[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 43 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!



File: _2020467.jpg (3.85 MB, 3200x2400)
3.85 MB
3.85 MB JPG
I always hear Micro Four Thirds can't do low light, but then I take a (bad) picture like this, and I think it's a massively exaggerated "weakness" of the system.

This pic was taken in conditions that were so dark, it was difficult to see the boy running across the wall with the unaided eye. Not only did my EM1.2 focus immediately, but the noise is absolutely acceptable to me, especially for a scene darker than anything I'd ever shoot at professionally under any conditions. This picture has ZERO PERCENT NOISE REDUCTION. Nada. None. And I dropped the sharpening to zero, and just added a little clarity and slightly boosted the vibrance.

I kept it at ISO 200 and was able to almost totally freeze his motion at 1/125. He was running along that wall quite fast. How often would anyone ever need to capture someone running at that speed in nearly dark conditions professionally? I'd say essentially never.

I honestly think that the "MFT can't do low light" meme is just that, a meme. My opinion is that there's basically 1% to 5% of photographers that actually need better than MFT performance, and they're pushing the limits of imaging technology purposefully. Certainly close to 0% of anyone who's ever posted in the entire history of this board genuinely needs better than MFT performance, unless they're printing larger than poster size, which I bet is extremely rare.

I've come to the conclusion all the MFT hate is just post-purchase cope by low skilled, trend following, meme sucking togs that think a bigger sensor makes up for their innate lack of skill as photographers. Why worry about composition when you can just completely destroy your background details with "creamy bokeh" that we've all seen done a billion times to death? Just keep saying MFT can't do low light, even though 99% of togs never shoot professional stills in conditions dark enough for it to ever even matter one bit.

Cope more.
>>
I think people mean high iso performance. Show us a picture you shot at iso 3200.
>>
File: ISO2000.png (2.37 MB, 2438x1397)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB PNG
>>3532954

Sorry, ISO 200 was a typo. That pic was taken at ISO 2000.
>>
>>3532955

So yeah, like I said in the OP, people who say MFT can't do high ISO low light are basically just fucking retards.
>>
>>3532944
Depends on the specific camera. I have no problem with MFT. This was a SOOC jpg?

2000 iso isn't very high really. The same shot on a modern FF raw file would have more information in the shadows.

But, yeah. Diminishing returns springs to mind. I'm glad you like your camera and are actually using it instead of looking at DXO charts.
>>
File: _2020434.jpg (4.83 MB, 3200x2400)
4.83 MB
4.83 MB JPG
>>3532958

>This was a SOOC jpg?

No, these are SOOC RAWs, with no processing other than a touch of vibrance. I completely removed ALL noise processing (both color and luminance) and sharpening from these RAWs in LR. They're also processed using a custom flat gamma profile default, so these are much flatter than a SOOC jpg would look.

>I'm glad you like your camera

I love this camera. I love the whole MFT system. I love that I can get an 600mm equivalent FoV at f/4 with dual IS at 7.5 stops of correction. I love that I can get f/.85 and f/.95 lenses for less than $1000 that fit into my smallest camera bag attached to a body with a vertical grip. I love that I can shoot at 60fps (!) full sensor readout and dump 1.5 sec frame buffer's worth of images to the SD cards from BEFORE I even pressed the fucking shutter (ProCapture)!

Yeah man, I'm happy. I'm just sick of all the FF tards constantly shitting all over what is, sum total, a far superior system for 90%+ of real world professional shooting conditions.
>>
>>3532967

That one is also ISO 2000 at 1/125th. I don't know why LR isn't exporting the metadata too.
>>
>>3532967

>I love that I can get an 600mm equivalent FoV at f/4 with dual IS at 7.5 stops of correction.

For $2200 to $2400, I mean.
>>
File: _2020404.jpg (4.41 MB, 3200x2400)
4.41 MB
4.41 MB JPG
Another one at ISO 2000, 1/125. No noise reduction at all, no sharpening. Tiny bit of saturation, little bit of clarity.

This scene, even with all those lights, is darker than any wedding ceremony or reception that I've ever shot; And yes, I'm a successful wedding photographer who shoots MFT.
>>
>>3532967
>I'm glad you like your camera
>I love this camera
Good. I love my camera too. It's not the best but it's mine :)
>>
>>3532967
>>3532979

Something to note about these pictures is that my camera was down at my chest, AF mode was SAF, with the focus points to full field, face detect off.

These are what the EM1.2 does in extremely low light, literally walking by without even composing, just pressing the shutter button without even fucking stopping to look at the LCD.

People who say MFT AF in low light is bad are, again, complete and utter fucking morons.
>>
>>3532983

What do you have, anon? Post some pics.
>>
>>3532986
I do post pics sometimes but I'm shy. Good glass always wins over silicon.
>>
>>3532944
why do people with tiny sensor always start these COPE threads?

don't @ me faggot, I shoot with a phone
>>
>>3532944

not going to lie, that looks pretty clean. i've never shot micro four thirds, always been a nikon shooter. not looking to switch, but i've been tempted a few times to go 43. noise there looks pretty clean.
>>
>>3532984

Yeah but if you had a Sony, it would have nailed focus perfectly on the eye instead of just somewhere in the general area.
>>
>>3532944
MFT is a fucking joke and everyone knows it

More importantly; Where the fuck did the "show EXIF" button go, and when?
>>
File: P6238599001-00111.jpg (2.92 MB, 4096x3072)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
>>3532944
Olympus does scientific imaging as their main business, I guess something rubs off to camera department. They get that pleasing high noise look when you process from raws, but denosing is not very straightforward, and you need help from lenses to get the focus right. For me on em-10 6400 is ceiling that at times still works, 1600-2500 is where I lock it most of the time, and it's good to be aware that you won't be able to pull up shadows in post a lot.

>bit of crop
>80% jpeg
>standard chroma denoise
>no luminance denoise
>iso 5000

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10 Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern812
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:09 23:45:54
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating5000
Lens Aperturef/6.3
Exposure Bias-2.3 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3533373

Why did you have to boost the ISO so high for that shot? I understand why you were at 6.3 for DoF, but you really didn't need 1/500 for an insect. Even if it were moving it's antennae around, you could have frozen it at 1/160 and come down to 2000 maybe 1600 ISO easy.

Love that lens btw. Wasn't happy that Oly nickle and dimed me for the lens hood for it though.
>>
>>3533373

Also, CaptureOne does much better noise reduction than LR in my experience.
>>
>>3533341

Lol, you think Eye-AF works well in low light?

No.

>>3533353

>MFT is a fucking joke and everyone knows it

Funny, considering how overpriced and/or underpowered everything is over in the FF world.
>>
File: P6238599001-00111.jpg.jpg (1.1 MB, 1100x825)
1.1 MB
1.1 MB JPG
>>3533385
>Why did you have to boost the ISO so high for that shot?
I forgot. Usually I go up for wind and movement of the bug, but I do it manually. I've this one from same set at 6400 - 1/160 sec, so it could just be a mistake.
>>
What is it with mft fags lately?

If micro four thirds is the superior format, then why does most profesional don't use it?
>>
>>3533669

Ah yeah, wind can be a bitch for sure.

>>3533679

>then why does most profesional don't use it?

Being a professional photographer doesn't mean you're an intelligent person. Most people just buy what they're told is "the best" because they think it makes them "the best." Fact is, most people are just fucking retards and not even good at what they do. The kind of shit I see from other wedding and real estate photogs is absolutely fucking hilarious. This one fat Mexican woman who I stood in as a second shooter for in a pinch was *pissed* that I showed up with my Olympus gear. She's a Sony snob that buys the newest flagship bodies as soon as they release and only buys the premium Zeiss and G Master glass.

Her photos were hilarious dogshit, with high-school tier composition and basically just holding down the shutter and hoping for a good shot; And mine looked like you'd expect from someone charging $2500 for the evening (my second shooter fee). I feel so bad for that bride and groom.

But hey, she shoots Sony! She must be a skilled professional!
>>
>>3532944
>make thread about mft vs ff
>everyone can spot the mft shots even at 1000px
>abandon thread
>plan f
When are you just going to move on with your life?
>>
>>3533716

I'm going to remake that thread when it falls off the catalog, and do it where there's a strawpoll in the OP so everyone can vote on which they think is FF and which are MFT.

It was too hard keeping track of everyone's votes.

>everyone can spot the mft shots even at 1000px

Only one person got any of them right, and he only guessed two correctly.
>>
>>3533718
Bullshit. How can it be hard "keeping track" when they were all right there in direct replies? If there was any "gotcha" moment, you wouldnt be abandoning it.

You bought into a shitty system, just get over it. You will be much happier because no matter how many threads you make, you will never convince anyone else that you didn't fuck up.
>>
>>3532956
>2019
>iso 2000
>high
Kek'd.
>>
>>3532944
And apparently you fell for that meme. Dumb gerfags have been repeating it forever, but they haven't noticed sensors have improved to the level that even mft and inch sized sensors are having better low light performance than ff cameras from ten years ago.

We're in the one with you era now.
>>
>>3533752

Because it was obvious someone or multiple people were samefagging with a whole smattering of guesses so if I said what they were they could just go "see, I told you so!"


So we're not going to do it that way anymore. We'll do a straw poll, and only after everyone has cast their votes will we look and see how well everyone did.
>>
File: nikon-d850-vs-em1-II.png (3.01 MB, 1872x978)
3.01 MB
3.01 MB PNG
>>3533783

>even mft and inch sized sensors are having better low light performance than ff cameras from ten years ago.

That is one of the most hilarious parts to me. No one was saying the Nikon D600 was too noisy for "Professional Results" at ISO 6400 back in 2014, but gearfags will swear up and down that MFT has unacceptable noise at even ISO 3200 when it's objectively better than anything the D600 could spit out at that ISO.

>>3533754

Ok, how about ISO 25600? Pic related is the flagship Nikon D850, which costs $3300, at ISO 25600 on the left. On the right is the $1500 EM1.2 only one stop behind at ISO 12800.

If you think gaining one stop of noise performance at ISO 25600 is worth $1700, be my guest.
>>
>>3533812
>2014
based caveman.
>>
>>3533812

Sensorlets BTFO!
>>
>>3533812
Kek, you need glasses. Look at the lines on the foil.
>>
>>3533877

It's ridiculous, isn't it? He gave himself a huge advantage and still failed miserably. I think you may actually be onto something regarding the glasses.
>>
>>3533877
>>3533878

Samefag, also,

Lol, you mean the difference between a 45.7MP sensor and a 20MP sensor? Yeah dumbass, really gave myself a HUGE advantage with one stop of ISO!

Does the D850 make the lines on the foil look 230% better? Again, if you think that marginal improvement is worth $1700, go right ahead!

Not only that, but the Nikon example was shot with a lens that's twice as expensive!

You FF fags try so, so hard and always fall flat on your face like retarded children. It's hilarious.
>>
>>3533895
I don't like arguing with mentally handicapped people, it makes me uncomfortable. If you don't see the problems inherent in comparing 45MP FF to 20MP MFT, you must be retarded. You may want to look up density and pitch, and their relation to surface area.
>hilarious
Yeah, you seem very happy making all these cope threads... not incredibly upset.
>>
>>3533897

> If you don't see the problems inherent in comparing 45MP FF to 20MP MFT

I DO see the problems, unlike your dumbass that NEVER seems to understand no matter how many times it's explained to you that the DP scene will be scaled down with the larger MP sensor in the compare view, making it look like it has more detail.

This has been explained to you in every fucking thread where we've made these comparisons and you NEVER get it. The only mentally handicapped one here is you, mong.
>>
File: images (33).jpg (51 KB, 553x554)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>
>>3533714
>Her photos were hilarious dogshit
>post dogshit snapshit
>>
File: yikes.png (318 KB, 900x508)
318 KB
318 KB PNG
Still at it...
>>
>>3533936
>>3533937
>>3533969

Samefag.
>>
>>3533812
Post the D850 at 12800
>>
File: 1568179981338.png (366 KB, 900x508)
366 KB
366 KB PNG
>>3534002
Yikes...
>>
File: images (34).jpg (47 KB, 511x601)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>3532944
Did your girlfriend cheated you with a fullframe shooter?
>>
>>3532944
>Why worry about composition when you can just completely destroy your background details with "creamy bokeh" that we've all seen done a billion times to death?
holy fuck lol and you're accusing other people of coping
>>
>>3532944
Mft is 2 stops (4 times) worse than ff, if both sensors are from the same generation.

It's just a case of signal to noise ratio, 1/4 the sensor surface area = 1/4 the light (signal) gathered = 4 times worse noise performance

Then there's also the fact a small sensor is much more demanding on lenses, so unless you think Mft has magical glass that resolves 4 times as much detail, then realise all your shots are never gonna be able to get the crispness, and subject isolation of a proper camera.

These are just facts.
>>
>>3534034

>Talentless bokehwhore
>>
>>3534071
>>
>>3532955
>Massively underexposed
>Guys look there's no noise hahaha xD
>>
>>3534214

That's not underexposed, that's exactly what it looked like, dumbass.
>>
this has to be bait

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width600
Image Height600
>>
>>3534290

In what way?
>>
File: snip.png (4.5 MB, 2913x1768)
4.5 MB
4.5 MB PNG
>>3534290

I mean, this is what it looks like with the Adobe Standard .DNG profile applied. My custom flat gamma .DNG profile (which has nothing to do with the gamma sliders in LR) automatically brings up the shadows, so what you're seeing is somewhat what it would look like if I just brought up the shadows from the Adobe Standard profile.

I think that's really good shadow recovery for such a dark scene and such a "tiny" sensor, and I don't think FF would look appreciably better.
>>
File: wtf.jpg (548 KB, 1192x646)
548 KB
548 KB JPG
>>3534329

Another thing to note is again, how the EM1.2 almost perfectly nailed focus in almost complete darkness WHILE JUST CASUALLY WALKING BY THE SUBJECTS.

>>3534290

Also, why did you alter my shot and add more noise? You're such a bad troll.
>>
>>3534329
You guys are delusional as fuck, but it's not a big deal either way. The problem solves itself when olympus exits the market.
>>
>>3534337
That’s level adjusted to correct exposure.
Now imagine what you’d be left with after noise reduction.
>>
>>3534338

Well, when I remake the "FF or MFT?" thread, feel free to cast your vote and we'll see who's delusional.

>>3534348

You literally added more noise on purpose. You also fucked with the curves. Why are you so dishonest? Are you really this autistically committed?
>>
>>3534404
Voting doesn't matter. You're a minority in the market, your camera company is dying.
>>
can you really not just enjoy your camera if you like it as much as you claim? do you really have to keep doing this dumb shtick where you try to act like everybody else is a moron for buying a sensor bigger than mft?
>>
>>3534414

Just think of all the money people have wasted buying over priced cameras and lenses because of a false stigma against micro four thirds. Billions of dollars, wasted on overpriced full frame gear.
>>
>>3534421
just think of all the posts you have wasted complaining about full frame because of your personal preference for mft, thousands of keystrokes, wasted on meaningless bullshit
>>
>>3534421
>Just think of all the money people have wasted
They actually saved money.
APS-C with PDAF is cheaper than MTF with PDAF.

It's you who want them to spend more money on small sensors.
>>
>>3532944
Basing low-light performance on sensor size is fucking dumb. It's literally just a cropped down sensor. I think this meme originates from aps-c and mft usually being the entry level cameras and people ignoring the high end offerings for these sensor sizes.
>>
Full Frame with PDAF is cheaper than MTF with PDAF.

Let that sink in.
>>
>>3534424

PDAF sucks though. On DSLRs it needs to be calibrated frequently, and on mirrorless it leads to banding issues that there is no solution to because of how they have to be placed on the wafer.

PDAF will become completely obsolete as deeper computational analysis on CDAF and DFD becomes cheaper and less energy intense.
>>
>>3534428
>PDAF sucks though.
Is that why Olympus imaging is going backrupt?
>>
>>3534426

This doesn't even make any sense. Cameras arend priced according to whether they have PDAF or not lol

>>3534430

What a complete nonsequitur.
>>
>>3534431
It's a feature most people want. And it explains why your camera division is in the red for a decade straight.
>>
>>3534428
>autofocus causes banding
what?
>>
>>3534434
It's autism over some rare situations.

Meanwhile his camera maker is going down in flames because they demand 1600 dollars for a model with PDAF, as the "cheapest".
>>
>>3534434

PDAF pixels are non-imaging sites on the wafer that cause pattern banding in high contrast areas, dark or light. Go look it up, it's horrible looking. Sony sensors have it especially bad, and there's no technical solution for it because of how the PDAF pixels have to exist along side photo pixels.
>>
>>3534438
And yet Olympus still considers the EM1 series as high end.
And they want to use that feature to extort money form you while everybody else put pdaf on all of their cameras.
>>
>>3534436

PDAF is basically just a hold over from obsolete DSLR design. No mirrirless cameras will have non-imaging photosites in the future, the entire sensor will be for imaging and focus will be avheived thought computation on the sensor readout.

The only reason Olympus put PDAF on the EM1 was for backwards compatibility with Four Thirds lenses, since many pros still use the exceptional Four Thirds lenses, which only use PDAF since Four Thirds was a DSLR system.
>>
>>3534440
>No mirrirless cameras will have non-imaging photosites in the future
Reality is going the opposite direction.

Olympus imaging is losing money and won't be around in the future.
Cameras with PDAF are selling the most.
>>
>>3534441

Panasonic also doesn't see a future for pdaf, there are no pdaf options for any of their cameras, including their FF cameras. Let me repeat that for you: their L mount cameras will not have pdaf.
>>
>>3534443
L-mount is a failure.
Watch as it's being completely ignored by Tamron.

Panasonic has a userbase that use manual focus.
>>
>>3534444

>Panasonic has a userbase that use manual focus

Yeah, the cinematographers that refuse to use Sony garbage
>>
>>3534444

Oooh no, what will Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma ever do without *Tamron*
>>
>>3534445
Sony is raking in the cash https://advanced-television.com/2018/06/05/sony-venice-camera-for-avatar-sequels/
>>
>>3534447
>Oooh no, what will Leica ever do
Leica has given up after people laughed the SL out of the market.
>Panasonic
Is actually hurt the most. The point of criticism most reviewers throw at them is the lenses are overpriced turds.
And it doesn't look like Sigma is able to help them in any way. Sigma is currently pressured by low-cost companies like Samyang which now have AF, so they are forced to seek higher pricing at high-end. The result being the cheapest L-mount lens you can get is an F2.8 that costs 550 dollars.
>Sigma
Won't actually profit from L-mount. It will be a money sink subsidized by their lens sales. Same as SA-mount was.
>>
>>3534450

Love experts on the internet.

FYI, dumbass, what's likely regarding Sigma is a full frame foveon offering on L mount. Sigma doesn't just want to remain a third party lens manufacturer, they want to play with the big boys, and as embedded low power processors catch up with the demands of foveon, those patents are going to put them at the cutting edge of competitive imaging companies.
>>
File: 1508993829841.png (101 KB, 508x1306)
101 KB
101 KB PNG
>>3534462
>they want to play with the big boys,
It will remain a distant dream of the CEO's father.

As it is right now, even Panasonic is failing hard.
Sigma doesn't even register on the radar.

>those patents are going to put them at the cutting edge
Oh please. It was so easy for Sony to circumvent the Sigma patent, just by throwing in a layer of organic colour filter.
>>
>>3534464

Not only do you not know what you're talking about either economically or technologically, but you also don't understand the critical importance of being first to market. Sigma has a decade of R&D ahead of Sony with stacked sensors, and their foveon technology is superior for a variety of reasons you can't even comprehend.

You're just a sad, tired old shill who doesn't even post photos on this board.
>>
>>3534465
>first to market
Hasn't helped them so far, only made them lose money.

Secondly it's just a bunch of shitty colour filters that even a poorfag company like Sigma at the time managed to think up. (Back then their lenses were crap and they didn't make any serious money)
It's not the super advanced technology you think it is.
>>
>>3534467


>It's not the super advanced technology you think it is.

Oh yeah? Can you tell me how Sony's stacked sensor differs from Foveon, technologically speaking?

If you say something retarded like "it's just another type of color filter" we'll all be satisfied that you're an idiot and embarrassment to yourself.
>>
File: Blog%20Picture%201.jpg (83 KB, 1247x931)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>3534481
Why are you asking about two completely unrelated things?

Stacked sensor is about building a 3D labyrinth of tiny transistors, which previously was only done in a single 2D layer.

Sigma's "technology" is to place 3 different layers of plastic on top of each other. As you can tel, they didn't need billions to research this.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerChristie Thompson
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
wait, is mft guy from the op also the guy who thinks sigma sensors are about to blow everyone else out of the water?
>>
>>3534488

Foveon is a stacked sensor in the way that it has stacked photodiodes. Words don't just means one single thing in all contexts, and the fact you got confused about calling a Foveon a "stacked sensor" is a testament to the fact you're an ignorant person.

>>3534492

I think Foveon is the future of Micro Four Thirds.
>>
>>3534494
>Foveon is a stacked sensor
No, retard. Foveon is literally just three layers of transparent plastic.
There is no deeper technology behind this.

>and the fact you got confused about calling a Foveon a "stacked sensor"
I have never called that shit a "stacked sensor".
I called it cheap. You must have misread me.
>>
>>3534494
Oh I see now where your brain got confused.

See this image>>3534464
That's not a stacked sensor. that's an alternative "foveon-like" colour filter array, which was easily approved as patent.

Nobody called that a stacked sensor, it's your mind playing tricks on you.
>>
>>3534497
>>3534498


>No, retard. Foveon is literally just three layers of transparent plastic.
> that's an alternative "foveon-like" colour filter array

No you fucking retard, it's literally 3 different photodiodes stacked on top of eachother, each of them sensitive to a different section of the color spectrum of light. You absolute dogshit retarded mongoloid.
>>
File: stacked-sensor.png (22 KB, 898x152)
22 KB
22 KB PNG
>>3534498

>Nobody called that a stacked sensor

How about Sigma themselves, you sloped forehead motherfucker.
>>
>>3534503
>3 different photodiodes
It's only 1 layer of photodiodes.
the rest is handled by math.

>>3534505
When you stack 3 layers of plastic on top of each other, yeah, you could call that a stacked colour filter.
But not a stacked sensor. The colour filter is separate form the sensor.
>>
>>3534507

Lol, you think an MS paint graphic made for retards to visualize how a foveon operates conceptually is proof that it's just "3 layers of plastic?" You are so fucking embarrassingly stupid, I have to just think you're a poe at this point. No one is actually this stupid....right?
>>
>>3534508
You seem to be the type of retard who falls for buzzwords from articles actually. You actually believed it was 3 layers of photosites in that sensor, because you were retarded.
>>
>>3534509

> You actually believed it was 3 layers of photosites in that sensor

No dumbass, I said it was 3 stacked photodiodes, and it is. 3 photodiodes at one photosite, with 3 separate readouts.

I mean how fucking retarded are you? If you think it's just one single photodiode under 3 layers of plastic, how do you read out 3 separate color channels from the one photosite?

Lol, seriously, you are so fucking dogshit stupid. Keep doubling down retard, this is hilarious.
>>
>>3534510
>how do you read out 3 separate color channels from the one photosite?
With math. They subject the entire array to all wavelengths, and register the characteristics read by the photosite at each wavelengths.
That's how the sensor knows what type of light predominantly landed on the photosite.
>>
>>3534404
Look, you wanted to get into this, now we're into it.

You think the noise levels are acceptable, I don't. You think your processing is acceptable, i don't.

If you want to believe I added noise that's absolutely fine, but we both know it was there all along.

The irony is I also think it's a great system, but it's performance is limited by physical constraints.
You want to shill it, shill it realistically. Nobody shits on mft except in your threads.

Why do you think that is?
>>
>>3534511

>With math. They subject the entire array to all wavelengths, and register the characteristics read by the photosite at each wavelengths.

>That's how the sensor knows what type of light predominantly landed on the photosite.

Llo, NO! You fucking idiot, that's not how it works AT ALL. It reads out three separate pixels worth of data from each photosite for each exposure. It does absolutely NOTHING like you're talking about with determining what "type of light predominantly landed on the photosite" you mongoloid reject.

It's exactly as I described. Three stacked photodiodes each with a separate readout at one photosite.

>>3534512

>You think the noise levels are acceptable, I don't.

Show something better from FF, then.

>You think your processing is acceptable, i don't.

I literally explained there was no processing, or extremely minimal processing just to make it look more like a picture and less like a flat readout of a digital sensor. It's not my issue if you don't understand true linear gamma.
>>
>>3534519
>show betrer from ff

Show a basic understanding of electrical engineering please.
>>
>>3534519
>It does absolutely NOTHING like you're talking about with determining what "type of light predominantly landed on the photosite"
Yes it does retard, it needs to determine what colour the pixel should have in the end, and that's done with math. If there is predominantly red light in that pixel, the pixel will end up red.
>>
File: Sensors1.jpg (84 KB, 400x470)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>3534575
Sorry but you are tech illiterate, there are arrays of pixels and film blocking light other than desired colour or lack of colour, this data is then compressed into single pixel information.
>>
>>3534607
>this data is then compressed
It's calculated, moron. The final colour is a calculation based on how much green, red, and blue the pixel has gathered.

>there are arrays of pixels and film blocking light
Stating the obvious won't help you sound smart.
>>
>>3532944
>>3532955
ISO 2000 is not "high ISO" and these look noisy as fuck. It's good that you personally think the noise is acceptable, that means the camera will definitely not hold your creativity back and you can get off this board and start taking pictures instead of spamming your shitty MTF gear threads.
But noise levels are not subjective and "it's good enough for me" is not a valid argument when comparing things. These images have a lot of noise and look more like ISO 4000-6400 on an FF camera.
>>
>>3534688

It's funny how absolutely no one on this board has any counter examples of shots from FF cameras in such low light conditions. It's almost like no one actually shoots low light photography here, just like almost all photographers don't. What we've learned from these threads is, at the very least, all the retards who say MFT sucks on this board never even take pictures where any weakness of MFT would be relevant.

And you're wrong, none of those shots are very noisy at all, and as I explained, there is absolutely ZERO noise reduction in any of them, i.e. I literally purposefully turned both luma and chroma NR to zero. I could bump the chroma NR to like 20 and you would literally not even be able to tell if it were a FF shot or not.

That's the point.
>>
>>3534750
You're delusional and the "retards who say MFT sucks on this board" are literally just people responding to your spam threads to tell you you're wrong, which you are. Stop fucking spamming and take pictures.
>>
>>3534756

I think you've just been BTFO so fucking hard you're just trying to say anything to make the pain stop.
>>
>>3532944
wtf? i'm buying em10iv nao!
>>
>>3534750
Maybe the FF shooters don't feel the need to validate their gear choices on a Mongolian woodcarving forum. Another benefit of ff over mft
>>
>>3534750
Also
>No one shoots low light here
>>>3508069
Go ahead, now start with an explanation of why it doesn't matter, and that mft is Just As Good ™
>>
>>3534756
>Stop fucking spamming and take pictures.
Can he even do that with his shitty mft cam? I think I got better results with a Polaroid back in 1973.
>>
Lest we forget.
>>
>>3534767
Yeah I'm definitely losing sleep over some retard spouting uneducated opinions fueled by buyer's remorse. I'm fuming right now because your lack of understanding of physics and optics really humiliated me. In fact I think I'm seething so much that I'm going to make several gearfagging threads a day in a desperate attempt to get some kind of second hand pride and confidence from my purchasing decisions.
>>
>>3534609
>Compression matrix
>Not calculating it
You are literally a moron.
>won't help you sound smart.
I don't need to sound smart, I'm trying to dumb it down for you to understand and yet i'm still failing.
>>
>>3534837
Damn /p/ was so good back then.
>>
File: im-projecting.jpg (95 KB, 486x330)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>3534842

>uneducated opinions fueled by buyer's remorse.

I had buyer's remorse almost immediately after I got my A7r ii and had to start buying lenses for it. I have absolutely ZERO buyers remorse for selling it and my Nikon gear and upgrading to MFT. The 300mm f/4, 40-150 f/2.8, and the 1.4x and 2x TCs made the switch worth it all by themselves. Those two lenses and 2 TCs alone allow me to do more and produce nearly equivalent results than when I shot FF, at a mere fraction of the price.

I can have the entire range from 80-600mm equiv, plus 840mm and 1600mm equiv fields of view with a, entire kit that fits in an Amazon Basics regular size DSLR bag and weighs less than a single body and 600mm lens on FF.

And that's just getting started on the litany of MAJOR advantages the MFT system has. Literally the ONLY things FF have going for it are marginally better performance in low light, higher resolution for printing larger than poster size. and bokehwhoring.

I'm not a bokehwhore because I actually have talent. I'm not printing larger than poster size because clients never ask for it (and if they did I'd just rent a 50S). I don't shoot in the fucking dark for professional work, and what low light I do have to shoot in (historic chapels that don't allow speedlights, for example), MFT is more than adequate.

Please, do tell, where's the buyer's remorse?

>your lack of understanding of physics and optics

Pic related.
>>
I smell fresh pasta
>>
>>3534894
It's no use to brag about a dead system. Nobody is feeling threatened, you're not effective.
>>
>>3534894
So what you’re saying is you couldn’t afford a ff system?
>>
>>3534898

Yep, that's correct. I couldn't afford 1200mm prime lens for FF. Guess I'm just a poorfag, you slopeheaded mong.
>>
>>3534904
I hope for your sake this is all true
>>
>>3534904
That's one of the reasons to go mft. Everyone else tries to rob their customers on telephoto. Nikon and Canon gimp their lower tier bodies, Sony tries to sneak on your with fairly cheap bodies, but it has the most expensive glass by a long shot. I thought Fuji will be different, but they're selling 200mm for six grand now. At that price you really start to asking yourself if it's not maybe better to spend that cash on top end mft body and lens.
>>
>>3534907

Yeah, I just came to the realization that long to ultra telephoto is the most fun you can have with a camera, PLUS gives you an edge professionally. None of my competition can produce the kind of work I can produce for the price I'm able to provide it for. They literally can't afford to.

The type of unique portraiture alone that only ultra long telephoto can provide is a professional edge enough to justify MFT, not to mention all the amazing nature and wildlife prints I can sell that other photogs just aren't putting out in my market segment or in my area.

All my competition are busy fighting eachother for the ever decreasing share of the bokeywhore pie, and I'm just out here doing shit almost no one else is doing because I don't have small dick syndrome and need to justify myself as a photog by getting the biggest sensor to make up for their lack of skill.
>>
>>3534907
A lot of reviewers ate their own words and began to praise the price of Sony's lenses once they saw the pricing of Canon and Panasonic's FF big aperture lenses.
>>
>>3534913

Name one.
>>
>>3534914
Everyday dad
>>
File: consume.jpg (115 KB, 1024x960)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>3534915

>my preferred youtube influencer said my preferred camera company was preferred
>>
>>3534916
He used to agree with you though.

But I understand you you think he became a bad guy because he acknowledged the Panasonic lenses are even more expensive.
>>
>>3534917

See, that's the difference between you and I though. I don't care if some moron on youtube agrees with me about anything in the universe. You do care because you're constantly looking for validation that you own the right products. Wanting to own the correct product typifies the entire Sony milieu, and why Sony retards are pretty much the only consumers int the photography segment that constantly purchase marginal upgrades like addicts. It's the same with Apple.

Sony is the Apple of photography, and it's people like you that make up their consumer base: talentless, superficial, conspicuous consumers.
>>
>>3534918
That's not right.
The difference is I base my statements on facts, while you base your statements on brand hate and butthurt.
Example: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1455169-REG/panasonic_s_x50_lumix_s_pro_50mm.html
>>
>>3534919

If you cared about facts more than justifying your consumerism, you wouldn't have ever mentioned "a lot of reviewers" you would have just posted the facts.

Here's a fact for you, dumbass: that Panasonic lens is a better quality lens with a real focus ring with hard stops and a real aperture ring. Show me the equivalent Sony lens that isn't focus by wire and has a real aperture ring. Then show me that Sony lens produces equivalent or better performance for the significantly lower price.

We'll all patiently wait for your facts.
>>
>>3534921
>Here's a fact for you, dumbass: that Panasonic lens is a better quality lens
Ah, the exact same excuses the Sony people used back in the day.
But you never cared for this excuse, until now. Isn't that funny?
>>
>>3534924

Except it's actually true for the Panasonic lens. It never was for the Sony lenses. Sony build quality is a joke. They aren't weather sealed, are almost all focus by wire only, and are all mostly plastic.

You're making a false equivalence because you're stupid.
>>
File: 1528558961033.png (57 KB, 1002x581)
57 KB
57 KB PNG
>>3534934
Nah, see here for image quality for example.
Build quality is all metal with the rubber gaskets, and the 90mm had hardstop focus ring as well.

I've pretty much proven you exempt everybody else for the shit you slander Sony with.
>>
>>3534935

That doesn't look like a comparison with the Panasonic lens to me. That's odd, maybe you clicked the wrong buttons.

>Build quality is all metal with the rubber gaskets, and the 90mm had hardstop focus ring as well.

Lol, no dumbass, most Sony lenses are plastic construction and not weather sealed. Maybe they do have rubber gaskets, who fucking cares, they aren't weather resistant either way.

You're absolutely correct the 90mm has a real manual focus ring with hard stops. It has to, it's a fucking macro lens. Panasonic, like Leica, care more about quality for ALL of their lenses, especially since Panasonic typically caters to dual photo/cine shooters, hence both the manual hard stop focus ring and aperture ring.

You're so fucking ignorant. Typical ignorant Sony fanboi who thinks it's some kind of fucking retard elite consumerism club.
>>
>>3534939
>That doesn't look like a comparison with the Panasonic lens to me.
Not needed, because I'm dumb enough to believe what you say without proof.

It was to display your hypocrisy.
You didn't accept the excuse of the Sony lens being higher quality back then.
But you fully embrace that excuse to defend Panasonic today.

It's a true equivalency which fully shows your hypocrisy.
>>
>>3534940

Now I just think you're a poe again. I really do refuse to believe anyone is genuinely as stupid as you are, but after this many years of arguing with you, I'm actually starting to have to accept that it's probably the case that you really are borderline retarded.
>>
>>3534942
I'm new to the board actually.

It's a treasure trove full of butthurt people such as yourself. That's why I'm here.
>>
>>3534943

False. You're the same shill that spent almost 3 months arguing with me about DxO results and couldn't accept that DxO can't be trusted and their results are dubious at best.
>>
>>3534944
Not sure I'm that guy. But
>3 months
That's not even a long time. I've been here since the beginning of the year, but I would still consider it new to the board when you speak of contexts such as "many years of arguing with you".
>>
>>3534945

Dude, you're completely transparent. I know who you are because you say the exact same shit in exactly the same way. You're not clever enough to put on airs. You've been here a lot longer than the beginning of the year.
>>
>>3534946
It's okay anon, we all make mistakes. It takes courage to admit you were wrong.
>>
>>3532944
MTF doesn't have a noise issue, it has a Ded issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjXSnNMZ0PU
>>
File: penn_jillette.jpg (77 KB, 600x800)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>3534948

>Mr. Totally Notcorrupt

Oh no, what will we ever do about the opinions of a chronically dishonest closeted homo? Oh that's right, we put them in the garbage where they belong.
>>
>>3534949
Panasonic said they would keep support the 4/3 system, but it ended up dying anyway.
Samsung said the NX series was fine, it died anyway.
Nikon rejected the rumors of Nikon 1 being discontinued,
Tony isn't wrong on this..
>>
>>3534950

>Panasonic said they would keep support the 4/3 system

Panasonic just released their most sophisticated MFT lens they've ever designed. They just recently said to expect 8k global shutter MFT in 2020. Sharp just entered the MFT arena with their 8k offering that's still in development, slated for a 2020 release. Olympus just promised the EM5 Mk III in 2020 and just released their most powerful and advanced pro-zoom they've ever designed, along with their updated roadmap which shows like 20 lenses in the next 3 years.

Yeah...real dead, dumbass.
>>
>>3534951
Four 3rds is slr.
>>
>>3534952

Oh, I see what you mean. Olympus saw the writing on the wall for DSLR and abandoned it, obviously Panasonic couldn't sustain that all by themselves. MFT is not an equivalent comparison, it's 100x what 4/3 ever was in terms of available lenses, available bodies, and companies manufacturing gear for the system. You're EXCEPTIONALLY bad at making valid comparisons.
>>
Lenses = System.
As soon as you see that someone is not releasing lenses, you start worrying. At the moment I'd worry about apsc dslr.
>>
>>3534953
>obviously Panasonic couldn't sustain that all by themselves
If Olympus died today it would actually help Panasonic, not hurt them.

You have some warped perception of their relationship, they are rivals, not allies.

But that's beside the point. Being Panasonic and Olympus have promised they are not abandoning MTF, but they lied to us before.
>>
>>3534955
>At the moment I'd worry about apsc dslr.
The old trusty Rabal just needs its kit lens, its customers don't expect anything beyond that.
>>
>>3534957

Oh boy, ok, let's explain something simple to you yet again you unbelievable retard. In the 4/3 days, Panasonic had absolutely no ability to completely sustain the system all by themselves, especially with Olympus competing with MFT, which is superior in every way to 4/3. They didn't lie about anything. They simply couldn't possibly continue to support the 4/3 system when there was no viable path to do so.

Literally nothing about the 4/3 system's obsolescence is equivalent in any conceivable way to the current reality of the MFT system. MFT is healthier that it's ever been, and performing far better relative to the FF and APS-C competition for their market segment. MFT basically has video on lock, and it's apparently doing well enough that Olympus is making good money selling the EM1x which no one thought would do well at all because of how overpriced it was/is. I would never buy an EM1x, and I love this system. Apparently there are a shitload of people who are willing to shell out over $3000 for a giant MFT camera. That's not a sign that it's dying, it's a sign of the opposite.

Olympous is going to make an absolute killing with the EM5.3, it's one of the most anticipated cameras of recent memory.
>>
>>3534962
>They didn't lie about anything.
Except for the part they lied about.

>Olympous is going to make an absolute killing with the EM5.3
Pretty sure it's just a nail in the coffin.
People with 1500 dollars to spare either buy GH5 or XT3.
>>
>>3534966

Lol, the EM5 isn't in the $1500 segment you shit for brains.
>>
File: Untitled.jpg (127 KB, 631x320)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>3534949
It's too bad he was using your argument.

Have to disagree with Tony on this one. Sensor size definitely matters.
>>
>>3534968


Did you read the part where I don't care about what youtube shills say, even if they agree with me? Do we need to talk more about how you're a pathetic consumerist retard who watches youtube influencers?
>>
>>3534969
He is still right even if you don't care.
>>
>>3534972

He said MFT was dead 5 years ago. He's just a shill that isn't getting paid by MFT companies. His completely and blatantly dishonest hit piece against the Olympus 300mm f/4 destroyed any credibly he ever had. It's obvious he has a bone to pick with Olympus or is literally being paid to bash MFT and especially Olympus.

My assumption is that FF companies, especially Sony, have been paying youtube influencers like Mr. Totally Notcorrupt to shill against MFT, because people aren't buying expensive FF telephoto lenses in large enough numbers to remain sustainable in a shrinking market.

And no, he's not right. At all. He's not right when he printed out photos and did a "scientific test" with his wife and daughter being the test group, he's not right saying that you can't print large format with anything but a FF sensor, and he's not right that MFT is dead or dying.

He's just a shill. His opinions are worthless.
>>
>>3534962
Do you think Olumus Imaging will be profitable in this quarter?
>>
>>3534974
>His completely and blatantly dishonest hit piece against the Olympus 300mm f/4
What did he say about it?
>>
>caring about noise when a wireless pocket sun can be bought for pennies
get fucked poorfags
>>
>>3534976

Nope, I don't think they'll be in the black until Q3 2020 at the earliest and may run in the red until Q2 2021. They need the EM5.3 to be released which should start to step on the toes of the EM1.2, and they especially need to release the EM1.3, which will need an upgraded sensor, competitive n-Log 4:2:2 4k or similar with no max time, and handheld high res at the very least.

They could surprise the market though. They haven't released any dates with their lens roadmap, and if they push out another couple of killer lenses between now and mid Q1, they might be able to pull back from the red.

I'm not concerned about Olympus Imaging. Olympus proper is doing fine, and they've said repeatedly they're committed to the system and that MFT works symbiotically with their Medical division. Stockholders agree. The price jumped like 5 points on Sony selling their stake, likely because Olympus now has more options in the market for buying sensors and doing R&D.
>>
>>3534977

The most egregious part is that you can clearly see that he has a damaged copy just by looking at the shell, and the fact that he's so fucking dishonest that he tries to show everyone the lens is mushy soft is one of the most dishonest things I've ever seen from any youtbe influencer EVER, when it's widely known the 300 f/4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever produced for any system, which is typical of Olympus lenses, for example the phenomenal 75mm f1.8.

He didn't even once even say that "maybe I have a bad copy" or "maybe my lens was damaged when I fucking obviously dropped it or hit it against something and fucked up the external shell," but no. He just said it's a horribly soft lens, like a good little shill.
>>
>>3534981
>Nope, I don't think they'll be in the black until Q3 2020 at the earliest and may run in the red until Q2 2021.
Dang. Two years of earning nothing, that's pretty bleak.
>>
>>3534985

I guess if you're a fucking retard who doesn't understand business cycles and capex. Are you a fucking retard, anon?
>>
>>3534986
I just had a look into their earnings, looks like Olympus Imaging has been losing money 7 quarters straight the past 2 years.
>>
>>3534988

You didn't "just" anything, you're the same idiot who I've had to explain multiple times why Olympus is in the situation they're in and why it's not dire or unexpected, nor even out of the ordinary for large multinational corporations to undergo. So, drop the fucking act, I know who you are and how stupid you are.

Olympus isn't in bankruptcy, nor even near bankruptcy. Even if they did go bankrupt, they wouldn't exit the market. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company ceases operations.

You're just retarded. I would wager that you're not over the age of 18 and probably shouldn't be using this website.
>>
>>3534955
*rages in ef-m mount*
>>
>>3534994
Last time we argued I only thought they were in the red for for a couple of quarters. It turns out now it's 7.
And you are under the impression they will lose money for another 8 quarters.

That's 4 years of losing money consecutively.
>>
>>3534894
>I've got a 600mm f8 and 80-300 f5.6 which are both soft as baby shit, and tc's that make them softer AND slower :) . Why would I need more?

The absolute state of mft users.

>marginally better performance from ff

Objectively 4 times better low light and resolution, you mean?


>>3534918

>sony are the apple of photo

Lol, no, most 3rd party support, open mount format, cheapest gear, they share and sell their tech, they are the anti-apple.

Fuji has zero third party support, use arbitrarily different file formats, 99% of their appeal is in their dated aesthetics, are overpriced and adored by dadtographers. They are the apple equivalent, ez.

>>3534921
Focus by wire is faster, and less moving parts means better reliability. I'll take the sony thanks.

Show me any panny lens and body that can focus half as good as an a7ii and their $150 nifty fifty. Let alone a7iii and 50 gm.

>>3534942
You're being a moron, plastics are less affected by heat than metal, they make for more accurate lens construction, but still, all of the exterior is metal, even on their cheapy 28mm f2. The interior is plastic or resin as they are more suitable materials for use in a camera, and at least all the gm lenses are weather sealed.

Anti sony morons really aren't afraid to make themselves look like ass fingering dullards.

>>3534944

That was me you fucking clown. And yes, dxo is a perfectly legitimate form of objective oriented testing, with the most extensive and accurate tests of any online review site.

You're just mad as it proves you wrong every fucking argument, now let's get this clear, considering dxo isALWAYS wrong in your view, are the posting out results opposite to what they actually get, or are they spying on your comments and making sure they disagree with you personally???

>>3534962
>mft is SO popular
Hmmm, amazon mirrorless best sellers, mft has 8 listing in top 100, sony has 53...

>>3534966
£1500 gets you 2 a7ii and kit lenses.

>>3534984

This cope.
>>
>>3535121

Now that's bait.
>>
>>3535121

Pretty much nothing you said is either true or relevant. Most of it is outright lies. In fact, I struggle to find anything you wrote that's even remotely valid.

>Focus by wire is faster

This is by far the most hilarious thing you said, even though it's as much of a lie as everything else.

You have to be the biggest clown on this board, and I suspect you're Ken Wheeler, even though that's odd since you're a Sony shill and he doesn't shill on his YT channel.
>>
>>3535523

>he doesn't shill on his YT channel.

Specifically doesn't shill Sony, I mean. He acts like a Sony hater, but with the way you talk, I'd say you're a dead ringer for Ken Wheeler. Maybe it's part of your cover, IDK.
>>
>>3535121
>all the gm lenses are weather sealed.

Ah yes, the famous Sony "weather sealing." Yeah, I fucking dare you to spray one of those lenses with a hose, especially while locked into ANY of the absolute shite alpha bodies... I fucking double-dog dare you, motherfucker!

I'd spray literally any piece of my pro Oly gear with a hose and think nothing of it.
>>
>>3535432
>having to question someone's integrity whilst offering zero rebuttal so you can continue your cope head canon

Big yikes dude, come back to the real world

>>3535523
>ITS NOT TRUE!

>offers zero rebuttal again

Oh dude, this is sad.

>>3535536

Oh, back again for a third time, this time to boast about how you spray your toy camera with the hose because mommy calls you in when it rains and you're still stuck on a whiney fraudsters bitch fit from the 1st gen of a7 bodies.
>>
>>3534071
>Mft is 2 stops (4 times) worse than ff, if both sensors are from the same generation.

This is objectively false. Support your claims.
>>
>>3534071
>Then there's also the fact a small sensor is much more demanding on lenses

No, the necessity to resolve greater detail is a function of pixel pitch, and mft sensors have equivalent pixel pitch to any 40MP FF sensor, meaning it's FULL FRAME lenses that have to resolve vastly more detail than mft, since FF sensors go up to 60MP...

Everything you say is a lie, every single time you post.
>>
>>3535998
>>
>>3536015
>The size!
You do know that lenses are used to bend light to wanted area, right?
>>
File: fflolympus.jpg (437 KB, 1367x923)
437 KB
437 KB JPG
>>3536015
Full Frame Lolympus when?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3536024
Exactly.
OP would probably seppuku on the spot.
>>
>>3535999
You're full of crap Anon. A 20MP MTF if about as dense as 80MP FF.
Furthermore all of your MTR sensor are front side illuminated, so your pixels are even more small than the theory siggests.

That's why the other Anon is correct, and you're full of shit.
>>
>>3536040
20MP MFT is 3.3 microns apart
50MP FF is 4.1 microns apart
80MP MF is 5.2 microns apart
>>
>>3536054
I know, but there is no FF that is 80MP
>>
>>3536040

No, dumbass.

Olympus EM-1 II: 3.32µm
Sony A7R IV: 3.73µm

And Canon will be releasing a 100MP FF sensor, with a pixel pitch around 2.3µm. MFT lenses don't have to out resolve FF lenses, moron. They're right in line with the cutting edge of optical resolution and have been for over a decade. Just fucking wait until you get the sticker shock from the Sony and canikon glass that can actually resolve sub 4µm pitch, because I assure you, most of the land catelog of Sony and Canikon CANT. Especially Sony because of the tiny E mount that stretches the light out in the corners. Lol!

And you don't even actually know what BSI is or does. It has literally nothing to do with resolving power of a lens, because it doesn't affect pixel pitch! Also, BSI is literally less efficient than FSI, and the only benefit to having a deeper well is for pixel pitches below 2µm, or where you need higher throughput, say for full 14bit readout on a FF sensor, which MFT also doesn't require because the resolution is small enough that todays processors can handle it.

Once again Ive fucking holed you on every single point you've ever attempted.
>>
>>3536062
The math is easy to do in the head, since FF is 4 times stronger, you just multiply with 4 to get the equivalent density.

The high-end MTF is 20MP. equivalent to 80 MP FF.
The most common MTF is 16MP, equivalent to 64MP FF.

You have proven yourself to be a retard who doesn't know basic math, and relies of bullshit websites on the internet.
>>
>>3535998
Lmao, you couldn't even explain your rebuttal, let alone support it. Pic related tho.

>>3535999
Pixel pitch is how big each light gathering site is sweetie. If mft and ff have tge same megapixel count, the photosites on ff will be slightly larger than 4 times the size of those on mft (mft loses a bit extra due to the interpixel distance being constant between the 2), being 4 times as large, it gathers 4 times as much light and the lens attached only needs to be able to resolve 1/4 as much detail to have equivalent sharpness images.

This is basic physics even a dullard could picture in his head.

>>3536023
The t value of a lens is how much light it puts through per sq area, not how much in total it projects onto the sensor.

3 messages in a row proving your stupidity... Oof, go to bed.

>>3536062
Yes, the sony not only has larger pixels, it also has way over double the pixels of the oly. So for the same pixel that ends up in a finished photo, sony is using around 4 times as much pixel area.

>lenses already outresolve sensors

Then how come there is still a discrepancy in sharpness amongst the most expensive, best performing lenses in the world? Even on 24mp ff sensors? And why do mft shots never have the crispness of ff?

You're an idiot.
>>
>>3536063

You are a fucking moron. You can literally go look up the pixel pitches of the sensors you dogshit tier idiot. I even posted the numbers in the very post you replied to. You can't even say you're trolling at this point. You're just literally one of the stupidest people on this board.
>>
>>3536071
>You can literally go look up the pixel pitches
No, moron. You multiply 4 on the sensor that is 4 times smaller.

4 times smaller means you can fit 4 MTF sensors into the size of FF.
>>
>>3536072

The Chinese mind, everyone.
>>
>>3536073
elementary school math is too ruthless for you.

Anyway, I actually go easy on you by merely multiplying with 4.
In reality you're even worse off, since your MTF sensors are ancient crap that still use Frontside illumination.
>>
>>3536075
I was 99% sure the dude was trolling when he said fsi is better than bsi.

But it appears not, it appears like he is just a complete fucking retard. Yikes.
>>
>>3536080
It’s fanaticism, now classified as a disease, like alcoholism.
Very entertaining.
>>
>>3536075
>>3536080
>>3536085

Samefagging mongoloid retard.
>>
>>3536107
You need to get more creative with the insults kiddo
>>
>>3536108

Wow, an autistic Chinese kid learned how to press F11. Impressive...
>>
You guys still giving attention to this mft faggot?
>>
>>3532944
Idk man you're the one who wrote an essay. In that time you could've been shooting.
>>
>>3536130
Mfincels shoot schools both with a gun and their pedoperv 1000mm lenses
>>
>>3536117
>>3536130
>>3536229

More samefagging.

Look dude, you've literally said nothing of value or truth this entire thread. Why don't you just give it up already?
>>
>>3536229
true
>>
>>3535121

>Objectively 4 times better low light and resolution, you mean?
>A 20MP MTF if about as dense as 80MP FF.
>FF is 4 times stronger, you just multiply with 4 to get the equivalent density.
>it gathers 4 times as much light
>You multiply 4 on the sensor that is 4 times smaller.
>4 times smaller means you can fit 4 MTF sensors into the size of FF.
>I actually go easy on you by merely multiplying with 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
>>
>>3536447
Smaller isn't better. Otherwise we wouldn't have stopped at MTF.
We would have made every camera use as small sensors as possible.
>>
i'm never gonna buy a mft camera in case this happens to my brain... scary shit
>>
>>3536454

Micro Four Thirds is the absolute most exceptional balance of price/performance. It's also notably in the superior 4:3 aspect ratio, so it's also the most optimally efficient at capturing the fullest extent of the image circle for useful area.

There is no better photographic system on the market for the vast majority of professionals than Micro Four Thirds. This is just plainly factual as all my threads copiously illustrate in grand detail.

Just wait until I post my "MFT or FF?" challenge thread. Everyone one this board will conclusively be proven to be incapable of being able to discern whether a picture is MFT or FF.
>>
>>3536473
>Just wait until I post my "MFT or FF?" challenge thread
yes we've already seen your shitty bird pictures
>>
>>3536473
>>Micro Four Thirds is the absolute most exceptional balance of price/performance
Then why is EM-1 more expensive than X-t3?

At this point APS-C is both cheaper and better.
>>
>>3536473
>superior 4:3 aspect ratio
>literally the aspect ratio of shitty early 2000s p&s

Inb4 samefag
>>
>>3536477

They're both the same price right now, but the EM1.2 can often be had for for $1200. The Em1.2 has some notable advantages even though it's 3 years older:

>5-axis IBIS
>Better AF
>ProCapture
>Better video
>Objectively better ergonomics
>Better lens library, ESPECIALLY long telephoto up
>Vastly comparatively inexpensive lenses for long telephoto up
>>
>>3536501

>ProCapture

Not only does the EM1.2 have 60fps burst, but also 18fps full res mechanical shutter with infinite buffer depth using uhs ii cards. The XT3 is max 11fps mech shutter and about 2 seconds of buffer before massive slowdown.
>>
>>3536447
Why do y'all never have any counter argument? You tryin to look stupid?

>>3536515
A7ii and kit lens is $300 cheaper and 4 times better.
>>
>>3536528

I owned an A7Rii and the 90 macro. It's definitely not 4 times better, but that lens was definitely 10x larger and heavier, and 3x more expensive than the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 that replaced it.
>>
>>3536473

>Everyone one this board will conclusively be proven to be incapable of being able to discern whether a picture is MFT or FF.

You keep saying this but you never deliver.
>>
>>3536714
It is objectively 4 times better. It has 4 times the snr, snr is the objective measure of quality of any electronic circuit.

>my 120mm f5.6 equivalent is cheaper and smaller than the multi award winning sony 90mm 2.8

Lmfao, you're an idiot, of course a lens with 4 times the glass is going to be larger and heavier, it is also a FUCK TON more versatile. If you need a small and light macro, the sony 50mm 2.8 is perfect, and, if you use just the centre 1/4 of the image, you get a setup that's almost identical to the one you suggest; except, of course, you're not limited to just the centre 1/4 of the sensor ;)
>>
>>3536908
>snr is the objective measure of quality of any electronic circuit.
News to me, can you please tell me this standards number so I could check it out.
>>
File: 1466748647736.png (420 KB, 780x718)
420 KB
420 KB PNG
Lmaoing @ these hot and bothered Microdick 4/3 Assburgers

Forget the stupid charts and diagrams and stop spouting techno-babble you understand halfway or non at all. Just post some examples of shots you've taken at 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400 ISO. Some landscapes, action shots, still lifes, portraits, whatever.

That should be enough to settle this autistic cultish obsession with this dogshit system. Simple, right? You *do* take pictures with those toys instead of just furtively jerking off onto the sensor, right?
>>
>>3537005
If you wish to judge others ability to use their camera go to /RPT/, if you wish to talk tech then talk tech. Stop derailing convo with your nonsense.
>>
File: laughingwhores.jpg (1.17 MB, 2252x1498)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB JPG
>>3537015
>seething gearfetischist
>has no pictures
Literally cant make this shit up
>>
>>3534071
>>3535121
>>3536040
>>3536063
>>3536069
>>3536072
>>3536075
>>3536908


>Mft is 4 times worse than ff
>1/4 the sensor surface area
>1/4 the light (signal) gathered
>4 times worse noise performance
>Mft has magical glass that resolves 4 times as much detail
>Objectively 4 times better low light and resolution
>20MP MTF if about as dense as 80MP FF.
>FF is 4 times stronger
>you just multiply with 4 to get the equivalent density.
>The high-end MTF is 20MP. equivalent to 80 MP FF.
>The most common MTF is 16MP, equivalent to 64MP FF.
>the photosites on ff will be slightly larger than 4 times the size of those on mft
>being 4 times as large, it gathers 4 times as much light
>the lens attached only needs to be able to resolve 1/4 as much detail
>sony is using around 4 times as much pixel area.
>You multiply 4 on the sensor that is 4 times smaller.
>4 times smaller means you can fit 4 MTF sensors into the size of FF.
>I actually go easy on you by merely multiplying with 4.
>It is objectively 4 times better.
>It has 4 times the snr
>a lens with 4 times the glass
>if you use just the centre 1/4 of the image, you get a setup that's almost identical to the one you suggest; except, of course, you're not limited to just the centre 1/4 of the sensor
Is this the biggest troll in /p/ history or legitimately the biggest retard? I honestly cannot even tell anymore.
>>
>>3537003

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio

>>3537079
You've (you)'d me twice in that list, you too should check out that link ;)

Guys, dynamic range is also a factor of snr, hence why bigger sensors have a greater dynamic range.

Think of it like this, imagine you had to measure rainfall in an area, do you catch more rain with 1 bucket, or 4 buckets? Do you get a more accurate result from taking one sample, or the average of 4 samples? Do you get more accurate and precise results from a wide brimmed tub or a wine bottle?

Those are supposed to be rhetorical questions, if you struggle with any of them just give up on life now.
>>
>>3537084

>You've (you)'d me twice in that list

Bitch, those are all you.

And I guess you really are this stupid. I think you need to check your arithmetic, hombre.
>>
You don't even need to gearfag to see mft is more than good enough for photography.
>>
>>3537092
And Sheffield Wednesday are good enough at football
>>
>>3537092

It's more than good enough for almost all professional photography, at that. When you consider that Sony's newest sensor has noise levels so bad and has to apply noise filtering so strong that the camera is basically unusable for astrophotography (because of cancelling out dim stars as noise), it's pretty obvious the supposed advantages of FF are grossly exaggerated.
>>
>>3537095
And you don't own anything, so you shitpost instead. Sucks to be a failure like you.
>>
>>3532968
>>3532955
>>3532944

This is as much grain as a 5d classic at 3200 ISO and I paid this body 170$.
So yeah it's litterally as good as the first prosumer FF DSLR ever made.
>>
>>3533714
>Shoots Sony
>Pretend to be pro
>Her photos were hilarious dogshit
It checks out
Btw try to cover a wedding from 9am to 1am with less than 10 batteries and now you understand why pro don't go for mirrorless in general.
I change my first 2 batteries around 8 to 9pm after church and town hall ceremony.
Shit I can forget to turn down my 5d4 for like a week and just lose 1 battery bar.
Have fun turning your mirrorless on and off all day
>>
>>3534337
>almost complete darkness
>city street

Lit city streets are indeed very dark , do you take a flashlight when you go get cigarettes ?
>>
>all these people forgetting olympus helped Sony fix it's ibis
>>
>>3538035
Sony purchased minolta and got ibis from there.
>>
>>3538012

Oh yeah? Prove it, dumbass. Show us some of your shitty snapshits from your ancient Canon that blow MFT out of the water. Go ahead now!

>>3538014

For weddings, I carry two EM1.2 bodies, typically with the 45mm f/1,2 on one, and the 17mm f/1.2 on the other. Both have battery grips on them. I use the in-body battery as a buffer when the grip batts run out, until I'm at a good point to switch and not miss a moment. I've never run out of in-body battery on either body. I change out the grip batteries maybe twice each on a full day. I have my sleep settings at 3 minutes for the LCD and 5 minutes for the body. It stays on in standby mode for 30 minutes before shutting down completely.

So, I go though typically 5 to 8 batteries in a full day of shooting.

It's not a problem.

>>3538035
>>3538063

Th most hilarious part here is that Sony's IBIS is STILL garbage and most people I know that shoot Sony turn it off, it's that bad. For one, it makes video look wobbly, and two, it often distorts stills. Thirdly, because Sony bodies are badly designed consumer trash, they're crammed so tightly together and get so hot that IBIS introduces a shitload of needless EMI noise to the RAWs. Go look at examples online, especially from astrophotographers.

That's what you get when you try to stabilize a large sensor.

It's hilarious.
>>
>>3538146
>look at astro togs complaining about sony

But I can get the same noise performance as you in 1/4 the shutter speed, and 2 extra stops dynamic range, and a much higher overall resolution.

Which completely negates all your whining, lmao.
>>
>>3538151

You don't have any idea what you're talking about and you don't even own a pro-tier Sony body. Just shut up, dude. It's OK to not post.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.