hating fuji/sony non stop for being better than m43 but not being as technically perfect as canon and nikon.
>>4486907only non artistic cattle think there is any feel to a digital camera. a digital camera is only specs. great artists are autistic. thats why they all shoot film and medium format digital. remember to cargo cult correctly!
>>4486910you sound very bitter because there's people who like things you dont likeget help my man - autism can be treated
>>4486915you sound very bitter because there's people who dislike things you likeget help my man - autism can be treatedAnd then you can finally return that em5iii v3 and buy a fujifilm
>>4486911it's funny how your autism prevents you from actually understanding what he said
>>4486918>no, everyone else is wrong. an ilc shaped phone camera is all about the EXPERIENCE!but fuji already did that better too
>>4486919turning plastic knobs that feel like shit from temu isn't really a good experience thoughbut at least you get to pay $2k for that privilege lol
>>4486897>m43 evangelical >brachycephalic catNot suprised. Not in the slightest.
>>4486924>everyone says fuji is well made>NOOO ITS TEMU JUNKYeah, m43 shills pretend the alternatives are the worst ever. Now seethe at sony because the a7c and a6500 made an entire lens mount so pointless its primary user went out of businessyou tards have paid for a brand new em5iii 3 times in a row
>>4486880The pics started out as a 22mb file and some ended up under one mb on the web. You are so stupid lmao
>>4486880>ERM if I ctrl + scroll on this 1mb jpeg 25 times it’s only 95 percent as sharp as the 60mb file from my SNOY this picture is SOFT
Some further thoughts:As some users noticed earlier, there is definitely more CA with the Oly. Not sure if it was the lens I was using, or inherent to the system, but there was definitely some green fringing. Running 2 iterations of "raw chromatic aberration" in Darktable and actually importing the correct lens profile into lens corrections fixed this, so let's chalk it up to user error. But, it would be unfair to say that there wasn't that issue compared to FF. The dynamic range is theoretically lower, but not noticably so. In all the pictures that I posted yesterday, I was able to manipulate the highlights and shadows how I wanted in every one. Many 4chan users are huge faggots. These could have all been shot with the trendy highest res camera of the day, and if I would have put M43 on the title, everyone and their brother would have come out to attack the IQ, as did happen. You practically can NOT tell the difference in IQ camera to camera from what is posted on this board and that is a fact.Are they less sharp than FF? Than my D850, absolutely. Less sharp than the Z5ii? Maybe, but it's hard to tell. I turn all autosharpening off in post processing anyways, as I hate the crunchy, sharpened look. Processing the raws, they look similar to me. TLDR is that I am a FF shooter, specifically a Nikon shooter, and I will remain so. I have way too much money invested in the ecosystem to change on a dime. But the Oly provides a neat and fun option which I value, and I think overall it's a good camera
I'm sorry anon but it really does look like a phone except for your MFD wide open bokeh shots (which needed MFD to get any kek).I say this not to disparage you since I understand ergos and muh interchangable lens system goy, but to anyone reading this please just use a phone. This $1000+ camera cannot compete with even mid-grade smartphones under 70% of shooting conditions.>>4486931>you tards have paid for a brand new em5iii 3 times in a rowThis is your reality. If you're going to buy M43 buy used and spend like a couple hundred tops. I had an EP-5 for a while and while neat in its own way I spent like $200 all together and yeeted that shit for a small profit after realising the grams were not worth the trade off.OP I appreciate your time to review it properly and compare it against actual cameras. The fact you arrived at the conclusion you did means you in fact do NOT need eye surgery. Danke.
>>4486958it was 600USD. Is there any particular input you have other than "looks like phone"? like in what way does it not look like an image from FF?I have an iphone also and I would say that the photograph quality between this and the iphone are incomparable, there is way less daylight between m43 than there is between m43 and iphone
>>4486960> there is way less daylight between m43 and FF than there is between m43 and iphone
>>4486960It lacks 3d pop ofc
>>4486962oh shit how could I forget
>>4486956>sensible opinionNO YOU FUCKING AUTISTIC RETARD YOU HAVE TO BUY A7C OR XE5 OTHERWISE YOURE JUST SHOOTING A GAY PHONE
>>4487022I'm just gonna enjoy what I have and haters can hate I guess
This man has resorted to adding white borders to his snapshots.
>>4486960>it was 600Its not normally 600, its normally more like 800-1000. APS-C is still a better buy. > there is way less daylight between m43 than there is between m43 and iphonePure crop sensor math only works-ish between comparable sensor designs with similar resolutions, and THEN, the lenses on the smaller sensors have to be optically better, and have the same apparent aperture size = same sized lens so only the sensor size is being evaluated. A z7ii, r5, a7rv, gfx100s, can all beat equivalence especially with post, a7rv and z7ii low light color fidelity is a bit worse than some m43s like the g9ii, z5ii/zf shadow recovery and low light color fidelity is better than equivalence. Sometimes FF sensors are worse than equivalence, like canons, and high speed cameras. Some APS-C cameras skew equivalence like 40mp xtrans, which looks better than it technically is by having less obvious chroma noise and getting its user accustomed to slightly lower color fidelity and better luma resolution 24/7 in addition to benefiting from the post production SNR improvement from downsampling to <24mp. This matters when comparing cameras to phones, because phone sensor tech and the way their imaging pipeline works diverges significantly from digital stills cameras. They all have ultra fast shutterless quad bayer cameras with a gorillion tiny pixels and even without AI inpainting achieve the SNR and resolution of slightly larger sensors, about on par with 1" and m43. The processing that does this is no faker than demosaicing. These tiny quad bayer sensors can take several exposures at the exact same time and combine the bracketed shots, in addition to using tech that’s already on cameras like the g9ii and z5ii. They are much more advanced than larger sensors, but can’t be economically made larger because of that. All the extra fancy shit increases the reject rate and size does so exponentially. Even phone lenses are more advanced, but hard to make big.
>>4487032please clean the vaseline off your lens
>>4487043No lol I like the diffused look post your own photos if you don’t
>>4487042This was a well thought out and intelligent post, so thank you. The fact remains that I have a camera with the highest performing sensor ever made for FF and I have the other new "it" trendy FF camera as well. I don't care about ultimate IQ, I can already have it. I just like the little cam is all
I think a nice re-edit of one that I posted basically SOOC yesterday...
Planning to buy the OM5 as my first digital camera.
>>4489024buy an em5iii instead of wasting your money. better yet dont be a homo. get a fuji or a sony.
>mft = pedossasuga
>>4489024good choice. unless you want animal butthole detect auto focus the OM-5 can do anything and everything
>>4489025Having a warranty can be useful, anon.
>>4486919Kek, Fujis are softer at 40 MP than MFT at 25 dumb fujislug.
>>4489024Hi anon, OP here. Since buying my OM5 I have only shot on it. It is very fun to use and the images it produces are very nice. People who try to convince you otherwise generally have no experience with the system, are trolls, or are people who hate photography and people who enjoy taking photos. If you can find a good deal, I would go for it. Don't pay MSRP though.
>>4486858cause it's impossible to get anything wide
>>4489147Looks like shit, honestly. Close to a phone if not identical. And you only take photos of nothing so what do you know about the camera? How it renders a telephone pole and other things no one is interested in seeing? Just use a pentax optio zoom
>>4489241yeah the om5 isnt exactly being put to the test hereif no one would ever want to look at a photo for more than 5 seconds and for nothing but the "liminal vibes" the camera is irrelevant. if it is not shooting anything fleeting and challenging it can be a phone or worse. if it is not shooting anything important it can miss focus and everyone will miss that it did. it is as important to this kind of photography as boutique gear is to shoegaze and horsepower is to commuting.
>>4489242incredibly obvious and cringe samefagalso>or are people who hate photography and people who enjoy taking photosyou are herewhy don't you post a photo that you would consider worthwhile?
>>4489242and also>it doesn't like shoegazejust caught this, yeah kill yourself for real lmao you have no taste
>>4486903>Dont forget the shitty size comparison websites that make everything look dramatic when irl they’re all the sameThis, PXLmag is the worst offender. >>4489158Also the sensors are the wrong aspect ratio so you need to be always cropping. >>4486904They don't. FT is a large sensor even if 4x smaller than FF. The almost phone tier system was Pentax Q but even then the apertures managed to set it apart. >>4486900>All the gear hate you’ve ever read here had a little "even micro four thirds is better" tucked in somewhere.And also "FF is better" or "medium format is better". The main problem with MFTurds is that they are in denial of the implications of equivalence because it makes nearly every lens in their catalog a joke for bokehgraphy. They're in denial of reality out of fanaticism just like fujislugs. Note: not every MFT user is a MFTurd just like not every Fuji user is a fujislug. Most of them here are though.
>>4489270It didn't seem like shoegaze hate to me but that he's saying that the special things about a boutique pedal are obliterated in the FX chain so you can use anything that's close enough for 1/10th of the price and the final result will be indistinguishable.
>>4489274hm a more reasonable take. Some shoegaze artists like slowdive and ride are truly masters of 90s rock and roll, so saying that they didn't need or didn't have any use for x pedal or whatever is like saying that van gogh didn't have any use for x brush. Maybe not, but where is it going to better use?As for me and the quality of my pics, I am a snapshitter and I take what pictures make me happy. I have made this clear and have made no claims about being an artist. Is a 600USD om-5 and a 50USD tt artisan 17mm "too much" equipment for such pursuits? IDK why it would be
>>4489276>As for me and the quality of my pics, I am a snapshitter and I take what pictures make me happy.This is the sane opinion that angers most of /p/ for some reason. Now, you will still get shit on for buying a MFTurd, but that is irrespective of the photos you take.That is to say, if you were never prepared to take a 7-2000mm f/0.69 and 5D mark XVII out with you, then yeah, the OM5 makes more sense./p/ tends to have a very all or nothing approach to photos for some god forsaken reason.
>>4489280my own theory is that the majority of /p either never or very rarely actually takes photos; they don't understand that fun pictures can be captured on virtually any system, yes, even your phone. Instead they see gearfaggotry and hoarding of objects as some kind of dick measuring competition and feel the need to posture on the internet
>>4489147overall it mostly seems like you don't have much to shoot in your area. i think i like this soft look with aberrations a bit more than the earlier style with the more visibly digital mushiness of the first batch. >>4489150 i like this pic the most. superb light and a trace of human activity
>>4489284ty.. yeah I lower local contrast to make the pics look softer, or shoot with the lens at f/16 to let diffraction do it. The first batch were basically SOOC right after I had gotten the camera. As far as what there is to shoot, I'm sure a better photog than me could make more of it, but it's home and I just shoot what catches my eye
>>4486956The lens is always at fault with purple and green fringing. Whether the camera autocorrects them for your JPEGs is another thing.I have the Olympus E-M5 mk II and I think the best things about it are the build quality, computational photography and that the colors look nice and natural SOOC. It was a good buy for less than 300 eurobucks. If I'm shooting fireworks I can just use the live composite mode and forget about exposure triangles I have to worry about with my other cameras.
>>4489147wholesome thread, OP
>>4489158>wideyou retarded or is 14mm equivalent not wide enough? this is already a retarded focal length so you're probably better off with some idiotic specialty camera anywayhttps://www.four-thirds.org/en/lens/i-007-014mm-f028pro-olympus/
>>4489272>Also the sensors are the wrong aspect ratio so you need to be always cropping.noprint detected4:3 is actually the right aspect ratio if you want to print and frame your photos, 3:2 frames are only available in small consoomer sizes (10x15cm), anything above A4 is 4:3 or 5:4
>>4489283just look at the idiotic threads on this board (most idiotic being the shut-in incel faggot photographing toy figurines). this is still 4chan. a cess pool of socially awkward permavirgins at best
>>4489297>>wide>14mmExcept 14mm on M43 is the FoV of full frame 28mm, which in turn is the snapshit focal length which is also only moderately wide.There are many needs for wider FoV as evidenced by the plethora of UWA lenses available for APS-C and FF cameras. Not to mention that because of the fact that the 14mm M43 lens has all the distortion and field curvature of a true 14mm lens but packed into a narrower FoV, it adds another layer as to why the M43 photo looks like shit.>>4489299You are unfortunately correct. I say unfortunately since a photo with overall bad rendering is not salvaged by the fact that the RAW is 4:3.BUT, I don't find cropping a 3:2 photo to be such a big deal for prints.I tried to find 18x12 frames in my city (or online for that matter) and found an groundbreaking amount of fuck and all. Even the specialist framing shop that charges like $200 a frame thought I was mad.
>>4489305>muh renderingwhat are you even talking about? Do they lack 3D pop too?
>>4489309Don't conflate actual terms with schizo babble, it makes your argument weaker than it already is.If the big boy word is too much for you then all you need to know is that the shittier, smaller sensor with a shittier, smaller piece of glass strapped to the front of it creates photos that lack detail and depth. If smaller sensors are somehow just better in your opinion, then you should be using a phone anon.
>>4489283No actually we take photos of our girlfriends and family and its frustrating that you fence snapping autists somehow can not understand that these get held to a standard without adding them to your fap folder firstIn real life micro four thirds is worse than a phone>gf, indoors: Anon take my picture! >sorry honey, photography is about not taking pictures. the light isnt good enough>ANON YOUR LAST NIKON WORKEDIN THIS EXACT SAME ROOM WHY CANT THIS STUPID OM SYSTEM>uhhh that was just a snapshit. i need flash. theshutterspeedcantgethighenoughandiso3200alreadylooksworsethanmyphone i mean you dont take a photograph you make i…>I WATCHED YOU EDIT THE NIKON PHOTO SO IT LOOKED AMAZING. I AM USING MY PHONE!>but…
>>4489305>Except 14mm on M43 is the FoV of full frame 28mm,you have the reading comprehension of an american PhDhttps://www.four-thirds.org/en/lens/i-007-014mm-f028pro-olympus/
>>4489311Dumb argument, until recently MFT was alone in the 8 stop stabilization realm making it arguably the best system for deep field low light photography.
>>4489311get help
>>4489310>Uh uh it’s just shittier ok don’t ask whyFucking retard
>>4489311tell us what sensor size this was shot on
>>4489319Its blurry tripe, so probably another "HA! You thought it was micro four thirds, but it was actually a 40 year old ten megapixel medium format scan back with 7 stops of DR!">>4489315See, you never photograph anything important. Just anime dolls, random buildings, fences, and sleeping cats. IBIS is useless for living things. Useless for photography in general because no matter what, a tripod is better, and handholding is more than good enough. Put a 24mm or 35mm prime on a dslr and 1/2s handheld is easy as piss. Any longer and OIS is better than IBIS anyways, and more than 3-4 stops is of purely academic interest for people who merely theorize about equivalence, aka nophoto notphotog cameralets.
>>4489320So you can't tell
>>4489321Your D700 measurably, literally, performs exactly like micro four thirds anonDo you agree micro four thirds is merely only as good as a $50 thrift store FF from 1890? I do. It has no business costing as much as it does and is not an alternative to real cameras. It can not even equal the newest iphone let alone vivo/xiaomi phones. There is no reason to buy this shit when cameras like the 90d and R7 exist, for the same price, aside from your femboy insecurity about how much more serious and masculine those better cameras look. Simple as.
>>4489322do you think this was shot on a d700?
>>4489322correct. micro four thirds is a fashion victim system. the only popular camera is the em5/om5. its fuji mirrorless scameras for poorfags. (also, an xt5 still drastically outperforms the best foolturds ever, the gh7 and g9ii ff dslr sized scams, lol)
>>4489322It's ok to admit that it's generally impossible what sensor system generated what image without access to the full quality raw, which is actually the truth, anon. No need to continue embarrassing yourself
>>4489326So you think this was either shot on a m4/3 or a d700, final answer. Notwithstanding the inevitable and forthcoming evidence that you are in fact wrong ,can't tell, and autistically freak out constantly over shit you obviously have no knowledge or ability to discern anything about
>>4489322nta, but what are you doing with your life?
>>4489323I think it is a blurry photo with zero fine detail and trash bokeh. Huskychad and eggchad got better quality out of their canon and nikon dslrs, even the older ones, and they are not exactly stiff competition. If sensor size doesnt matter for botched flower photos or cherry picked unrealistic comparisons sensor size still matters.Proving this to you with photos would be a waste of time. Two people already tried, and did. Their facts got ignored and micro four turds tried to dox them while accusing them of raping their dogs.
>>4489332so it's a no true scotsman issue lol. >I don't like the photo for x arbitrary reason, ergo it must be m4/3
>>4489326I would try wormji if it wasn't so fucking overpriced. If the prices ever come down by 50% (because that's the fair value for a full plastic temu quality camera with an autofocus worse than Leica M) I'll try one.But then again I tried an XPRO3 years ago and wasn't too impressed by the performance lol.
>>4489322Even a full frame or "gem" sized dryplate negatives have thousands of times greater resolution than any modern digital camera. The lenses from the time probably wouldn't resolve it, but the potential is there.
>>4489328It is a blurry low resolution, windows 95 sizes photo. Every single advantage you could have had from a larger sensor has been thrown in the trash because it is a blurry photo of nothing. >>4489331More than 4chan. I live a life where what some pajeet on 4chan can see on his lenovo t60 is irrelevant and the people I take photos for all have 4k-8k macs and ask for 20" prints minimum and we all want photos in situations shitty cameras underperform phones in. This is real life. This is real life for 99/100 people. 99/100 people who buy cameras do not buy an system or panasonic. If you do less, just use a phone. Or once again say>durrrrr my 1mp blurry photos on a fucking porn site dont matter, so shitty cameras dont matter and nice cameras are a wasteYeah sure and dressing like an adult is a waste because you dont have a job or a sex life
>>4489335that's idiot talk, anon
>>4489336so you admit that >It's ok to admit that it's generally impossible what sensor system generated what image without access to the full quality raw, which is actually the truth, anon. No need to continue embarrassing yourselfthanks for wasting everyone's time, retard
>>4489333It does not matter what camera you use if all you take is photos of nothing. No one will ever want to see anything in your indistinct photo of a mundane object. It does not matter. That does not mean better cameras are useless. They are only useless to your empty branch photography hobby, like condoms, a respectable wardrobe, and a comfortable car that doesnt smell weird inside are also totally irrelevant and useless to you (no one would know the difference if you had it all or not because you never actually do anything)
>>4489339>I don't like the photo for x arbitrary reason, ergo it must be m4/3
>>4489339I already stated that m43 obviously does have some IQ tradeoffs to FF in the OP of this thread. I also said that one generally can't tell except under specific circumstances. You have proven this thesis correct, which is OK, but you need to stop seething about a lens mount now
>>4489338It is impossible to know if its a good camera or a shit camera if you are a bad photographer wasting shutter flaps on blurry photos of nothing*A building corner, a flower, sensor size is as important to these as fine ingredients are to an amateur home chef burning some shitty asian inspired cuisine99/100 people do not buy a micro four thirds for this reason, but go online and theres hundreds of losers from across the world posting photos of tree branches. The average camera buyer is photographing sexy women and family members, pets, and vacations. When these things are concerned micro four thirds starts out equaling an iPhone and quickly falls behind. Skin tones dull. Colored blobs appear. Detail is blurred. People who actually do want photos worse than their phone save $900 and buy a digishit that actually fits in their pocket. Micro four thirds has no point, and you cant see it because you have no life. You only want to autistically photograph tree branches and strangers backs while hoping no one notices you (you are kind of creepy).
>>4489342>>It's ok to admit that it's generally impossible what sensor system generated what image without access to the full quality raw, which is actually the truth, anon. No need to continue embarrassing yourself>It's ok to admit that it's generally impossible what sensor system generated what image without access to the full quality raw, which is actually the truth, anon. No need to continue embarrassing yourself
>>4489341Its very easy to tell. The so called specific circumstances are everything people would rather not use a phone for. They are the norm. Photos of literally nothing are not. Its like test charts. If all you shot was charts, it would not matter if one camera rendered a sharper chart, because no one cares how sharp a chart is. There is nothing to see, nothing to appreciate, nothing that should look a certain way. If you’re happy with micro four thirds I have great news for you. A phone takes the exact same photos and often better ones.
>>4489344then tell me what sensor size>It's ok to admit that it's generally impossible what sensor system generated what image without access to the full quality raw, which is actually the truth, anon. No need to continue embarrassing yourself
>>4489337>he doesn't know that wetplate/dry plate has finer grain than modern microfilms.Sad!
>OP: the om-5 is a fun camera>schizo: let me explain why full frame has better image qualitythis thread is peak autism
>>4489343>If you cant tell what my low res blurry photo of nothing came from, you cant tell everYes. Thats right. All that matters is the tripe you share on 4chan, a cartoon 1000 year old vampire pornography website for neo-nazi movements. If nothing about your 1mb, 1920x1080 photos of bricks indicates the quality of the camera, cameras dont matter. Or maybe your life and photography dont matter, and the camera plays the role of high quality ingredients in shitty over-spiced cooking.
>>4489348OK after this schizo menty b, I think the point is proven sufficiently for the curious anon who comes across this thread curious about the OM5it's a nice and fun cam :)
>>4489347Whats so fun about photographing NOTHING, all alone, for no reason, and hoping no one notices you? Thats what aspies enjoy. Who cares? there is no standard to meet for low res blurry photos of nothing, shared on a website that is below not mattering.However, cameras can still matter in real life, and people can still tell. Thats why there came a point in time when no one IRL bought micro four thirds anymore. It takes the same photos as phones and older FF models do noticeably better for less money. >W-WELL IF I TOOK AN ISO 12800 PHOTO OF NOTHING YOU WOULDNT KNOW IT WAS FF NOT M43!But if I myself personally used an FF and a M43 camera to the best each camea could do, within five minutes of each other, for something that matters like a portrait (not your autistic snapshits of tree branches and anime dolls) your gearfag darling would reveal how fucking useless it is to a normal person with a life who does real photography. That would be a valid and challenging comparison. Cant have that!But at least you can autistically play dress up as a photographer. It even looks like a film SLR and its just small enough that people think you have a toy camera, and you arent up to something. That matters, you cant walk around with a real camera and photograph nothing since you are creepy looking/acting and have never been seen with a girlfriend. People would think you were sneaking creepshots to jerk off to. Am I right?Get this. I despise nerds. You are the people who actually kill hobbies with your tendency towards filling the void with the meaningless and mundane things like photos of branches and star wars wiki lore. The fun stuff comes from us normal people who do stuff with other people. When the environment is no longer sane to share photos containing people we care about, all that’s left is creepy autists posting photos of benches.
>>4489350holy fuck, yikes lmao
i took this photo with a olympus e500 and 50mm f/2 macro :)it belongs in this thread because its a 4/3 its a fun camera to use in good lighting but i heard the 50mm f/2 zuiko is a op lens for 4/3rds too this is sooc jpeg with no edits im close to taming her she ate 3 feet away from me i wouldve taken more pics but im trying to get her to eat churu paste off my fingers or the tube
>>4489353<3
>>4489352You need to hear it. A photo is only as important as its subject and who it is for. Sensor size can not matter for a blurry tree branch posted on a neo nazi cartoon porn site. Somewhere a d850 was used with a high ISO and a shitty lens for a google images grade picture of a flower. It was posted on reddit and it didnt matter to anyone what camera they used or even that the photo existed. Sensor size matters when you hand a man two cameras, and he uses the best settings available for each, for a photo of a person (something with meaning), and one trounces the other. It does not matter if someone used shitty settings with shitty ff gear for a shitty photo, his reality doesnt change because you can find a photo that is a waste of gear, or because you somehow cant imagine photos being for more than internet strangers because you have zero friends and you’re distant with your family. Jussaiyan. 99/100 people who buy cameras are normal people with friends, family, and travel plans. That micro four thirds and FF can theoretically be identical in subpar use on meaningless subjects like tree branches is not relevant to them - me - us. The normal, sex having world. Go skulk around and take photos of fences now, friendless nerd. Shoo.
>>4489350>MOOOOOM THAT GUY ENJOYS THINGS I DONT LIKE MOOOOMpls off urself
>>4489355NTA but you're fucking seriously mentally ill
>>4489350lol? you think of yourself as normal? topkek
>>4489357It’s called being used to being the only non-virgin in the roo , meets MBA training, meets the experience of lording over an army of losers. My job as a senior manager at amazon consists of bullying inferior, failed men who don’t have their life together or any priorities beyond how they feel at themoment so they can get the message and learn to succeed, or go rot in a hole.Like I offer them the way to keep their job I offer you the way forward. Camera quality matters if your photos matter. A photo is only important as its subject and who it is for. If your photos are not important, you are wasting your time and money vibing out while no one cares. Hustle or die. I also offer you the option to quit. Just admit that cameras only dont matter when the photos don’t matter, and be on your way, continue not mattering. This means you have to acknowledge that cameras can matter (if the photos do). This is the last you will hear, nerd. Lunch is over. And I am firing someone named guptal today, for doing the bare minimum and spending 4 hours in the bathroom.
>>4489355What about photography as a pursuit of art? Being able to communicate through visual media can be a very challenging practice that takes a lot of time and practice to succeed at. I am NOT justifying snapshits of tree branches and fences. It just seems like your argument is not considering that there are people using cameras as a means to express themselves artistically rather than being human security cameras strolling through the forest.
>>4489360Based hustle chadFire dem micro four thirdies. If they’re not pros, they dont need cameras. Based! Trad! Work ethic! Hustle! Efficiency! Synergy! Profit! BASED!
>>4489360>muh grindsetDamn didn’t realize we were dealing with the sigma male up in here
>>4489360> tfw the only non virgin in the 'roo
