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

[Advertise on 4chan]

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 77 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: olympus-E-m5-miii-11.jpg (1.27 MB, 1920x1200)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
Is Olympus a ghetto brand? No one talks about it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareTSR Watermark Image Software 3.6.1.1 www.watermark-image.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:06:24 09:48:59
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1200
>>
>>3981166
it's the best
>>
>>3981166
>>3981168
It's the best brand of the worst sensor format for ILCs.
>>
>>3981177
This. The super resolution and the weather resistance are/were the best of any brand.
>>
>>3981177
this, excluding full frame
>>
>>3981177
/thread
>>
>>3981177
Wrong Panasonic is a far better company and still relevant for video and full frame.
>>
>>3981194
Still hobbled their cameras. Still promised dual IBIS but lenses weren't designed for it. Still made the worst autofocus system I have ever seen in action, so bad that I can clock it instantly when I see it being used...

Nah. Olympus did better. True about the video stuff and FF though. Either way, M4/3 is shit.
>>
they made some incredible glass, almost all oly lenses are sharper than their price point suggest. And MFT with some new sensors will surely find their audience, I hike and bike a lot, so the ecosystem makes sense to me.
MFT ceased to be competitive because of the lack of new sensor/good tracking AF, If OM system fixes that shit I will not switch. And also fuck those equivalence fags, you can absolutely get some pretty bokeh with 1.8 lenses, pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/750 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias1/2 EV
Subject Distance2.18 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length45.00 mm
Image Width3456
Image Height4608
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3981166
It's less ghetto than modern Kodak, so there's that.
>>
>>3981234
>Oly lenses are sharp
>Posts photo softer than baby poo
Lmao
>>
>>3981234
>new sensor
Genuine question: what advantage would that give?
I can't see anything being worthwhile above about 33mp, if you needed to get 8K video capabilities, but right now, even the likes of Canon, Nikon and Panasonic are sticking to 24mp unless it's explicitly a high res body like the R5, Z7 or S1R.
Sony are the odd ones out here, as they're the ones progressively increasing resolutions in their regular cameras that aren't explicitly "high res".
>tracking AF
Outside of the demanding requirements that sports photographers have, which is why the likes of the the EOS 1DX and the D6 still reign supreme in most situations, I can't see the likes of a true super precise tracking AF system being truly appealing for anyone but pro sports photographers and certain wildlife photographers.
The likes of the A1/A9, R3 and Z9 may be the new hotness, but if the rumours are true that the new "OM System OM 1DX" (aka the wow camera that's basically an E-M1X Mk II) is just a 20mp stacked sensor with global shutter... then... it's maybe going to go in that same sort of direction.

It's not like MFT is devoid of sports/birding capable lenses. The likes of the 40-150mm f/2.8, the 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and the 150-400mm f/4.5 are all powerful and capable lenses, and if paired with a body with the sorts of AF and e-shutter ability of the new Sony, Canon and Nikon offerings, then it could be an awesome camera.
It could also be a camera that's appealing to no one. Even if it's a stacked, global shutter sensor... most professionals aren't going to abandon Canikony.
Look at most other MFT users, and they're the sorts of people who either use the rangefinder style cameras like the GX80/GX9 or Pen-F, or are into the more compact SLR style cameras like the E-M5 or E-M10.
>>
>>3981348
When Olympus made the E-M1X, everyone looked at it, got confused as to who it was made for, and about half a year later, the price drops happened, when it became obvious that it wasn't really much different to an E-M1 Mk III... or even a Mk II.
It's hard to understand where OMDS can take the camera business in a way that makes money.
Cheaper cameras for beginners is hard to make money with, due to the low profit margins.
More expensive pro bodies only appeal to diehard enthusiasts and genuine professionals who probably don't want to never not use an EOS 1DX.

I'm not sure where the system can go in an era with smartphone domination, simply because normies want a point and shoot that can immediately post to their Instagram.
Unless OMDS takes the video pill and heavily invests in making the best possible run and gun videography experience... I'm not sure what can be offered by the system that's truly appealing to new customers.
>>3981343
>softer than excrement
Anon, I can see this person's pores. I think you need corrective glasses.
>>
>>3981234

did you edit them anon or SOOC? Someone sold me 45mm 1.8 for $140 recently and I'm regretting it
>>
>>3981352
>I'm not sure where the system can go in an era with smartphone domination, simply because normies want a point and shoot that can immediately post to their Instagram.

Probably make it easier for normies like HDD on a camera. Probably even support for apps like Tiktok and IG. Heck they can even create a film camera. Kodak's M35 is selling like hotcakes now
>>
>>3981352
>You can see pores
I can see pores using the shitty front camera on my phone, lmao.

There's a difference between something being visible and it having good resolution and contrast.
>>
>>3981166
Ghetto? No, more like the "dude, stop hitting yourself" brand. Why why why would you spend so much on such a shitty sensor, when there's APS-C options which cost less and produce waaayyyy better results.
>>
File: jelly.png (192 KB, 892x892)
192 KB
192 KB PNG
>>3981399
Ah yes, gotta love those high contrast portraits. You probably shoot snoy, don't you?
>>
>>3981420
Fujifilm doesn't cost less.
>>
>>3981348
we need better iso, I'd be happy with some 6400 usable and 3200 clean, plus dynamic range but i dont make 100+ - pulls so i'm satisfied with the current state.

Also tracking is needed not in the sport field, think vloggers, its a huge market and lumix/olympus video is very pleasing with the added benefit of godlike ibis, they only need more small compact primes (im thinking a 10mm f1.8 sealed) and flawless eye af.
>>
>>3981423
A high contrast lens is a high dynamic range lens. Enjoy your banding poorcuck. I bet you use vInTaGe lenses.
>>
>high dynamic range lens

buhh
>>
>>3981166
Brandfagging is for the mentally deficient
>>
>>3981166
It's not ghetto but damn they sell cameras cheap. Got my em10 1st gen for $200 brand new a few years ago.
The ibis is honestly insane. Like it's smoother than literally any other stabiliser I've used (mainly glide cams, phone gimbals and IS2). But Olympus were retards and didn't see mft being a demising format. The fact that ff cameras are the same size (bar lenses) should be telling that you're going to need to up your specs somewhere.
>>
>>3981166
But we do talk about it. We say it’s got worms in the shadows.
>>
>>3981166
>>3981474
Oh shit my bad. That’s fuji. I forgot olympus even exists hahahha
>>
>>3981457
"Bar lenses" is doing a lot of work there buddy. The small lenses are where the size and weight savings really count.

But I agree they missed the boat. Which is a shame, because unless you're shooting fast moving objects in low light, it was a great system.
>>
>>3981552
Guess that makes it the perfect system for yeti shooters.
>>
>>3981645
No amount of gear is a cure for retards who shoot in full-auto and 240p only
>>
As OM they have one last chance to either join L mount, or fight with the smartphones for compact casual/travel photography market. If they do neither of these things, very small niche.
>>
>>3981166
brand that feels perpetually doomed because the average photography internet poster is no different than the average arfcom poster (i.e. a gearfag)

seems to be a fairly popular choice for normies wanting a nice camera if they don't grab a rebel from costco
>>
>>3981659
I could see them dipping into Medium Format
>>
Full frame pen f with l mount would save the brand.
>>
>>3981707
Mf is already pretty saturated and unpopular as is, but if they could make a mf with their om series features they could disrupt the market easily. Not going to happen though, too much retooling and rnd to develope without revenue.
>>
>>3981659
L-Mount would be "too late", and would also go against their main design philosophy.

Mirrorless Digital 35mm is a hell of a different world to Single Lens Reflex 35mm. The old OM System cameras (I actually really hate the new name for OMDS products, due to the fact that it's already been used for manual focus SLRs) could be small and compact because behind the film, you'd have a leaf spring and the film loading door. At a stretch, this could be 5mm thick.
Making a Digital 35mm camera means that the sensor has to sit in front of circuitry for the sensor, and then you have the LCD. But if it's going to be a video capable camera, you'll also need cooling and heat sinks.

My Olympus Pen-F has about 1cm between the sensor and the rear. My Panasonic GH5M2 has about 2cm.
I can dig out about 4 film cameras where it's about 5mm between the film and the rear.

And then, let's say that OMDS decides that they want to make an L-Mount camera... what do they make alongside it for lenses? Whatever kind of Zuiko lens they'd have to make is going to take a lot of R&D and manufacturing capacity. All to make what? Some primes? Market already saturated by Lumix and Sigma options.
Zooms? All the special Olympus zooms were made by the fact that MFT allows for strange options like a 40-150mm f/2.8 or a 150-400 f/4.5 - MFT allows for crazy stuff like that. Even the likes of the 12-100 f/4 IS is just insane to think of making on a FF system. Plus... you're going to have to deal with a large image circle, that... well... will significantly drive up the prices of any lens that would need to be made.

And then what do you have?
None of the IBIS (MFT sensors are light, that's why the IBIS is so good), none of the size or weight savings. Maitani would probably start turning in his grave, if he weren't cremated. At that point you might as well drop the M from the OMDS name, because all the design philosophy is dead.
>>
File: Size Comparison.png (672 KB, 1663x494)
672 KB
672 KB PNG
>>3981810
Just to make my point, I decided to compare overall "package size" between 4 models of camera.
One of the more compact MFT Olympus bodies, the Panasonic S5 (smallest L-Mount camera that isn't the Sigma fp), Nikon Z fc (retro camera) and a Sony A7C (smallest E-Mount FF camera). They're all paired with what would be standard f/1.8 primes.
>>
>>3981810
>A 24-200 f8 would be insane on full frame
Lmfao

>Hey look, a 50mm f3.6 is marginally smaller than Sony's 50mm f1.8
Lmfao

Such copium.
>>
>>3981812
Ok, I have the two setups on the left except I have the 12-40 on my em10 and the package size is exactly the same+ the S5 feels way lighter and comfier. I could use the kit lens on the S5 and honestly it takes better photos despite the f values being different. On top of that the extra resolution (although not much) allows for a bit of a crop, essentially affording a fake zoom
>>
>>3981814
>>A 24-200 f8 would be insane on full frame
>Lmfao
Bruh, you dont know what you are taking about. Speciality of olympus 12-100 f4 is that it is super zoom, that is sharp across entire frame, from wide open and for every focal lenght. It is one of the lenses I'd consider switching system.

They have a lot of very sharp and well corrected lenses. Too bad they are usually expensive.
>>
>>3981814
>Lmfao
Show me a 24-200mm on E, RF, Z or L mount.
I'll wait.
>Lmfao
A7C is an ergonomic nightmare, but it's the smallest of the E-Mount offerings that isn't an APS-C model.
I don't think there's really any competition between any recent OM-D model and a Sony A6X00 model. The IBIS is significantly better, the ergo is infinitely better and the colour science is just a fight between rich colours and alien skin tones.
>>3981815
The S5 isn't a bad camera. My point is more that if there was ever going to be an L-Mount OMDS camera, that it's the best case study. It's similar in design/ergonomics to the G80/85. Now, Panasonic aren't exactly known for making their MFT cameras compact and light, but... there's at least a kind of evolution of design that's visible, and it gives you a sense of what would be needed to adapt the OM-D MFT designs into an L-Mount offering.
>>3981818
The unique ability for lenses like the 12-100 f/4, 8-25mm f/4 and also Panasonic's 10-25mm f/1.7 and 25-50mm f/1.7 really go to show what can be done.
I've only really ever seen the likes of Tamron come close to this on Digital 35mm, specifically the 35-135mm f/2-2.8. Yet... even it doesn't have the same super zoom ability of the Olympus 12-100.
>>
>>3981818
>"Super sharp"
>Doesn't go over 3000lw\ph at any focal length
>Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 goes over 4000lw\ph at every focal length
>Tamrons edge resolution matches or beats Olympus centre resolution at all focal lengths
>Tamron has less vignette at all focal lengths and apertures, except 28mm at f2.8 (3 stops faster than Olympus can manage at this focal length)
>Tamron is a whopping 14 grams heavier and half a mm longer
>Tamron is £650 on Amazon, Olympus is £1000

Wow, I wish I had a system with "specialty" lenses that get absolutely mogged by 3rd party, low cost superzooms.

>>3981819
>Show me a superzoom on e mount
See above, you had to wait 1 minute.
>A7c is an ergo nightmare
According to who?
>Color science
Sony's is objectively more accurate.
>Muh ibis
No one cares about half a stop better ibis when noise performance is 2 stops behind. And ibis doesn't help with any subject that is moving, and if you don't have a moving subject why not use a tripod?
>>
>>3981820
>compares lw\ph of different mpix sensor
>>
>>3981821
>Gets upset when people use a lens and a camera body together
>Girlslaughing.png
>>
>>3981819
I guess but why would Olympus bother with Leica mount when the S5 would btfo their efforts? When I think about it Olympus making budget apsc E mount would make more sense and try to compete with Fuji/ gateway into FF e mount. That said I want Leica mount to become standard (and hopefully open standard like mft was)
>>
File: brlt.jpg (71 KB, 900x900)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>3981822
>oh look, my 9000$ body+lens is sharper than your 1500$ body+lens
>>
>>3981824
These were done on a 42mp sensor, I can get an a7rii in good condition for £650 used from a store with a 1 year warranty, and the tamron I can get for £550 new, so £1200 all in.

Which is no more than the Olympus lens and a relevant body.

Full frame just works out more affordable when you compare like for like. Unless you're an ultra poor that just uses the mft kit lens and some shithouse body.
>>
>>3981815
>the S5 feels way lighter and comfier.
lol, stop lying

panasonic
50mm f1.8 - 300g
s5 - 714 g (one of the lightest ff cameras)
total = 1.14 g

olympus
25mm f1.8 - 136g
em10 - 383g
total = 0.519 g

That's half a kilo difference on 50mm alone. Do you dare look at 85mm? Or to zooms?
>>
>>3981828
>Comparing f1.8 to f3.6

Lmao, mft cope is so sad.
>>
File: 1640963010237.jpg (3.02 MB, 1800x4000)
3.02 MB
3.02 MB JPG
>>3981828
I don't think you read what I wrote. With the zoom lenses (yes I know there's a prime attached here, they feel the same).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelM2101K6G
Equipment MakeXiaomi
Sensing MethodNot Defined
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mm
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1800
Image Height4000
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:12:31 23:02:06
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating645
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.9
Exposure Time1/17 sec
Focal Length6.04 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Light SourceD65
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4000
White BalanceAuto
Brightness-3.0 EV
Image Width1800
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.9
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: big.jpg (26 KB, 390x310)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>3981827
I can get olympus em1 mk 3 mint for 100 usd. No, I cant show you where.

Problem?
>>
>>3981832
Dude, we'll just have to disagree... There's no way that 700g camera can feel lighter than 400g camera. That's noticeable difference.

They have some great lenses the mount, but I really wouldn't consider 20-60mm to be among them. 24-105mm f4 is the one to go with, but that one is already over a kilo, and it is still only f4. mft gets 24-100 reach at 300g on f2.8!
>>
>>3981835
Olympus is lens heavy so it feels like it twists the wrist.
>>
File: HDL6-grip-featured.jpg (233 KB, 1728x1080)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
>>3981838
What you describe is that olympus is front heavy. It is a common distadvantage of enthusiast level bodies. You can mittigate it by using lighter lens (like 45mm f1.8) or using battery grip, which not only improves ergonomics, but provides extended battery life.

However, you still cant make bigger body of s5 smaller or lighter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-GH3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)124 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2013:07:06 21:51:43
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3981839
Yeah, that's my point. The lens weights more than the camera and the cheaper primes don't look amazing.
>>
>>3981839
Aren't most systems lens heavy? Mft with select lenses, and pancake lenses are the only ones that are not. Modern fast lenses are all huge and heavy, and that's before you you start adding hoods and filters to them.

I've actually learned to love small and no grip cameras. They just take a different approach. It makes them smaller at the cost of them being able to be used with one hand only. I don't think that it's worse. I carry the camera in left hand by the lens, and I use lens barrel as main grip when framing. It's convenient to change focus, zoom or change aperture on the lens, as well. Right hand is just there to press the shutter and use dials.
>>
>>3981852
No, not at all.

Plenty of FF lenses under 250g, some as equivalent fast as f1 on mft.
>>
>>3981874
Oh no, another brain dead anon is here to confuse light transmission with depth of field.
>>
>>3981875
Aperture equivalence not only accounts for depth of field, but total photo noise performance (aka light gathering) too.

Between focal length equivalence and aperture equivalence you can perfectly account for every difference between different formats. Except of course you get a resolution boost on larger sensors, and you get greater dynamic range on larger sensors too as base iso has a lower total gain.

You can read up on all of this from a simple Google search, Wikipedia even discusses aperture equivalence like this. You might want to watch the "brain dead" comments when every legitimate source disagrees with you.
>>
>>3981234
>I hike and bike a lot, so the ecosystem makes sense to me
same, quality is plenty good imo even in low light. I've never owned a modern FF, but this what I have does everything I need and I don't feel like spending more money for something bigger, heavier, pricier and fragilier (if that's a word).
>>
>>3981430
they need to start weather-sealing all their lenses imo. sucks ass having a weather sealed body but only a few weather-sealed lens options
>>
>>3981692
>brand that feels perpetually doomed because the average photography internet poster is no different than the average arfcom poster (i.e. a gearfag)
this, reminds of how people sperg out over PC specs when it's really a secondary concern
>>
>>3981810
>Zooms? All the special Olympus zooms were made by the fact that MFT allows for strange options like a 40-150mm f/2.8 or a 150-400 f/4.5 - MFT allows for crazy stuff like that.
noob here, why are those zooms crazy?
>>
>>3981166
they still seem to enjoy a healthy market among consumers in japan, along with pentax which is an otherwise "dying" brand
>>
>>3981917
They're not
plenty of cheap 80-300 f5.6 and other slow super tele zooms on full frame, with better resolution, smaller sizes and better image quality. usually cheaper too.
>>
>>3981917
Please ignore this >>3981964 anon.
This board suffers from no-photo Snoy posters trying to justify their ill thought out purchase (or are outright trolls).

The zooms are "crazy" because they do two things.
First of all, they cover unconventional focal lengths.
Most 35mm format constant aperture zoom lenses tend to cover the "trinity" - 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm.
Beyond 200mm, it's very unusual to see constant aperture zooms due to the optical and engineering contraints.
Various different "kit" lenses, or "consumer" lenses tend to start at darker apertures like f/3.5 at the wide end and darken to f/5.6 at the tele end.
The "exception" to this rule tends to be likes of 18-35mm lenses for the APS-C format, especially Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 which exists for both DSLRs and more recently for mirrorless cameras.

Where Micro Four Thirds has an advantage is that by being less optically demanding thanks to not needing a larger image circle, various unusual focal lengths can be engineered into the system.
The 12-100mm f/4 IS is an example of this - it's constant aperture, but has a 35mm format field of view of 24mm at the wide end, and 200mm at the tele end, all while staying at f/4.
Now, ignore the troll - f/4 is the correct brightness. If you used an external light meter and looked up f/4 and ISO 200, you'd get the same shutter speed reading no matter what format you used, whether it was 110 film format, or large format 4x5 field cameras. Of course, the amount of depth of field would vary considerably throughout the formats.

So, if you considered the FOV that each lens grants, their size, their weight and finally, how much they cost (ignore Snoy-troll who can't source their too-good-to-be-true prices), then you realise that they're unique lenses that *cannot* be recreated on any other system and format. That's just facts.
>>
>>3981987
I'm going to add a counter point. While it is true that the lenses are relatively crazy in terms of what's capable, the limitations of mft were never the lenses but the sensor tech. For photography it just makes no sense to shoot mft since you're so quickly limited in the max size you can print. Yeah I know it's a weird claim but it instantly means no wedding shots, no advertising jobs, etc. So immediately your kicking out the big spenders. Then for hobbyists mft is shit for astro for obvious reasons. You can get some ok astro but never serious looking. So then where do you go from there? You have a system that doesn't appeal to pro shooters and it's not as if amateurs are going to give a shit about lens tech, they go for bundles that include a kit lens and maybe a prime (ironically what I did with my S5, but there's more to that).

But where mft does go amazing is video. Insane ibis, the p4k (although dubious with the p6k and the fact most setups used canon glass with speed boosters). The gh5 was well regarded for quite some time. But then from there, most videographers are choosing Sony and Panasonic systems for a reason. For the amateur and blogger the workflow is easier to manage plus you get a no compromise stills camera.

So what else is there? Well mft is really cheap for what you get, but therein lies the issue. No one buys cheap cameras any more. Phone is good enough in most cases, so people buying cameras are usually looking for a higher price point.
But even after saying all that I must say the best photos I've taken so far have been mft (just not in low light). But who knows where we'll go from here. At the end of the day you can take good photos on any system if you know what you're doing.
>>
>>3982022
>max size you can print
If you don't crop, and I know I don't, the max size for prints is more than enough for almost any reasonably large print.
I can't find the video I wanted to show, but at poster sized prints, 20mp is certainly more than enough.
And once you get into the realm of online photos or photos for publication, 20mp still remains more than enough.
Now... I can see cases where large megapixel counts matter. In those situations, 24mp sensors barely add much. You're looking at something like a 5DS, R5, Z7, A7RIV, fp L, or even just a straight up medium format camera, like a Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX. But outside of a select few use cases, there just isn't the same need for this amount of resolution.

Remember: 4K is only 8.3 megapixels. If we're still content with FHD or QHD as a quality level, then I'd argue that 20mp is perfectly sufficient.

As for astrophotography... I've gotten plenty of excellent star trails with the 17mm f/1.8. If I increase ISO, then I can reasonably get to ISO 1000, and not really perceive any distracting noise if I've remembered to expose right. I suppose if you wanted to capture galaxies and stuff, higher sensitivity gear is probably what you want. But I've been to observatories, and the astrophotography they have hanging up have all sorts of noise, banding and comatic aberration going on. Yet no one seems to give a crap - they're more fascinated by the fact that they can see captured for posterity a comet's tail or some meteorite shower.
I think, especially as "enthusiasts" we tend to focus so much on the tiny details and pixel peep.
But is that the core of what photography is?
I've shot a bunch of film, and some of it is grainy as hell, and hasn't rendered anything precisely... yet I don't really care, because the photo has captured something more... fundamental - a moment in time to remember.

If MFT is the system that lets me do this, then I think that's all that should matter.
>>
>>3981987
>24-200 f8 equivalent is better than an f2.8-f5.6 variable because it's not variable
Lmfao, this cope
>F4 is f4
Aperture\transmission is a measure of light gathered per unit area, the larger the sensor, the larger the unit area, the more light gathered
>Iso 100 is iso 100
Iso 100 is a reference level of brightness, smaller sensors need a higher total sensor gain to reach that same brightness level.
Iso 100 on its own as a measurement is completely meaningless. A larger sensor has less noise, greater signal to noise ratio and greater dynamic range at a given iso label than a smaller sensor.
>Film
Yes, if you look at smaller film formats from the same emulsion the photos are much grainier and have a worse dynamic range, this is very easy to see.
>You're a troll
No, I'm right, the sad thing is I don't think you're a troll, I think you're just stupid and wilfully ignorant, very sad.
>These lenses cannot be replicated
The only reason they're not replicated exactly is that larger sensor versions tend to be much faster at the same size and weight.

What mft can't replicate is the lenses full frame has, f2.8 zooms have been a staple of full frame for decades, and mft is still yet to get any f1.4 (f2.8 equivalent) zooms.

And that's the real facts.
>>
>>3982026
Yes. For non action I'll just do a 96mp composite. I can't remember if any mft can do particularly large composites. But again we both know quality is an interplay between many elements. For prints that extra few MP could be the difference between a post crop keeper and a missed shot
>>
>>3982044
Also we can't forget video. In terms of hybrid cameras, it just seems like the range and setups are a lot more limited with mft compared to ff or even apsc
>>
>>3981987
>Where Micro Four Thirds has an advantage is that by being less optically demanding thanks to not needing a larger image circle,
Smaller formats need sharper lenses just to match the sharpness of larger formats.

>Now, ignore the troll - f/4 is the correct brightness. If you used an external light meter and looked up f/4 and ISO 200, you'd get the same shutter speed reading no matter what format you used,
Because exposure is per unit of area. But SNR is total area. So an f/4 ISO 200 shot at 1/120th is going to be twice as noisy on mft as on FF.
>>
>>3982050

If you look at actual photos you will see that Olympus has far superior low light performance. Olympus is basically the king of low light photography.
>>
>>3982048
Smaller sensors have large advantage in video. All the broadcasting cameras use even smaller sensors than m43. Lens quality and recording speed is everything, so they throw huge lens constructions on top of small sensors for fluid 8k and 4k output.
>>
>>3982022
>For photography it just makes no sense to shoot mft since you're so quickly limited in the max size you can print.

That's nonsense.
A. Nobody here prints.
B. mft have high resolution modes and are one of the best systems for shooting panoramas.
C. Resolution is limited by the lenses.

A sharp mft lens will outresolve soft ff lens, and allow larger prints. High resolution mode allows up to 80mp files. Panoramas allow unlimited mp files.

There's plenty of resolution to be had even on 20mp for large prints.
>>
>>3982053
this
>>
>>3981987
>Please ignore this >>3981964 anon.
understood, and thanks for the info. got my camera yesterday (e-m5) after doing tons of back and forth on m43 and've been having tons of fun, so happy with the IQ and small form factor/weight. would post some pics but they're too fat unfortunately. really impressed with how everything's turned out especially the dreaded 'le low light'.
>>
>>3981814
F stop equivalency isn't linear you stupid faggot
>>
>>3981878
>Wikipedia even discusses aperture equivalence like this. You might want to watch the "brain dead" comments when every legitimate source disagrees with you.


using wikipedia as a source is pants on head retarded.

I dont get why there are so many people who don't understand that f-stops and t-stops aren't the same thing and that the amount of light captured and transmitted by the lens is something totally different than the amount of light the sensor can accept and process.
>>
>>3982058
To an extent, but I almost guarantee that no one here is buying a camera for live broadcast. That's such a random thing to bring up.
>>
>>3981166
Got myself a 60mm 2.8 macro. Thoughts on it?
>>
Why does M43 trigger so many people? Threads about APS-C cameras never seem to get inundated with the same "ACTUALLY I SKIMMED WIKIPEDIA SO MY FOOL FRAME LENS IS 1.5X BRIGHTER"
>>
>>3982189
*4x brighter
>>
>>3982189
>Why does M43 trigger so many people? Threads about APS-C cameras never seem to get inundated with the same "ACTUALLY I SKIMMED WIKIPEDIA SO MY FOOL FRAME LENS IS 1.5X BRIGHTER"
It's the same nophoto clique jumping from mft threads, fuji threads and isi thread.
>>
>>3982189
It's a case of elitism meeting fanboysim, imo.

The system has fans. Rabid, die-hard fans who desperately want their system to flourish and be taken seriously in the professional space.
Those fans are consistently shit on by people who think sensor size is proportional to image quality, and nothing else matters. Those are the same idiots who like to shame people for not having infinite cash to spend on their hobbies.

I just wish people didn't think of M43 as a 'cheap' option. It's like buying a compact drill for tight spaces. It costs about the same, doesn't quite have the same torque, but it's a perfect fit for jobs where you need it.

I think people who use cameras as tools of the trade get that. People who use them as toys and/or status symbols don't.
>>
>>3982189
>Threads about APS-C cameras never seem to get inundated with the same
What I see is that people with experience using system that allows both dx/aps-c and fx/35mm never quite get combative about it because it's evident how more of sensor is more light power.
It's just obvious.
>>
File: schizo_wojak.png (293 KB, 481x354)
293 KB
293 KB PNG
>>3982189
They do, because it is all moop bullshit. He's such a looser he has been baiting shit like this in New Year's Eve
>>
>>3981166
CJ from San Andreas called he wants his camera bacc
>>
>>3982201
What jobs need a compact drill?
>>
>>3982204
>how more of sensor is more light power.

What is "light power" here? Virtually no one is denying that larger sensors generally have better DR and better performance at higher ISOs, but some seem to be taking aperture equivalence so literally they think M43 produces images 2X darker at the same exposure settings.
>>
>>3982231
>2x darker at same exposure settings
4x, and yes, that's correct.
Except you think iso 100 = iso 100, it isn't. iso 100 on mft is the same amount of gain as iso 400 on full frame.

iso is an already calculated equivalence factor for image brightness, not for image noise performance. if you had a 5 watt speaker and a 500 watt speaker, and you turned them both up to "10" on the volume, would they both be the same loudness?
>>
>>3982241
> 4x, and yes, that's correct.

This is why light meters ask you to input sensor size
>>
File: wld-581858.jpg (364 KB, 1352x1014)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
>>3982241
>>3982245
That's not true at all. I've shot many systems and noise levels remain the same as long as light is good. Smaller formats will have less detail in lower light situations, but even there, noise patters will look the same.

Even in the case that it was true, so what? Will 400 iso instead of 200 iso ruin a good photo, or make a bad one good? Can you even see the difference between 800 iso and 400 iso?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-G9
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.8.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)800 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:12:31 00:01:23
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width0
Image Height0
Exposure ModeAuto
Image QualityUnknown
White BalanceUnknown
Focus ModeAuto
Spot ModeUnknown
Image StabilizerUnknown
Macro ModeNormal
Shooting ModeAperture Priority
AudioNo
Flash Bias0.00 EV
>>
>>3982245
>i'm illiterate and mad
lol, ok
>>3982254
>that's not true
yes it is, mft has 2 stops worse noise performance, and there is a point where noise becomes an issue in your photos, with full frame that issue happens 2 stops later, or with 1/4 as much light.

And this doesn't just affect low light situatons, it's also for shots with any movement in them that you wish to freeze, having your shutter speed at 1/4 the length can also help guarantee sharp shots in things like events and wildlife, and it gives you more leeway with ambient light when using flash. not to mention the 2 stops (4 times as much) extra dynamic range at base iso.

And why are you only using 1 stop examples, when you know it's 2 stops between mft and ff? are you ignorant or disingenuous?
>>
File: wld-591799.jpg (431 KB, 1352x1014)
431 KB
431 KB JPG
>>3982257
>And why are you only using 1 stop examples, when you know it's 2 stops between mft and ff? are you ignorant or disingenuous?

I'm glad that you asked...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-G9
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)800 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/6.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: IMGP1462.jpg (738 KB, 1920x1440)
738 KB
738 KB JPG
50mm equiv, f/5.6, 1/40, ISO 400

1/2.3"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX Q
Camera SoftwarePENTAX Q Ver 1.00
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)47 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2022:01:01 13:13:49
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length8.50 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1440
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
File: G85.jpg (1.72 MB, 2272x1704)
1.72 MB
1.72 MB JPG
>>3982271
50mm equiv, f/5.6, 1/40, ISO 400

M43

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>3982219
Lots, but the one that comes immediately to mind is cabinet installation. Lots of preassembly, reaching into confined spaces, etc. Sparkies like them too, because they're hauling around bags to job sites and climbing ladders.

Tradesies argue about brands and voltages too. Where there is gear, there is gearfaggotry.
>>
File: IMGP7206.jpg (936 KB, 1728x1152)
936 KB
936 KB JPG
>>3982274
50mm equiv, f/5.6, 1/40, ISO 400

APS-C

Exposure looks essentially identical to me in terms of brightness.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-7
Camera SoftwareK-7 Ver 1.10
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2022:01:01 14:25:04
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1728
Image Height1152
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3982275
I suppose the analogy falls apart quickly when you consider they're both on the same platform (same bits, same battery) but I get what you mean. Good point actually, gonna be building a cabinet next month...
>>
>>3982271
>>3982274
>>3982276
>They're the same brightness
But not the same dynamic range or noise.

As has been said repeatedly, iso is just a label for a reference brightness level, smaller sensors need more gain to hit that reference level.

I'm genuinely bewildered that this has to be explained to you so many times, thanks for confirming you're not ignorant or disingenuous, just thick as shit.
>>
File: 1640985321760.jpg (37 KB, 400x400)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
>>3982274
>>3982276
>>3982271
>>3982264
>>3982254
schizo blown out the water so much that he's flooding the thread again
>>
>>3982281
>I'm genuinely bewildered that this has to be explained to you so many times

You've spent the last two years spreading lies with charts, and pixel peeping at dxo studio scene, yet every real world example has proven you wrong. You're clearly obsessed, get help at your nearest mental institution.
>>
File: compa.jpg (916 KB, 1627x1080)
916 KB
916 KB JPG
>>3982271
>>3982274
>>3982276
Everyone that's shot two systems will know that as a fact. Sensor tech is the thing that ultimately decides how noise is rendered. (not that it's important). My fuuuji apsc is actually giving me more noise when images are compared at 100%. 6 extra megapixels levels the field in the end, though.
>>
>>3982285
>Measurements and data and sensor test scenes are lies, look I posted a photo of a bird with zero context that proves nothing in my defence. Also, everyone that disagrees with me, including the dozens of websites online, are all one person!
Go see your doctor anon. Oh wait, you can't afford a doctor.
>>
>>3982281
>>They're the same brightness
>But not the same dynamic range or noise.

I acknowledged differences in DR and noise. You are the one who stated M43 is 4x darker at the same exposure settings.
>>
>>3982288
Then show 3 photos at the same gain, not the same brightness equivalence.

You still don't understand the difference do you, thicker than cold soup.
>>
>>3982287
>posted a photo of a bird with zero context that proves nothing in my defence

Getting angry at photos posted on photo site, he'd rather talk about exposure levels. You're not already institutionalized somewhere, are you?
>>
>>3982291
>Posts photo as "proof" about mft
>Gets told it's not proof
>"You're angry at me for posting photos"

No anon, you're angry that you're poor and you use shit gear, and you spend your days cope posting.
>>
>>3982295
Anon, the photos were explained to you. You may check the exif files again, if that won't cause your blood pressure to skyrocket to unmanageable levels.

Your iso fairy tales are busted, your aperture equivalence lies are dead, you don't take any photos of your own, what's left for you now?
>>
>>3982298
>everyone else on the internet is wrong, even when they provide data and measurements and a basic understanding of electronic engineering >:(
lol
>>
>>3982301
>No anon, you're angry that you're poor and you use shit gear, and you spend your days cope posting.

Show me your gear anon. I'm poor, envious and angry because of it.
>>
>>3982098
>so happy with the IQ
and yet no pictures posted. enough said
>>
>>3982254
this is a really bad shot man.. sorry. i want to like m4/3 and olympus because many of their camera designs are gorgeous but the images i see coming from their cameras are embarrassing when for not much more you could get a nice full frame mirrorless camera and adapt whatever glass you want.
>>
>>3982334
Yeah, bro, you should see what larger formats are capable of!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6500
Camera SoftwareLuminar AI Extension
PhotographerMalcolm Clark
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image Created2021:05:24 19:29:15
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Brightness3.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
Image Width0
Image Height0
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3982334
>>3982331

Seriously, why do you even pretend? We all know it's you. You get salty and angry whenever someone takes a bait and exposes you for nophoto, and then you're try to flood the thread with nonsense.
>>
>>3982334
>when for not much more you could get a nice full frame mirrorless camera and adapt whatever glass you want.

I like M43 but buying it new is for idiots and autists. Best use case for the system is a beater travel setup from eBay.
>>
All these bad m4/3 shots ITT make me want to get a cheap Olympus with a decent prime on it and see if it really is that bad. If people are creating great photos in the digishit thread then surely m4/3 can pull off something decent too right?
>>
File: _6083481.jpg (3.53 MB, 3888x5184)
3.53 MB
3.53 MB JPG
These threads are annoying me enough.
Here are images I can't complain about.
If they're boring subjects... I don't care.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23418
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:08 14:30:20
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _3302873.jpg (3.4 MB, 5184x3888)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
>>3982353

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern21928
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:30 15:18:03
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4052975.jpg (3.4 MB, 5184x3888)
3.4 MB
3.4 MB JPG
>>3982355

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23584
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:05 15:42:49
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating500
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _5313375.jpg (3.72 MB, 5184x3888)
3.72 MB
3.72 MB JPG
>>3982357

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23354
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:05:31 16:02:16
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _6103679.jpg (3.78 MB, 5184x3888)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
>>3982359

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern22320
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:10 16:48:04
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _6264088.jpg (3.01 MB, 5184x3888)
3.01 MB
3.01 MB JPG
>>3982360

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23476
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:26 16:27:30
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating1000
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _6304136.jpg (1.64 MB, 5184x3888)
1.64 MB
1.64 MB JPG
>>3982361

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23242
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:30 15:56:15
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _7024235.jpg (2.64 MB, 5184x3888)
2.64 MB
2.64 MB JPG
>>3982362
High ISO shot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23146
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:07:02 11:08:18
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating6400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceShade
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _7034296.jpg (1.2 MB, 5184x3888)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB JPG
>>3982363

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23310
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:07:03 16:10:00
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _6093620.jpg (4.27 MB, 5184x3888)
4.27 MB
4.27 MB JPG
>>3982364

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23488
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:09 15:22:28
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length75.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _6043463.jpg (4.81 MB, 5184x3888)
4.81 MB
4.81 MB JPG
>>3982367

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23680
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:04 12:03:54
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4052996.jpg (2.37 MB, 5184x3888)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB JPG
>>3982369
At least now I can say I'm not a nophoto in this thread

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23610
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:05 16:09:51
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3982353
>photos showing mft doesn't suck
>red channel blown the fuck out
>>3982355
missed critical focus
>>3982357
hand shake that ibis couldn't save even though it's taken at 1/80
>>3982359
blown whites
>>3982360
lost all detail in dark subject
>>3982361
muddy shadows
>>3982362
low contrast
>>3982363
too much distracting noise, lost all detail

All these problems that wouldn't exist on full frame... can you just not see the difference? new to photography?

Also love how you've tried to squeeze as much bokeh as possible out of your poverty spec lens. lmao.
>>
>>3982381
hi moop
>>
File: _6083523.jpg (3.31 MB, 5184x3888)
3.31 MB
3.31 MB JPG
>>3982381
>missed critical focus
what?
>hand shake
what?
>blown whites
or creative decision?
>lost all detail
it's a fucking blackbird
>low contrast
what?
>lost all detail
do you need corrective lenses? is your computer monitor/phone screen so covered in cum from masterbating to pr0n that you're physically incapable of seeing the details?
>too much distracting noise
what?
>All these problems that wouldn't exist on full frame
I see FF exhibiting all these "claims" and more plenty of times
>new to photography
no
>out of your poverty spec lens
lul what?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23612
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:06:08 16:36:13
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length150.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3982381
Post photos you unbearable autist
>>
>>3982381
What's dude hating photography doing on a photography forum?
>>
>>3982390
He cant. He is literally disabled, 35 year old britbong with autism. He's such fucking looser he spend new year's eve trying to argue sensor size.

He's been trolling on 4chan for years, because that's only thing going for him in his life.
>>
>>3982331
I don't know how yet, it said they were too big. at any rate, I'm not trying to compete anyway; it satisfies me and it's fun - that's what i bought it for, and that's what it's doing.
>>
>>3982331
i even said
>would post some pics but they're too fat unfortunately
retard
>>
>>3982254
damn that guy looks dapper af
>>
>>3982345
>Best use case for the system is a beater travel setup from eBay.
the kino path is to have that be your only set up
>>
>>3982058
Why are they advantageous?
>>
>>3982488
Still no photos. Kek, the absolute state of m4/3tards.
>>
>>3982499
they're still too fat, I haven't bothered to change the file size. I'm a noob anyway, so what's it matter? It wouldn't be representative of the ecosystems quality. but if you can tell me the /p/ approve way to downsize the photo without hurting IQ too much, I'll upload away.
>>
>>3982546
>calls his jpegs "fat"
Yea I'm pretty confident all your shots are hot garbage.
>>
>>3982546
>The people supporting mft don't even know how to export a jpeg
Yep, that makes sense
>>
>>3982274
>>3982276
>G85.jpg
>Pentax K-7

It seems like a massive self-own that a literally 13 year old APS-C camera looks obviously better than fairly modern M43.
>>
>>3982620
Moop, have "blindness" been added to your disabilities?
>>
>>3982602
It is a JPEG, it's still too big
>>
>>3982576
>>3982602
Lol, why are you so sour over what gear I'm using? I'm outside taking pictures and having fun, and to me they look great (in terms of quality and color at least - can't blame the camera for my poor composition). This is my first camera, so no I don't know a lot and thinking I'll represent the potential of the ecosystem is retarded. It's nice, small/light, weathersealed and feels durable, and the IQ, even in low light, has been absolutely satisfactory to me so far. I'm very happy I went with Olympus when comparing to my gf's Nikon from around the same era. My colors look better and it's way smaller/lighter.
>>
File: P1010001.jpg (2.26 MB, 4608x3456)
2.26 MB
2.26 MB JPG
this was the first photo I took with the camera, it was literally a RNG style point and shoot but I liked it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:01:01 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/25 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating3200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: P1010092.jpg (3.22 MB, 4608x3456)
3.22 MB
3.22 MB JPG
this one was cute, but a little bright. I don't know how to focus (aside from auto) or adjust aperture or lighting yet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:01:01 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
File: P1010091.jpg (2.34 MB, 4608x3456)
2.34 MB
2.34 MB JPG
this one's wicked bright, need to learn to fix that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:01:01 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/3200 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
File: SRGB0087.jpg (4.18 MB, 4608x3456)
4.18 MB
4.18 MB JPG
train

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5
Camera SoftwareVersion 2.2
PhotographerNeil Buckland
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image Created2021:12:31 19:14:02
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/2.5
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length17.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
>>
File: P1010093.jpg (1.86 MB, 4608x3456)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB JPG
fishing guy

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:01:01 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/8000 sec
F-Numberf/1.6
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
File: P1010090.jpg (3.04 MB, 4608x3456)
3.04 MB
3.04 MB JPG
orange thing floating on water

surely the angry guy will say they're shit regardless (and I'm sure they are too - am noob), so there wasn't much of a point in posting.. but it was fun. I've only taken maybe a dozen intentional photos so far (meaning not just fiddling with the settings while trying to learn, but actually trying to grab a shot).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:01:01 00:00:00
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramCreative
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypePortrait
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
^ i figured out how to export them, angry gear guy.
>>
>>3982639
Is your camera/lens broken?
These are all far too soft and dynamic range is shot, even for an mft camera?!
>>
>>3982641
I agree, this image
>>3982638
Is fucked completely. You somehow managed to get a shaky image at 1/1000 on a system with the best ibis.
Not only that but you haven't even corrected for CA.
ON TOP OF THAT you left the camera in portrait mode FFS ...
This isn't the cameras fault, mft shouldn't struggle in this scenario at all
>>
There is nothing wrong with camera in >>3982638. It is just focused incorrectly. You can see it is focused at rock on bottom right, not at infinity.

>>3982642
It is not motion blur at 1/1000 you fucking retard
>>
>>3982629
I would treat a down syndrome afflicted retard who was "having fun" with a fisher price child's cam rolling around in his own shit if he tried shilling said camera on this board. Now fuck off.
>>
File: rage.jpg (57 KB, 1280x720)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>3982663
>N-nnooo, you cant talk about camera I don't like!!11
>I will throw tard rage if you do
>>
>>3982658
One of the first things I learned when I started using the Olympus camera I have, was that the full area AF (contrast detect only body) will literally focus on the area with most contrast, even if it's in the corner of the image.

It me a while to realise I had to use single point AF, or cluster area AF if I wanted the camera to focus on something I want it to.
The Phase Detection bodies aren't as brain-dead when it comes to full area AF.
If you're using a Pen camera, an E-M10 or the E-M5 Mk I or II, this will be a concern.
The E-M5 Mk III and all the E-M1s are immune to this contrast AF fuckery. Maybe makes sense that Panasonic, with no phase detection available at all, have put in a lot of r&d to make their contrast detect systems actually focus on actual subjects.
>>
>>3982664
if youre trying to talk from a point of authority when you admit that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, you're brand new to the hobby and can't even focus an image with an autofocus camera, then you've got to expect to be called a retard.

you fucking retard.
>>
I have the Olympus 12 mm/f2.0 and the 75 mm/f1.8.
The first one is my favorite lens for low light social gatherings.
The second is a jewel for portraits, but I rarely have the opportunity to use it.
I hope OMD will have the resources to keep improving the M4/3 system.
>>
File: unnamed.jpg (94 KB, 900x900)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>3982671
hey, big brain!

I'm not even the anon who took that photo, lmao.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3982684
Hey bird brain, i was finding fault with your pov, which also makes you a retard. nice self insert on being a retard though, retard.
>>
>>3982695
can you say "retard" one more time to really show me how Not Mad™ you are?
>>
>>3982658
Then he's using a lens so shit I didn't know it existed in mft. Shame you resort to name calling to defend your insecurities
>>
Just use DXO prime to denoise and sharpen the image and even MFT can look good.
Best $100 I have spent.
>>
>>3982638
>>3982632
>>3982630
Man I've been arguing in favor of M43 in this thread but this is absolutely not helping, these look awful
>>
>>3982787
How well work
>>
I still want one of these even though I know it sucks.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2016:01:28 09:29:55
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3097
Image Height2088
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image ID04f5669ccf659f35f69dbb5fef894a54
>>
>>3982799
Don't get pen f appeal. Smaller em10 but expensiver.
>>
>>3982806
I just love the design of it. With Olympus would release an updated one. Someone from here owns one and he said it feels very cheap and plastic sadly. Maybe the newer one should be better made and sold at a premium for the retro market, the same kind of people who bought the ZFc.
>>
>>3982815
I like that the F is in gothic in the advertising material, shame it's not on the body.
Suprises me because the em10 I have is built way better than my s5
>>
>>3982231
The amount of signal, the thing which is sampled and recorded, the light. It depends on the size of the pupil, the area of space where light is taken from and directed into the camera. A lens can concentrate it onto a small or large area, but the very energy that inscribes itself on the sensor stays the same.
Depth of field is side effect, but it illustrates the issue. To get more signal, you must increase the size of the pupil, and the world from two opposing points of the entrance pupil looks different more so when the distance between them increases, exaggerating defocus blur.
>>
File: om-1_1 (1).jpg (143 KB, 640x480)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3981166
If only you knew how good things were

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX10
Camera SoftwareDigital Camera X10 Ver1.03
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2014:03:29 16:10:05
Exposure Time1/56 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness-0.4 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length26.60 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1536
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Chroma SaturationNormal
Flash ModeOn
Macro ModeOn
Focus ModeAuto
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeProgram AE
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusOK
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>
>>3982815
I own one, and it's a full metal body, apart from the battery door.
The ergo is something to be a bit desired.

As much as it's a nice camera, I'd still want something with the pdaf, that'll be found in the E-M5 Mk III or the E-M1s.
Unironically, I'm thinking about the E-M1X, but not now. When OMDS releases their "wow camera", the E-M1X should have a considerable price drop. The only thing we know for certain about the "wow camera" is that it'll be the same body form factor as the E-M1X, so it'll be a Mk II. But if the rumours are true, the "wow camera" will still only be 20mp, but with a brand new BSI stacked sensor, with global shutter. So... basically a MFT equivalent to the Canon R3.
>>
>>3982349
Digishit photos are not trying to mimic full frame dslr photos. That's why.
>>
>>3982632
Kinda looks 3d/tiltshift
>>
>>3981178
>weather resistance are/were the best of any brand.

Seems like the last big draw from Olympus these days. Plenty of small mirrorless these days but very few weather sealed.
>>
Can someone explain to me why it's always digital full framers that have some inferiorty complex towards crop cameras?

They love to pixel peep and talk shit on quality crop photos, at the same time they're the worst photo posters on /p/.
>>
>>3983145
"fullframers" don't have any complex about people using worse cameras.
I think that they don't mind correcting people that try to argue that mft/crop are in any way comparable to full frame when it comes to image quality, and rightly so, as that's a retarded thing to think and it's wrong to let new people to the hobby get mislead by insecure poverty stricken losers.
>>
>>3983145
this is more common on boomer forums. on /p/ its all sensorlets being hyper defensive about it. people should just shut up and post photos.
>>
>>3983178
Post photos
>>
>>3982671
I wasn't talking 'from a point of authority', all I said was I liked the IQ, weight and size.

>>3982658
Thanks for the tip, next time I'll focus it to infinity. Those were some of the first 20 or so pics I've taken.
>>
>>3982806
>>3982799
I want a pen-f too, hoping they release a weatherproof mk ii eventually.
>>
>>3983178
That does not explain why crop photo posters are posting better photos than full frame photo posters.
>>
>>3983450
as good as alphon or alex or burt?
>>
>>3981177
it's the best brand and the best sensor format
>>
>>3982353
>>3982355
>>3982357
>>3982359
>>3982360
>>3982361
>>3982362
>>3982363
>>3982367
>>3982369
>>3982373
>>3982389
focus seems off in all of these

>>3982364
beautiful
>>
The reality is that now with AI upscalers, denoisers, and sharpeners (i.e. the Topaz suite), MFT has become the ultimate sensor format. The only thing MFT does not dominate in over full frame is bokeh. However with 0.95 voigtlanders and 1.2 primes from oly and panny, you can get all the bokeh you need without looking kitch like FF bokehwhores. The smaller sensor is an *advantage* over FF, and this will become blatantly apparent when global shutter becomes the new standard. In the era of AI imaging tools that can 2x to 4x an image without any perceptible image loss and equivalent noise performance, FF large sensor and fuckhuge lenses are actually more of a liability than an asset. As AI tools improve even more, lugging around retardedly large lenses with slow ass image readout will become the realm of medium format type hobbyist shit. AI upscaling will kill FF, and imo it's already dead.
>>
>>3983480
lol, when was the last time anyone of them posted on /p/? 2019? Nophoto the lot of them.
>>
>>3983540
Are the software you mention better than Lightroom?
>>
File: pepe[1].jpg (87 KB, 1200x675)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>3983540
>. The smaller sensor is an *advantage* over FF, and this will become blatantly apparent when global shutter becomes the new standard.
>>
>>3983540
Smartphones have been going nuts with computational photography for years and even the latest flagships tend to look like smeary shit when you look at them on anything bigger than a 6" phone screen.
>>
>>3983540
photographers still want the power to edit their photos as they wish. computational photography belongs on phones
>>
>>3983544
>all the full framers have gone on to have careers in photography, therefore they are nophotos >:(

ok anon ;)

>>3983540
>we have f2 to f2.4 equivalent primes on mft now, ff gear is too big

lmfao, that's some cope. lenses that slow on ff are tiny and cheap and higher resolution.

cope more lmao.
>>
>>3983619
>>all the full framers have gone on to have careers in photography, therefore they are nophotos >:(

>to have careers in photography
A. Doubt.
B. Alex is not full framer.
C. They're nophotos for not posting on /p/.

At least we know that fool frame spammer is someone that simps commercialized renegades with nothing to show for himself.
>>
>>3983547
the Topaz suite can operate as plugins for Ps and Lr and I've challenged a friend to tell the difference between a Topaz'd MFT image and a native FF image at print and he can't over multiple tries.

>>3983570
>>3983579

False equivalence. How could you make such an idiotic argument and expect to be taken seriously, Ken?

>>3983619
>lenses that slow on ff are tiny and cheap and higher resolution.

You will not find an f2 to f2.8 lens on any FF system that matches the optical quality of the equivalent primes on MFT with the same AF performance in the same price category. You can't, you'll try and you'll look like an idiot for attempting it.

The plain fact is that AI has made FF obsolete AND a costly and slow liability. That's the new reality. And trust me, as someone who is working on the forefront of AI imaging technology (guided/unguided diffusion by gradient descent), it's about to get a whole lot worse for full frame REAL fucking quick. There are already "neural filters" in photoshop. I personally know the guy who wrote those filters before Adobe bought them and hired him onto their team full time.

I'm telling you 100% full frame is a complete meme now. The future lies in "large enough" crop sensors with insane fast readouts and global shutter.
>>
>>3983647
>You won't find lens that compares to mft versions

Very true
Olympus 25 1.2
$1300
410g
F1.2 - 2400lw\ph centre, 1100 edge
f5.6 - 2600 centre, 1700 edge
Max 1.75 pixel CA

Sony 50mm f2.5
$600
174g
F2.5 - 3700lw\ph centre, 3600 edge
F5.6 - 3700 centre, 4200 edge
Max 0.25 pixel CA

It is by every metric completely unfair to compare mft lenses to FF, 2 to 3 times the resolution, 1\7th the chromatic aberration, 2\5 the weight and all for half the price.

If you can find an example that bucks this trend, I'd love to see it!

Also
>But mft readout speed
Don't Sony roll out sensor tech nearly a decade sooner on full frame than mft? Do you even have a bsi or stacked sensor yet? Lol.

If anything, with larger sensors getting cheaper, and FF lenses being much cheaper and smaller to make to the same standard, I don't think we'll see much from mft in the future. Why save $10 on a smaller sensor when lenses cost twice as much?
>>
>>3983650
Mft cucks on Epstein watch
>>
File: 16e.jpg (40 KB, 680x723)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>3983650
>comparing lw/pw tested on 42mpix camera vs 12 mpix
>>
>>3983776
Where can I find some MFT lens tests done with 42 MP sensor?
>>
>>3983776
I told you he would look like a total fucking idiot. He can't help himself.
>>
>>3983776
>>3983650
If it had more pixels, you think the CA would shrink from 1.75, or just get more defined?
>>
>>3983776
>lw/pw
whats dat
>>
Now that Olympus has sold the camera division to OMDS, will the new cameras/lenses still say Olympus? OMDS is a way uglier name, Olympus is kino OTOH. I would stop buying new gear completely if it said OMDS and not Olympus.

>>3983872
Appreciate your take here btw: >>3983540.
>>
>>3983915
Picture width, I suppose, haven't seen anyone use that unit before.
>>
>>3983650
How is Sony sharper at the edges than in the center stopped down, where dem numbers from?
>>
>>3983949
his ass, just like the prices of lenses where he made sure to find the absolute most expensive price for the Oly 25mm, which can be had for $800 new.
>>
>>3983650
wow, every single thing in this post is complete bullshit, how did you manage that?
>>
File: P5080590.jpg (4.6 MB, 4608x2592)
4.6 MB
4.6 MB JPG
I really miss my M43 camera, the lens are great and it was so light. I don't mind the dof effect, I just wish the files were not as noisy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareDxO PhotoLab 5.1.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2022:01:06 10:11:12
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance128.00 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3984062
that's not a noisy image though...
>>
>>3984048
why are they like this? i really don't like when they cherry pick stuff like that, it almost tricked me into going sony.
>>
File: P5040499.jpg (2.66 MB, 4608x2592)
2.66 MB
2.66 MB JPG
>>3984079
Not that one in particular but in high iso it can get a little messy. you can still shoot at dusk ok.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:05:04 09:03:22
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length27.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: asgafdgh.jpg (3.28 MB, 4399x2388)
3.28 MB
3.28 MB JPG
>>3984062
here, I enhanced it with AI. had to cut the border though so it would make filesize, since the AI enhancement added information and made it larger.
>>
>>3984086
give me your most noisy image that you would consider "good photography," I want to see what you think is bad noise from M43.
>>
>>3984089
this took out a lot of color in the buildings and trees on the shore, but definitely made it sharper too.
>>
>>3984094
yeah i didn't put any effort into it, just cranked every setting to max lol. You could get the saturation back in Ps, and I'm sure if someone actually took the time to get the AI settings right it would look a lot better. Like, I just cranked color noise correction to max, whether it needed it or not.
>>
File: P9060241.jpg (2.99 MB, 4608x2592)
2.99 MB
2.99 MB JPG
>>3984090
Past 3200 iso it falls apart, you can get 1 or two stops better performance from apsc or ff. its not really up for debate at this point. its just if you think its acceptable, if I'm shooting for a client its not.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareVersion 1.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2017:09:06 14:01:58
Exposure Time1/1600 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating5000
Exposure Bias-0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length14.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height2592
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3984095
Got it, I'm not the guy who posted the image but was curious about the AI stuff said above.
>>
>>3983943
The 8-25mm f/4 and the Pen E-P7 both featured the Olympus name.
My understanding is that since both were developed by Olympus prior to sale, they were allowed to keep the Olympus name.

The 20mm f/1.4 features a new name, and it's not one I like. They've gone with "OM System".
The problem I have with this is that the 35mm SLRs had a mount called OM System. So reviving that name for a Micro Four Thirds system is both confusing, and also manages to make it less... attractive.
Now, OM is short for Olympus Maitani.
But it's just really jarring to see a lens hood have "OM System". It's kinda ew to look at.

What on earth they're going to put on the pentaprism of the "wow camera" is going to be a different deal. OM System is just going to look so fucking weird, and it's just going to confuse a lot of people.
My understanding of this is that, this isn't OMDS trying to rebrand out of a desire to do so, but rather Olympus Corporation telling them that they're no longer permitted to use the name.
Zuiko and OM-D transferred over, but not the Olympus name itself.

Olympus Corporation are way too busy with endoscopes, laparoscopes and surgical equipment, that they don't want the cameras to even confuse potential medical providers about the fact that they're now almost 100% a medical equipment manufacturer now.
Olympus Corporation are even considering selling off their scientific division (microscopes, industrial endoscopes, x-ray spectroscopy), because all they want to do is just medical equipment and nothing else.
>>
>>3983776
>wait, my mft bodies can't come close for resolution
it was tested on 16.4mp, not 12, and it still couldn't outresolve across the sensor, what do you think extra megapixels will do?

kinda owned yourself there buddy.

>>3983890
it would spread across more pixels, CA is a lens issue, not a sensor one.

>>3983949
ephotozine
because the lens is optimised for sharpness across the frame, rather than for vignette (-1.7 in the corners, against olympus' -1.3, both wide open)

>>3984050
>ephotozines measurements are bullshit because they don't agree with my feelings

lol

oh, and stop samefagging dude.
>>
>>3984114
>But it's just really jarring to see a lens hood have "OM System". It's kinda ew to look at.
Agree, didn't know about the other stuff though (old confusing name, and Maitani). If I ever buy an OM System lens, I'll be buying an 'old school' Olympus cap to go with it.


>My understanding of this is that, this isn't OMDS trying to rebrand out of a desire to do so, but rather Olympus Corporation telling them that they're no longer permitted to use the name.
Zuiko and OM-D transferred over, but not the Olympus name itself.
Yeah, that's what it seems like. Zuiko would've been a better name even. Didn't know they were thinking of selling the microscope business, crazy.

Really too bad on the whole, I know it's largely superficial but it really ruins the image of the brand. I bought into Olympus knowing they sold the camera biz, but unaware the branding was changing going forward. That may have changed my investment attitude, desu. Though honestly I think I'm content with what Olympus has on the market today, so don't really foresee myself upgrading further and acquiring 'OM System' gear. That name is just unacceptable... Sony, FujiFilm, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and.. OM System? Terrible.
>>
>>3984099

this image is compressed to shit, try posting an uncompressed image or at least a jpg with high quality settings. I just want to run it through AI denoiser but there's no reason to bother if you just post an image that's been compressed to shit, since no one is stupid enough to shoot jpg seriously.
>>
>>3984121

Are you fucking gay? Seriously, I can't imagine anyone giving this much of a shit about a goddamned brand name on a camera but a flaming faggot.
>>
>>3984128
this is a high quality jpeg
>>
>>3984129
I care enough to buy a lens cap that says Olympus over 'OM System', but I'm much, much more concerned about how this may affect my investment into the ecosystem. It could very well be the first step towards death. I wasn't nearly as concerned when I was under the impression they were keeping the same name.
>>
>>3984132
i think you might want to recheck your settings, because there are major compression artifacts all over the frame.
>>
>>3984133
>my investment into the ecosystem

So you literally are a faggot, and a fucking retarded one at that. Like hey DUMBASS, how does the the name on the box affect the pictures you can take with the gear inside you absolute mongoloid imbecile?
>>
>>3984134
I haven't owned this camera for 4 years so thats a no go.
>>
>>3984136
oh no, are you saying that's a SooC jpg? I was assuming you shot in RAW and then saves as jpeg out of your RAW processor. Why do you shoot in jpeg? You can get significantly better quality just processing your own images.
>>
>>3984137
wait, that entry level camera, did you shoot jpegs? how dare you. I didn't care about editing then, I just took images and posted the ones I liked.
>>
>>3984139
>I might as well take shitty pictures with my ENTRY LEVEL CAMERA

it's your choice, but that's kind of stupid when you're in this thread having complained about the noise. Don't complain about shit if you're the reason it's a problem in the first place.
>>
>>3984141
Are you actually arguing that m43 has no noise? fuck off no photo.
>>
>>3984143
no retard, I'm not. I'm saying you're a fucking idiot for complaining about noise on M43, and then shooting jpeg like a retard. Like, the image you posted as an example of "bad noise" looks bad because of jpeg artifacting more than it does from shot noise.
>>
File: noise.jpg (201 KB, 1047x1094)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
>>3984145
Its not up for debate tard, M43 has more noise, all the ai shit you throw at it won't change that. Get out and actually shoot with you shit camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3984150
oh I see, you're a disingenuous piece of shit that's just in here to stir shit because you're a loser with no life. Got it.
>>
>>3984150
The most hilarious part is there is more recoverable detail in the EM1 III RAW than the a7 III raw lol
>>
>>3984150
Oly is second best here, Fuji slaughtered
>>
>>3984153
they're all essentially equal, the olympus RAW is the only one that doesn't apply any denoising algos. You can tell the Sony one in particular is HEAVILY denoised before writing to RAW. If the Sony passed the pure readout to file it would look similar to identical to the Oly one.
>>
>>3984155

>the olympus RAW is the only one that doesn't apply any denoising algos.

Actually now that I really look at it, the Nikon looks like it's not applying any denoising either, and has better noise performance than Oly. Basically, the actual quality ranking is this:

Nikon > Oly > Fuji > Sony

At least the Fuji denoising algos take care of color noise better than the smeary shit that Sony outputs.
>>
>>3984151
you changed my mind, maybe I will give Olympus another shot. Not even being ironic, I'm gonna go check them out.
>>
>>3984158
lol, whatever dude. They're just cameras. Everything I said about AI making FF obsolete is objectively true, but it shouldn't be something you have to sit there and contemplate. No one fucking cares what camera you use.

I use M43 because it has all the advantages I want and none of the downsides, but I don't CARE about my gear like some religion, it's just a tool.

I fucking hate this board, no idea why I even ever come here.
>>
>>3984159
Ai will just make FF exponentially better again. And I bet FF will get so features years before crop or mft.

Acting like people won't desire the best performance is straight up retarded.

There's a reason why FF is the only format not losing sales.

>>3984151
Awww you mad that someone showed that sensor size is key to high iso noise performance. Poor you.
>>
>>3984161
>Ai will just make FF exponentially better again.

Diminishing returns. M43 is as good as it needs to be for display on 4K screens which is beyond the human eye's ability to resolve at typical viewing distance anyway. The only domain M43 was not the best choice was print, but when you can 4x or even 6x the size of a photo with no discernable loss in quality, the argument you need FF to do 300 dpi prints up to poster size falls apart.

People like you are so fucking retarded you forget that there were professionals, the cream of the crop, that were publishing print work from digital FF cameras when their performance was a fraction of what M43 outputs today. Now, with AI, M43 can match or surpass the performance of SooC RAWs from even some current FF cameras.

If you weren't such a fucking idiot this would make perfect sense to you, but you are an idiot and your entire life revolves around retarded shit like what kind of camera you own and use. Dipshit.

>Awww you mad that someone showed that sensor size is key to high iso noise performance.

You fucking retard, the Sony noise looks worse than the Fuji there. You're a legit imbecile.
>>
File: iso3200.jpg (3.53 MB, 4608x3456)
3.53 MB
3.53 MB JPG
>>3984155
Olympus has crazy noise policy. Raws are untouched. No denoising at all, unless its' long exposure. Jpegs always get very aggressive denoising. There's no way to turn it off completely. Its' baffling, you have fuji that has digital grain options, and these guys have gorgeous natural grain, and they ruin it for sooc jpegs.

I love the high iso noise paterns out of 16mp sensors, 20mp is worse. They both look pleasing and organic, but you must go RAW and then process the files yourself. Camera jpegs on Olympus cameras are trash for high isos. They denoise the fuck out of the files, and you end up with smeared photos.
>>
File: iso6400.jpg (4.06 MB, 4608x3456)
4.06 MB
4.06 MB JPG
>>3984169
>>
File: iso4000jpeg78.jpg (3.8 MB, 3456x4608)
3.8 MB
3.8 MB JPG
>>3984099
I'm sure that would look fine with normal processing. The thing to know is that photo must be exposed correctly. ETTR or neutral, high iso mft should never be underexposed, you can not lift shadows much without getting really ugly noise patters.
>>
>>3984175
hell yeah, this is what I'm talking about. Here's that photo with AI enhancement. I 100% guarantee you there's not a single person on this planet that could tell you if that's FF or M43 if you cropped to a common resolution.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3984176
Also, the smooth gradient areas of this look even better on my end, I had to drop jpeg quality down to 8 to get it to fit the filesize requirements and keep the same resolution
>>
>>3984135
No, but it will undoubtedly affect the opinion and confidence of others, which will likely hurt the business at least short term.
>>
>>3984245
let's assume for argument that you're right and the opinion and confidence of others is undoubtedly affected and the business is hurt, even in the long term. What if they just completely shut down? Aside from warranty issues, how the fuck does that affect you and the products you own?skoty
>>
>>3984176
it's funny how all the FFtards that obsess over their stupid cameras get real quiet when you show them that their gear isn't special and that FF results are trivially replicable by sensors 2x smaller now lol
>>
>>3984176
>>3984496
Surely the same AI making MFT look decent is capable of turning the average FF into a large-format rivaling monster.
>>
>>3984499
and? 99% of professional photographers don't need medium format performance, that's why they shoot FF. Now they can have FF performance with a sensor 2x smaller, with all the other advantages that come with it, like insanely faster readout for global shutter, smaller lenses, etc.
>>
>>3983647
>Topaz
Thanks for the suggestion, I downloaded it and try it later.
>>
>>3983540
>slow ass image readout
Still waiting for that MFT stacked sensor (Sony won't be making one, why would they)
>>
>>3981166
There is nothing worng with them, they just have been completely cucked by Fuji in the transition to MILC. They took Oly's retro OM-1 design and "enthusiast prhotographer" market approach and are offering the same thing for the same audience but with a larger sensor, better jpeg output, better kit lens, better 1st party lens selection. Maybe they're slightly more expensive but when people google "best beginner camera under 1000" or whatever the fuck they'll see the Fujis being talked about a lot more.
>>
>>3984984
>Maybe they're slightly more expensive

Not even that, the basic bitch E-M10 IV is selling on their website for $700 body only. M43 can be a decent value used (I bought a GX85 and 12-32 for $300 as a beater travel camera) but I literally do not understand who is still buying these new.
>>
>>3984957
>Sony won't be making one, why would they
they already did
>>
>>3984999
Japanese people are buying them brand new
>>
The Olympus OM1 is without a doubt the best SLR I've ever used. I don't care about the sensor because I do it all manually with a meter anyway.
Adjusting shutter speed is so easy when you're shooting. You dont even have to lower the camera.
The viewfinder is probably the largest on the market and it's like 98% of what will be on the film.
I really can't think of a downside.
>>
>>3985742
Olympus film SLRs are as small as a Leica rangefinder practically. Great finder, the shutter speed ring is kino. It's perfect. They are a super premium brand.

They didn't make it into the autofocus era and were already on life support when digital arrived, ironically it saved them and sticking to their format has paid off in the long run.
>>
>>3984155
>raw
>denoise
Now THIS is sensorlet cope.
>>
>>3984159
>entire camera world moving towards FF
>"hurr durr ff is gonna be obsolete"
t. Sensorlet

>>3984163
>Diminishing returns. M43 is as good as it needs to be for display on 4K screens which is beyond the human eye's ability to resolve at typical viewing distance anyway.
*cough* bullshit *cough*

>The only domain M43 was not the best choice was print, but when you can 4x or even 6x the size of a photo with no discernable loss in quality,
You can't. AI scaling is mostly hype, and there's no substitute for capturing the detail in the first place.

>People like you are so fucking retarded you forget that there were professionals, the cream of the crop, that were publishing print work from digital FF cameras when their performance was a fraction of what M43 outputs today.
When was that exactly? A 5D mark II from 2008 is still sharper with less noise than today's best m43 systems. Strictly in terms of extinction resolution there are m43 sensors which can match it, but nothing that can touch today's 40-60mp ff sensors.

>Now, with AI, M43 can match or surpass the performance of SooC RAWs from even some current FF cameras.
LMFAO no.

>You fucking retard, the Sony noise looks worse than the Fuji there. You're a legit imbecile.
This is unbelievable denial and cope.
>>
>>3984500
>and? 99% of professional photographers don't need medium format performance, that's why they shoot FF. Now they can have FF performance with a sensor 2x smaller,
A direct, high resolution (42-61mp) FF capture is going to beat an AI scaled mft 20mp capture every time. A FF 20mp capture is going to scale better than a 20mp mft capture every time. There are scenarios where the differences won't matter, and scenarios where they will matter, but the differences will be there. AI scaling also can't do shit about noise or subject isolation (DoF).

In fairness to m43 there are a lot of subject/print size/audience combos where it's good enough. And I have no problem with a m43 fan saying "I like the size/weight/reach and it's good enough." But I can only laugh at the m43 fans who insist it's "just as good" and that the entire industry is going to go m43 any day now.

The industry is actually shifting hard to FF. All the R&D is in FF mirrorless now. It's where all the money and interest is at now that phones have wiped out the low end and eroded mid level crop bodies. The APS-C and m43 markets used to attract far more interest and be far more robust. Not any more.
>>
>>3986784
You don't understand how the 3D grain structure of film gives it a resolution which can't be expressed as a 2D scan. It's two totally different things. You can max out with scanning at a certain point but there is more information there because the gelatin layer contains a stack of grain molecules, maybe up to 1500 molecules thick in places.
>>
>>3986795
>You don't understand how the 3D grain structure of film
Since when the fuck did micro four thirds digital cameras use film? Also: "muh 3d structure that can't be scanned" is bullshit.
>>
>>3986795
no-one mentioned film there, lmao, retard
>>
>>3984500
>>3984176
>>3984496
do you not realize that any AI process that benefits MFT also benefits every other sensor larger and smaller?
>>
>>3986784
>AI scaling also can't do shit about noise or subject isolation (DoF).

Denoising is an integral part of AI upscaling. Topaz even has a program specifically for denoising at standard res and its phenomenal, especially when run against RAW files.

> Muh DoF

This is the weakest argument of all and the one every FFtard gets obsessive over. Look, dumbass, "subject separation" is great, but blowing the background out into nothing but a smearing of color gradients and DoF so thin only one eye is in focus is a kitch fad for retards with no taste or appreciation of photography.

I've NEVER had the need or desire to go below f2.8 equivalent aperture on MFT, and I could, I have multiple f0.95 lenses to choose from that only get used for low light video. For portraiture its 100% one of the Oly 1.2s stopped down to 1.4 for razor sharpness. I used to be a FF shooter, and thin DoF is the absolute last thing I'd ever say I miss about FF.
>>
>>3986817
Like, just as an addendum to this to drive home what a fucking retard you have to be to shit your diaper ove thin DoF, I defy you to fine one, ONE single motherfucking photo on the entire catalog as of the timestamps of this post that couldn't be done on MFT.

Moron.
>>
>>3986817
>>AI scaling also can't do shit about noise or subject isolation (DoF).
>Denoising is
Something that would benefit larger sensors even more.

>> Muh DoF
>This is the weakest argument of all
Why, because it's m43's weakest aspect?

>For portraiture its 100% one of the Oly 1.2s stopped down to 1.4 for razor sharpness.
>f/2.8 equiv
>no more bokeh than a FF zoom
>still softer than a FF zoom

>>3986818
>i dare you to find one photo that couldn't be shot on m43
>on a gear forum
Flickr lets you search by gear. Maybe go see what kind of photos can be produced with f/1.2 primes, or with something like the Sigma 135 f/1.8 ART.

If YOU don't need to produce photos like that, it's fine. What's not fine is pretending the ability doesn't matter because m43 can't do it. Dumbass.
>>
>>3986819
>Something that would benefit larger sensors even more.

See: >>3984163 dumbass

>Why, because it's m43's weakest aspect?

Lol, no you fucking retard, high iso noise is obviously it's weakest aspect, DoF is only something kitch imbeciles think is a problem.

>no more bokeh than a FF zoom
Correct (assuming top of the line zooms)

>still softer than a FF zoom
Incorrect, you're just retarded.

>Maybe go see what kind of photos can be produced

Oh I've seen them. I used to make them. I consider that my "me too" phase. I'm glad I don't make garbage like that anymore.

The only time I would ever use sub 2.8 aperture on FF is if I needed more light, not more DoF. Razor thin DoF portraiture is for fucking retards lol
>>
>>3986819
>>> Muh DoF
>>This is the weakest argument of all
>Why, because it's m43's weakest aspect?
what does it say about you when the most important part of your photos is the out-of-focus backgrounds?
>>
>>3986878
Mft users seem to talk about oof backgrounds a hell of a lot more than FF users.

Seems like they are the most important aspect to you, not us.

And every photo from mft users in this thread seems to be verging on a macro shot with a blown out background...

FF isn't limited to oof backgrounds, they always have the option to stop down to the same dof and noise as mft, but they also have the option for shallower dof and shooting with higher shutter speeds and in lower light at an equal noise level. Having more creative options is objectively a better thing.
>>
>>3986834
>See my false statements in a previous post hurr durr dumbass
No, I don't think so you arrogant, foul mouthed little brat.

>>Why, because it's m43's weakest aspect?
>Lol, no you fucking retard, high iso noise is obviously it's weakest aspect,
Oh, but I thought m43 had over 9,000 stops of IBIS and could be denoised by AI?

>DoF is only something kitch imbeciles think is a problem.
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE
Photographers have always sought the ability to throw the background out of focus, and have always debated the bokeh of different lenses. Because of all the R&D thrown into fast glass for 35mm format that format is now the sweet spot for DoF control and bokeh. That you don't care about this capability is fine, if you would just admit that it's your preference. What's not fine is acting like a little brat when other people point out that it is a desired capability and therefore a FF (and to some extent MF) advantage.

>>no more bokeh than a FF zoom
>Correct (assuming top of the line zooms)
Well that's the problem, isn't it? You need a set of very fast primes to match what a working FF photographer can achieve with pro zooms. And you simply cannot match what said photographer can do with his fast primes. Working FF wedding and event photographers accept f/2.8 as a compromise against the capabilities of a zoom, not as the ideal for DoF control. You get the compromise, but not the zoom.

>>still softer than a FF zoom
>Incorrect, you're just retarded.
Says the ignorant little brat who can't help but meltdown over facts. Larger formats are sharper ooc, all other factors being equal. A smaller format lens has to be dramatically sharper to close the gap. Do you think your best lens, even prime, is dramatically sharper than a pro 24-70? No, it is not.

>Razor thin DoF portraiture is for fucking retards lol
Only in your mind because you can't do it.
>>
>>3986878
>hurrrr i'll flip the script!
I never said the most important FF capability was DoF control. I said it was a desired capability. What does it say about you when you can't directly, honestly answer a question?

This is where m43 fans...or at least the retarded ones...get into trouble. Every format is a balance of compromises and capabilities. I don't shoot MF digital not because my FF kit is "JUST AS GOOD DUMBASS!!!". High resolution 35mm produces stunning images, but 100-150mp MF is undeniably better. The thing is, it's not so much better for MY needs and print sizes that I find the cost worth it. I can say that without insulting MF digital shooters or their systems. Without insisting that FF is the best for everyone. And without losing my mind if a MF shooter points out the benefits of a 150mp 645-sized sensor. I'm glad those systems exist even if I'm not shooting one.

The retarded m43 fans get into a defensive mode where they drone on and on about how m43 is the bestest EVAH! and everyone who doesn't shoot m43 is a fool. They verbally shit on any larger format advantages while hyping m43 advantages to the moon. They are not reasonable, but emotional. They can't just sit back and say "yeah, FF has those advantages but for my style I prefer the advantages of m43." That would be a perfectly acceptable statement. That wouldn't cause a fight.

The emotion comes from "small man syndrome" because in ILCs m43 is practically the smallest format. (Nikon 1 and Pentax Q are effectively dead.) It also comes from an unstated concern that m43 might become a casualty of a rapidly shrinking market. I hope that's never the case, that m43 continues to be produced and expanded. But the global market for ILCs has collapsed in the face of smartphones. So it's a concern.

tl;dr - Just say what you like about your system without shitting on everything else.
>>
>>3986911
>>3986916
>>3986917
jesus look how many people >>3986878 triggered
>>
>>3986911
>>3986916
>>3986917

This, everyone, is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. Typical behavior for him too, hes been doing this literally for fucking *years* now. Same story of getting btfo and throwing a tantrum. I remember back in 2018 when he would get btfo he would start samefagging as his opposition and arguing with himself for literally *days* just to try and bury the thread that embarrassed him. Still happens. This is the most pathetic man on this board by orders of magnitude. Imagine the life this loser must be living...
>>
>>3987007
Well, you dont have to imagine. That's moop, and he is doxed.

35 year old autistic britbong who lives off disability benefits.
>>
>>3987012
I was talking about the BTFO mft user, you retard
>>
>>3987012
Says the equally autistic man who blames every post that disagrees with him on the same boogeyman
>>
>>3982799
It doesn't suck. Probably the best crop sensor 16MP camera ever built. But meme tax fucks it over.
>>
File: 1594686828799.gif (355 KB, 500x491)
355 KB
355 KB GIF
>>3987018
Eh, sorry. I'm lost who is who in this washed up loser's olympics, but I still believe you are number one here :)
>>
>>3987012
Ah, I didn't know. I really wish he'd get banned. I can't believe the jannies here allow him to run roughshod over the board.
>>
>>3987007
>everyone on /p/ is the same person
>the post
>>
>>3987018
>>3987022
This is the moron samefagging now. I wrote >>3987007 and it's obvious I was talking about this idiot being a fucking retarded sperg and lying about FF performance being so superior over MFT.

Just *pathetic*
>>
>>3987026
pls kill yourself, loser.
>>
>>3987028
This is desperate and sad, leave your house instead of making yourself look like an idiot on a Bulgarian cumjar exchange forum.
>>
>>3987030
You will never have a full frame.
>>
>>3987033
wow, where did you learn F12 from? That's amazing!
>>
>>3987037
F12 in a mobile app?
This copium is heavy anon.
>>
>>3986807
>do you not realize that any AI process that benefits MFT also benefits every other sensor larger and smaller?
Not really. Diminishing returns are a thing.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMk9jFcnlA
>>
>>3987059
cope
>>
>>3987117
this guy is a fucking moron and doesn't even understand how speedboosters work lol. The idiot literally said a MFT sensor with a speedbooster is recording less light than a FF camera with the exact same lens in front of it, *in virtue of the sensor being smaller*. This is of course after his idiotic diatribe about how ISO "lies" because it's light per unit area, you know, EXPOSURE...

The absolute fucking retardation here is astounding. This has to be one of the most dedicated morons I've ever witnessed.
>>
>>3987164
Explain this then if aperture equivalence and iso equivalence aren't real
>>
>>3987191
There's a massive flaw in your diagram.
The 25mm lens doesn't have the same optical fov as the 50mm.

I could take an old Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Distagon and mount it on something like a Sony A7 whatever.
Then I could mount it on an Olympus whatever.
The optical fov would remain the same.
The thing is, the MFT sensor is still a CROP sensor... it gives you a cropped image. The Digital 35mm sensor won't give you that same cropped image.
Take a picture with the Digital 35mm camera, and then crop the image in half. You'd have a perceived fov closer to 50mm, while having the inherently deeper depth of field of a 25mm lens.
And don't tell me that cropping your Digital 35mm photo in post magically turns your aperture into f/5.6...

Yet, are you telling me that when I mount the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Distagon to the MFT body, it suddenly and magically starts having dramatically different optical qualities???
>>
>>3987198
>They don't have the same fov
Both images have identical fov

Oh anon.
>>
File: mft.png (105 KB, 1500x1500)
105 KB
105 KB PNG
>>3987205
i dont think you understand what hes saying, here is a Krita drawing to help.

This is unless Im missing part of this conversation
>>
>this much seethe over the worst camera brand to grace the shelves of a Yodobashi Camera
oy vey
>>
>>3987236
If both have the same vertical and horizontal angle, then they both have the same fov and the same perspective when shot from the same position.

Focal length of a lens does not inherently imply any fov on its own. You need to know the sensor size too.

Image quality\noise and image ratio aside, 25mm f2 on mft is identical to 50mm f4 on full frame, and if you shoot both from the same position they will produce identical images.
>>
>>3987244
>25mm f2 on mft is identical to 50mm f4 on full frame
yes, but thats not what he's saying. i think he's assuming equivalencies or something.

also the image wont look the same because sensor tech among other things but thats a storyfor another arguement
>>
>>3987247
That is what he's saying, 25mm f2 is equivalent to 50mm f4 at the reference 135 format.

>Sensor tech
Learn to read you fucking retard, when I said "image quality\noise aside" what the fuck did you think I meant.

Sensorlets have equivalent brain function to an inbred downy.
>>
>>3987250
>Learn to read you fucking retard
and discarded. Come back when youre ready for a mature conversation
>>
>>3987254
>wahhhh the big bad man pointed out that i couldn't make it through 3 sentences without madposting >:(

sorry baby, who's not ready for a mature conversation?
>>
>>3987236
That's what I mean.
If we got a Digital 35mm camera with the same kind of pixel density of MFT, let's say... a 100mp sensor, you took a picture with 25mm f/2.8 lens wide open and then in post, you cropped it to half the image size, would you suffer from the same issues, as the anon claims?

And you can take this the opposite direction too.
If you took a 25mm f/2.8 and used it with some kind of medium format (assuming no vignetting occurred), what would the quality, perceived fov, DoF and noise look like?

From my understanding of everything going on in this conversation of nothing, the only thing you'd experience with having larger or smaller sensor formats would just as easily be seen with film formats. If you are enlarge something smaller, you'll end up making things like lens softness, grain, noise or optical aberrations look bigger. If you enlarge something bigger, then you're not making those things be magnified as much.
No one complains that Kodak Ektar 100 looks grainer as 135 film than it does on 120 film.
But take something like Ilford Delta 400, and the grain does look bigger when enlarging a 135 film frame.

I think the big problem hurting mft is the sensor technology. No dual gain sensors in photo centric cameras. No backside illuminated sensors.
Indeed, everything seems to be the same reused Sony 20mp sensor from the early 2010s.
We know that the GH6 will have some new sensor in it... but the specs aren't publicly available.
There's speculation over a Sony sensor that's MFT, 20mp, BSI, stacked and features a global electronic shutter. But will that actually appear in a camera body?
>>
>>3987277
film is exactly the same, halve the film size and you halve the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range drops by 1 stop.

and medium format is much less grainy, and has much higher resolution than 135, regardless of emulsion. That's why people not only shoot medium format, but large format too.
>>
>>3987191
There's no such thing as ISO equivalence, retard. And you didn't even address what I said about the retard in the video not even understanding how speedbooster works and saying something as fucking idiotic as a crop sensor behind a speedbooster gathers less total light than a larger sensor wholly in virtue of having a smaller area. That's not just a minor misunderstanding, that is a wholesale fundamental lack of understanding what the fuck hes talking about. Its embarrassing that we even have to put up with you on this board, year after year
>>
>>3987293
>There's no such thing as iso equivalence
Oh, so iso 6400 looks the same on mft as it does on FF?
>He said X about speedboosters
No he didn't, did you not even notice the difference in shutter speed?
>Wahhh I hate you because you make me look stupid and make me feel insecure about being poor
That sounds like a you problem. Oh, and sentences are supposed to end with full stops. ;)
>>
>>3987297
>Oh, so iso 6400 looks the same on mft as it does on FF?
Assuming identical Lmm^2 (i.e. EXPOSURE), and accounting for variance in sensor technology itself, yes. How the fuck is that even a question in your mind?!
>>
>>3987303
Oh, also you have to account for the fact that ISO itself is not a scientific measurement and manufacturers can fudge it within a pretty wide range. However this doesn't change the fact that *hypothetically* if you had identical sensors the ISO would be the same between them for the same exposure per mm sq.

You know how you can prove this really easily? BY CROPPING A FULL FRAME IMAGE BY 2x, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. DID THE NOISE CHANGE?! NO, MORON!
>>
>>3987022
It nevere stopped being funny, how much of a looser moop really is
>>
>>3987310
is moop the idiot in the youtube video that was posted about ISO equivalence? I'm really struggling to understand how the fuck someone can be so delusional about something to trivial that they obsessively post about it for fucking YEARS...
>>
>>3987311
No, he is the idiot who for years baits people in sensor size discussion. Because he cant do anything else in his pathetic life
>>
>>3987315
idk, I'm skeptical there even is a "moop", my theory has always been that it's Ken Wheeler. I'm still not convinced it isn't Ken. He *definitely* posts here, a lot, and I'm pretty sure "moop" might just be a fake alter ego of Ken to misdirect people who figured out it was him.

I'm personally sure it's Ken because back in 2018 I blew him the fuck out in one of those idiotic equivalence discussions and he started samefagging the thread into oblivion and then Ken made a video bashing MFT the very same day where he used some *exact phrases* he used in the thread, too.

So in my mind one of two things is true: Either Ken is moop, or we have two insanely obsessive losers who shitpost for years and years about sensor equivalence and still get it wrong. But I can assure you, 100% Ken Wheeler is on here and samefags a thread to oblivion like a child when he gets BTFO, and can't help using the same idoms and phrases he uses in his videos when he argues. It's indisputable.
>>
>>3987305
>BY CROPPING A FULL FRAME IMAGE BY 2x, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. DID THE NOISE CHANGE?! NO, MORON!
The SNR absolutely changed and the image will have more noise to the human eye for any given enlargement.
>>
>>3987305
SNR is a measurement of the total signal, ie, the total photo. So yes, cutting an image in half and viewing it at the same size it will definitely have worse SNR.
>>
>>3987319
Ken is in the "sensor size doesn't matter" camp, he's on your team, lmao.
>>
>>3987333
>>3987340

How the fuck do you not realize how stupid what you just said is...

>>3987345
lol, bullshit. when it comes to MFT, sensor size matters. When it comes to APS-C, he's willing to argue it's not much of a compromise. He has constantly shilled against MFT on his channel, he calls it a "baby dick sensor" routinely, even though it's only marginally smaller than APS-C. He 100% shitposts against MFT here, for years now, often with the same language as in his videos.
>>
>>3987279
>film
>noise
Anon... I don't know how to explain this.
Film isn't electronic...
>dynamic range
Anon... It's film. Exposure latitude is determined by emulsion, and how you expose the film.
You can't recover shadows in film like in digital raw.
Have you ever actually shot film?
>>
>>3987408
SNR is used in any input-output system
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio_(imaging)
>The sensitivity of a (digital or film) imaging system is typically described in the terms of the signal level that yields a threshold level of SNR.

>you can't recover shadows
Have you ever heard of dodging and burning anon? or the extreme latitude in the highlights of negative film?

No, because you've never shot film.

And the dynamic range is still a function of SNR, the higher the SNR, the higher the dynamic range, the larger the film, the greater the SNR.
>>
>>3987397
>How the fuck do you not realize how stupid what you just said is...
How do YOU not realize how fucking stupid you sound when you claim that cropping a sensor has no impact on SNR?
>>
>>3987408
>>film
>>noise
>Anon... I don't know how to explain this.
>Film isn't electronic...
>hurr durr i don't know what grain is derp derp derp

>You can't recover shadows in film like in digital raw.
You can recover shadow detail, in the darkroom no less, though not to the same degree as on digital. Conversely you can recover more highlight detail on film than on digital. It's interesting as to why that is, but at the end of the day film has DR just like digital. And yes, the larger the film, the better the SNR, the greater the DR.
>>
>>3987435
Because increasing the physical dimensions of an image isn't increasing the signal nor the noise you absolute fucking retard.
>>
>>3987451
you're wrong, idiot, you're not "increasing the physical dimensions of an image", you're increasing the signal, you know, half the namesake of signal to noise ratio.

This isn't rocket science dumbass.
>>
>>3987452
lol, you have to be trolling, there's no way anyone is this fucking retarded...
>>
>>3987452
If you move your eyes closer to an image did you change the SNR? LOL, you have to be the dumbest fucking person on the board, by far. No one is more fucking braindead than you are. No one.
>>
>>3987465
Can you read a page of a book from 20 feet away? No, because you're brain isn't receiving enough signal about the page. How about from 2 feet in almost pitch black? Hmmm, are you seeing a pattern yet?
>>
>>3987451
>increasing light captured does not increase the S in SNR
>t. Brainlet

>>3987514
BTFO I was going to use the same example.
>>
I love sensorlet threads, seeing all the insane mental gymnastics from them only to get absolutely destroyed in every single one of their desperate attempts at gotchas.
>>
>>3981810
Just build the body fully out of metal so its it's own heatsink.
>>
>>3984062
Just use a denoising software my dude, I care no longer about noise but about getting the shot even at 6400 ISO on my Olympus.

I find DxO works better than Topaz but both are pretty good at removing and fixing noise from raw pictures.
>>
>>3987607
>increasing light captured does not increase the S in SNR
he didin't say the light would be increased. I can't believe how stupid you FF guys are when it comes to not understanding that cutting an image in half or quarters does not affect SNR. It's honestly one of the most mind boggling forms of stupidity I've ever encountered.
>>
>>3987514
>Can you read a page of a book from 20 feet away? No, because you're brain isn't receiving enough signal about the page. How about from 2 feet in almost pitch black? Hmmm, are you seeing a pattern yet?


Moving closer to the book obviously increases the level of signal of the book itself, not necessarily improving the SNR of the shot. I'm not sure what your point is.
>>
>>3987638
FF people seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics:
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/128253/is-snr-dependent-on-unit-area-per-pixel

SNR is not simply 'total light gathered'. A 1/4th sized sensor taking a 1/4th sized image produces an image of equal quality to a sensor 4x the size taking an image 4x the size. In other words, you can (theoretically) perfectly reproduce a FF shot and it's SNR by taking four M43 shots, one for each quadrant of the FF shot.

Point being, quality per unit area is identical.
>>
>>3988226
>For the same quality on MFT you just need to take 4 photos

Yes, because it has 1/4 the SNR, as it gathers 1/4 the light.

FF users aren't misunderstanding this at all.

>>3988225
>You're just increasing the signal, not increasing the signal to noise ratio

You can't be this thick, if you increase the signal, and noise remains the same, as noise is fixed at each iso level on a given size sensor, then obviously you increase the snr.

>>3988221
You're wrong, that's the real mind bogglingly stupid thing, is that no matter how many different ways it's dumbed down for you, you still don't get it.

You really are the reason that an IQ of 100 is the average.
>>
>>3988232
>Yes, because it has 1/4 the SNR, as it gathers 1/4 the light.
No, the SNR is the same, as the luminuous flux density was the same on the surface of both sensors. It had a smaller area, so gathered proportionately less light.

>You're just increasing the signal, not increasing the signal to noise ratio
>You can't be this thick,
Not at all what I said, I said increasing signal _of the book_. No one is asking about signals from books.


>You're wrong, that's the real mind bogglingly stupid thing, is that no matter how many different ways it's dumbed down for you, you still don't get it.
EVERY single source I've found and community I've asked 100% agrees with my understanding of the physics here, and I've pointed out several contradictions that thinking 'total light determines SNR' leads to.

I mean seriously ask yourself - why would blocking out 3/4s of your sensor lead to the remaining 1/4th looking any worse? It would look exactly the same. It's amazing you think otherwise.
>>
File: Untitled-1.jpg (1.26 MB, 1920x2160)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3988239
Is the top or bottom image higher quality?
>>
>>3988250
This perfectly illustrates your poor reading comprehension and misunderstanding of the scenario. I have NEVER stated that when shooting equal images, the sensor that has absorbed less light will have the same SNR. You are an idiot for thinking so. What I have repeatedly stated is that a M43 sensor (or a FF sensor with 3/4ths blocked out) should theoretically be capable of producing pic rel, and that this should theoretically have the same SNR as the remainder of the image, because the luminuous flux density or signal gathered in this region of the photo is the same regardless of sensor size.

Your retarded argument is that somehow magically the M43 sensor is incapable of achieving this, and that the irrelevant 3/4ths of the FF sensor somehow make this 1/4th region superior.
>>
In other words, if a FF shot the whole frame, and the M43 the rectangle in the upper right quadrant, the SNR between the two images should (theoretically) be identical and thinking otherwise exposes you as a massive brainlet.
>>
>between the two images
by this i mean the enclosed rectangle, when comparing the cropped FF shot to the M43 shot. Not comparing the whole FF image to the M43 image.

I am only using M43 and FF because they have nice proportions between each other, one being 4x the size of the other so looking at quadrants is easy.
>>
>>3988275
>>3988276
>Falls back to argument that if you remove 3\4 of the signal from FF then it has the same snr as mft, because mft gathers 1\4 as much light.

Yes anon, for like the 5th time, this is correct.

If this is your only point, why have you continued to come back and chimp out in this thread saying the 2 have the same SNR? Are you a downy or something?
>>
>>3988317
Another anon insists it's incorrect
>>
And I'm not 'falling back on it', that's all I've been discussing. I'm not trying to trick anyone
>>
The thing is, some retard on here thinks more photons = better SNR, and the argument above proves that wrong
>>
And my point, which he (you, I presume), is that SNR is then a function of photon density, not simply total photon count.
>>
>>3988338
>Snr is due to photon density
Then why do larger sensors have a greater dynamic range?

>>3988319
Who?
>>
>>3988364
>then why
two words: larger pickels. interestingly, you hate this argument despite it being logically identical to your bigger sensor = more photons argument.

>Who?
You presumably, but how the fuck should I know?
>>
On pixel size and dynamic range:
https://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
>>
I don't understand how you can sanely disagree that if you dilute the same amount of photons over a larger area, with equal pixel sizing, your SNR will decrease. That's what your doing when objecting to photon density being relevant to SNR. Each pixel will then get less light on average, so the SNR will be worse.
>>
>>3988573
>larger pixels
Argument doesn't hold up, sony a7riv has better DR than A7S iii, and a stop better than any 24mp APS-C, 2 stops better than any MFT.

>You

Oh, so you couldn't actually quote anyone that you were referring to, lmao. stay mad poor lad.
>>
>>3988613
>Oh, so you couldn't actually quote anyone that you were referring to, lmao. stay mad poor lad.
There's plenty of examples. Mostly in my other thread dedicated to the matter though. But, at any rate, you're still disagreeing with me, so this conversation itself serves as an example. You always fall back to 'lol we agREEE' when corned it seems.

If denying the larger pixels argument, you're blatantly denying reality, so any further discussion is pointless. There's countless sources confirming this is the case, and it's just logical as well (you use the same logic in fact when arguing for bigger sensors). Do any amount of research to confirm this.

I can't speak to why, on an implementation level, the examples you've presented don't follow this pattern. They're likely different technologies on the whole though, either sensor technology or elsewhere.
>>
OK, found an implementation detail:
>the'15 stops of DR' figure is advertising is with downscaled, 8MP images
>>
And the high ISO performance is much better on the A7S III.
>>
>>3989073
>every different size of sensor uses a different level of technology, that's why bigger sensors have a greater dynamic range!

Then why do calculated "ideal" sensors follow the same pattern?

>I have examples, they're everywhere, no I can't give a single example

not a single one?

>Do research

I have, it all agrees with me, both in theory and in practice.

>You deny reality

Ok hun.
>>
File: lmfao.jpg (398 KB, 1023x1017)
398 KB
398 KB JPG
>>3989075
odd how the a7riv has the easiest to read text in this example, and very similar noise to the a7siii, and they're both better than aps-c and mft.





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.