[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 70 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]


Micro 4/3 or fullframe? What's your poison?
>>
I have and use FF and APSC.
>>
>>4016398
I use m4/3 because lens are smaller and less heavier to carry since i walk a lot with my stuff.
>>
I went with apsc after doing a lot of comparisons, weighting pros and cons and considering what would be best for me. I'm still very happy with my choice, it's incredible how much power they managed to cram into such a small sensor
>>
File: DC-G9.jpg (133 KB, 1280x720)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
1/2
>>4016398
I am a micro 4/3 guy and I'll give you an honest opinion. My stance is that Full Frame is an amazing technology, but it's just impractical for 90% of us.

>Size & weight
The size and weight of FF lenses will take a toll on you in any kind of full-time work environment, particularly for event and wildlife shooters. This should be one of the primary concerns as a professional. If you have no portability, you're going to fatigue quickly and not perform your best. Youre going to miss shots, get the shakes and you're not going to enjoy shooting as much as you could be.

>Low light
FF excels in low light, but to say that is it's strength is not accurate. Any camera given adequate exposure time can produce stunning low light images. You can certainly do astrophotography with an m43 and expose the milky way to a satisfactory degree with acceptable noise. Where FF's true strength lies is capturing moving subjects in low light. You cannot leverage a longer exposure time against an m43's smaller sensor size when your subjects are moving.

>Megapixels
20mp is more than adequate for most people's needs, including clients. When you are sending a set to a newly wed couple and the size is multiple gigabytes, do you think they're going to appreciate it? They're going to end up resizing themselves or asking you to do it for them. Clients don't want large file sizes.

Where you'll require more is in billboard and commercial product photography. People end up using extra pixels to compensate for poor framing, being able to merely crop out composition mistakes made when shooting. This is a crutch and will hinder your development as a photographer.

>Depth of field
FF can produce a more pronounced bokeh, but this does not translate into a better performing system. This is a stylistic choice and is totally subjective. I like more realistic, subtle bokeh because that's closer to what our eyes do. If you like cream, that's your preference.
>>
File: EM1MKII.jpg (301 KB, 2000x1818)
301 KB
301 KB JPG
2/2
>>4016409
One more thing I'd like to bring up. It's a stylistic subjective choice, but I like grain. The war on noise is completely unfounded and people just accept that noise is something you don't want. I find m4/3 systems look a lot like film and I like that. People forget that older systems were grainy. There's nothing wrong with that. A super sharp, crystal clear image feels synthetic to me. It doesnt look real. There is substance to noise. Texture and character. Reality.

Extra pixels and depth of field and low noise is not what photography is about. It's about getting the shot. I can opt for a system that makes that easier. Your goal as a photographer should be to get photos as close to what you want as possible, straight out of the camera. This requires mastering your chosen system. If you rely heavily on post to fix mistakes and bring the out best in your photos, you're not a photographer at that point, you're a photo editor.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>4016410
>Extra pixels and depth of field and low noise is not what photography is about.
Depends on your goals.
>>
>>4016398
35mm, because the most important part of my photos is the out-of-focus background.
>>
>>4016398
I care more about how the subject looks, when all bokeh looks the same it loses its appeal
>>
s35
>>
>>4016398
I started APSC then had 6x7cm and then went MFT (still had 6x7 too) then went FF (Sagano still had 6x7) and never looked back, eventually sold the 6x7, and just recently upgraded my FF body to a much more modern one and bought some new lenses. Pretty happy.
>>
Full Frame, cause I like DSLRS. I found mirrorless and m43s to be astonishingly boring when I was shooting with them for like 6 months, and immidately switched back to a full frame. Will continue buying full frame until DSLRs are reaching the equiv. of film prices for film photography.
>>
>>4016398
i want to fuck it
>>
>>4016398
I've owned interchangeable 1", m43, APS-C, FF, and GFX cameras. I think APS-C/FF (or APS-C/m43 for video) is the sweet spot in terms of size, performance, lens options, etc, but all of them had their pros and cons. I shot like 90% with FF from like 2010-2016, and then shot like 90% APS-C from 2016-2020. Now currently own APS-C, FF, GFX, and use them like 60%, 30%, 10% of the time respectively.

The biggest limitations I found with smaller sensor cameras were mostly with resolution (I do like to print large) and dynamic range, but those are both things that continue to improve over time. ISO performance has also improved, but it has been "good enough" for me for a while now. The cropping of larger format lenses is annoying, but it's also neat to get a few different FoV out of a single lens when shooting with multiple formats.

Lenses + technique/handling + processing are just so much more important to me than sensor size for getting the images I want.
>>
>>4016485
>>4016505
You do realize the same lenses and applications apply to photography as well, right? Right...?

I cannot actually understand how stupid someone can be to read in between the lines to assume that cine lenses and still lenses do the same job on both m43 and SLR purposes. You're a fucking moron and I hope you seriously do not interact with people outside of here.
>>
File: smugkinglet.jpg (1.04 MB, 1600x1200)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
neither bb

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern812
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)630 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2022:04:11 13:08:36
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length420.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4016505
In the same way that +FF can be overkill for stills for some people, the more video dedicated m43 cams can also be overkill. I'm being practical.

Like I would 100% take an X-T4 (or upcoming X-H2) for video over most of Olympus offering (duh). Obviously a GH6 or BMPCC would be be better yet, but also likely overkill for a lot of people. Not to mention the weird niche options like an EOS M for RAW video under $200.

Cine lens doesn't necessarily mean OP meant video only. I'm not the only one this thread replying similarly, sorry for not being as autistic as you. Blame OP for not specifying.
>>
If I wanted something small I'd get something actually small, like a GR. General purpose is full frame all day long. 24, 45, 90 and a 28-75 fast zoom. The dynamic range, ISO performance, ability to crop, depth of field, body selection and the massive library of used gear make it a no brainer for me.
>>
File: IMG_5160.jpg (116 KB, 600x450)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>4016398
Im an ausfag and just bought a G9 off amazon on sale. I got it for the equivalent of $750usd and the panny 12-35 f2.8 for about $670usd. Pretty happy with that.

Used aside, show me a better setup you can get for stills and video under $1500.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4016409
>Size & weight
For a given lens focal length and aperture equivalence, full frame is lighter and smaller for 99% of lenses.

>Stars don't move
Yes they do, an mft pic of the milky way will have 2 stops worse noise than FF, and FF still struggles even with an f1.4 lens.

>20mp is enough resolution
Modern camera resolution is 95%+ limited by the lens, not the mp count, and a lens on a sensor 1\4 the size needs 4x the resolving power to compare.

>Dof
FF is more versatile, being able to get much more shallow dof, but still able to stop down. A single human eye is about a 35mm f2 equivalent, there is no 17mm f1 mft lens. Your eye has lots of bokeh, it's just impossible to focus on, be more conscious of your peripheral vision.

>>4016410
>I like grain
That's heavy cope. And if you really do, you can add it in post to a clean image. And no, older systems weren't grainy, any photographer that did more than holiday snaps would buy into medium format film systems, with a iso 100-400 film these are arguably just as clean as any full frame digital shot.

No, reality doesn't have grain or noise.

>Editing isn't photography
Yes it is, always has been, always will be.
You're coping because you're a talentless hack that doesn't have the patience to actually learn anything. You took up photography as you thought it was little more than clicking a button, and you're mad it actually takes practice and talent that you don't have.
>>
FF isn't that big, lads....

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 12 Pro
Camera Software15.4.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:04:07 10:30:15
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness1.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length6.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: P4300575.jpg (2.87 MB, 3800x2533)
2.87 MB
2.87 MB JPG
I used to use M43 and then I took this mess and sold the lot to move to Fujifilm.
That is not added grain...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareVersion 3.1
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2019:04:30 13:30:06
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1000
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3800
Image Height2533
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: imgp5526_v2.jpg (214 KB, 950x633)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
I've only taken pictures with Pentax 35mm film and APS-C digital cameras. I think both are great, can't comment about other formats/systems

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX Corporation
Camera ModelPENTAX K10D
Camera SoftwareK10D Ver 1.31
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width950
Image Height633
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:08:23 15:10:27
Exposure Time1/1000 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias-2 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length55.00 mm
Image Width950
Image Height633
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>4016818
same grain as 400 speed film, you'd have autistic seizures over seeing grain in film shots for sure
>>
>>4016841
Yea, it's 2022 not 1995 after all....

I shoot film but would never add grain to digital images.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1086
Image Height724
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 903x576x2.jpg (354 KB, 1806x1152)
354 KB
354 KB JPG
>>4016815
>For a given lens focal length and aperture equivalence
And why would you compare lenses at their base mm equivalence? a 12mm on mft is pretty much 24mm FF. Some random 24mm mft could be heavier than some random 24mm FF. So what. They wont produce the same shot so they might as well be different lenses. This especially applies to telephoto. You cant compare them like that. If you want a 24mm shot, youd have a 12 on mft.

>an mft pic of the milky way will have 2 stops worse noise than FF
Yeah I said you can expose the milky way to a satisfactory degree with acceptable noise. What is satisfactory and how much noise is acceptable is dependent on you. Youve got about 2 minutes before you get star trails unless you live around the poles I believe. Thats enough for a decent pic. If youre into astro though, nothing beats larger sensors.

>Your eye has lots of bokeh
Your eyes must be amazing because mine look like f4 max in peripheral. Faster lenses look like a stylistic choice to me, but that's okay, if f2 looks normal to you, that's what you should go for. You can get fast 1.2s and 1.4s on mft that look pretty much the same as f2 equivalent.

>any photographer that did more than holiday snaps would buy into medium format
You're right about medium format but that's beside the point. All my favorite film pictures were taken on little pens and mjus and k1000's and that look is what most people associate with film photography. The majority of film photos in existence were not taken on big professional cameras and they are noisy but that's okay. That's one of the things that gives them character. I wont abandon that opinion just because its cool to hate what hipsters flock to.

I dont know what you're on about editing, but youre clearly baiting at this point. I just refuted your points so someone doesnt actually think there's any credible opinions in your post other than the fact that FF is more versatile. And I should think so for all the extra money and weight.
>>
I shoot APSC because it was what I could afford, but a higher megapixel full frame would have several clear advantages and not lose any reach when needed for wildlife/macro. Feels like I'm sorta stuck in a middle zone with my crop sensor.
>>
>>4016869
>A 12mm mft lens is 24mm on FF
Yes babe, what did you think I meant when I said focal length equivalence?

>You can do 2 minute shots
Lmfao, no, 500\equivalent focal length is the standard rule of thumb, that puts you at a maximum of 30 seconds with an ultra wide lens. Just 10 seconds with a 50mm.

>Stars move less if you're at the poles.
No, you're still looking at the same stars going the exact same relative speed. If you point your camera at a pole point out in space, like the north star, then that will have less pronounced movement. The milky way is wayyyyy off axis though.

>My eyes look f4
How bright is your area? What reference are you using? My figures based off basic math, if yours is wildly different, go see an optician

>F2.4 and f2.8 equivalents look the same as f2
Lol no
And also, there's one f1.2, it's a 90mm equivalent, so ~5s max exposure time and shit framing for astro. There's really no viable fast wide or ultra wide lenses. Also full frame f1.2 lenses are a fairly similar price.

>But I like bad quality 35mm photos due to the nostalgia factor

No one cares about your subjective zoomer opinions. Proper photographers in the vast majority used medium format, like how modern pros use full frame+ 99% of the time.

>FF is heavier and costs more
Show me an mft setup with lenses equivalent to a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f2.8 and 85mm f2.8 that's lighter or cheaper than I can do on full frame. Pro tip, you can't.

>How dare you say editing is intrinsic to the art of photography

Stay mad or actually learn something you talentless fuck.
>>
>>4016398
>micro 4/3
Give me a single fucking reason for this. And make that a real reason i stead of "durr lens less heavy, camera less heavy"
>>
>>4016409
>any camera given adequate exposure time
Yeah, and that also goes for shooting fast subjects or long distance moving subjects. Can't give any of those more time or you end up with blurry shit. The only supposed advantage you've mentioned is negligible if you have right physique.
>>
>>4016898
What's the point in having a "fast lens" (even though there's more f1.2 and f1.4 full frame lenses by a VAST margin) when your sensor is 2 stops slower?

If I take a 40mm f2.8 on full frame at iso 3200, it will look the same in regards to fov, dof and noise as a 20mm f1.4 lens at iso 800 on mft. But the full frame lens will be much smaller, lighter and achieve a much higher resolution across the image. Not to mention you've got zero answer for any lens faster than that.
>>
wow, this whole thread really do be a gallery of how dumb mft users are
>>
>>4016907
Across the photo mft has 4 times worse signal to noise ratio as full frame (well, slightly worse than this as mft falls behind on new tech like bsi and stacked sensors).

4 times worse SNR is the same as raising iso by 2 stops. This is why mft tends to look as bad for noise as a FF shot with 2 stops higher iso.

These are facts. Claiming anything else is cope and makes you look like an absolute fucking retard. You have outed yourself either as someone just ignorant to the basics and shouldn't be giving advice to anyone, or as a disingenuous insecure loser that lives in a fantasy land; your choice.
>>
>>4016916
>But I took photos yesterday :'(

That doesn't refute a single thing I said

Well done on the L bud
>>
File: Capture.png (1.83 MB, 1010x1024)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB PNG
>>4016916
lol
>>
>>4016928
>i have paying clients
>i shoot photos with an mft camera

pick one
>>
As if wedding photography is something to be proud to do.
Good call though. If you get results then good for you. This gearbaiting is fucking ridiculous.
>>
>>4016933
Don't get me wrong, I shoot weddings with APS-C (+FF/GFX), and wouldn't necessarily have a problem with m43 either. I've even had good outdoor sessions with my Nikon 1" back in the day. I wouldn't consider that pixelpeeping though, nor "imageboard theorycrafting". I guess we just have clients with different quality standards.

>>4016907
This is just a dumb take.
>>
>>4016949
You do know just because I can take 100MP, doesn't mean that's what the clients receive?

I personally like to spend time with my clients the whole day (and in some cases across multiple days), and don't book anything under 4hrs because of that, most are 8-10hrs per wedding. Again, just sounds like you have clients with different standards, nothing wrong with that.

>GH6 so good no need for FF
Is just a dogshit take.
>>
>>4016938
>>4016939
lol wedding photos are so vapid and pointless. I try to create art, not mementos.
>>
File: _1000448.jpg (194 KB, 1600x1066)
194 KB
194 KB JPG
ITT:
>Working professionals making compelling arguments for micro four thirds
>Spastic retards mouthing off about their full frame systems
>Apsc fence sitters watching on in disgust

Business as usual then

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1600
Image Height1066
>>
>>4016954
Yup, I do photo jobs for fun, not work. Benefit of being semi-retired. I can be pickier about the projects and clients I take on. Surprised you didn't know that cropping and resizing are different things, but that explains a lot.

>Working professionals making compelling arguments for micro four thirds
To be fair, I even said I'd be find using m43. Denying the technological differences across formats is retarded. The differences might not matter for a given scenario, but they do exist.
>>
>>4016994
Thanks I will! There's more benefits to a GFX than just 100MP, and more benefit to having extra resolution beyond what you deliver at than just cropping. Maybe you'll learn about all that someday! Best wishes with your wedding work!
>>
>>4016398
Micro because I shoot a lot of video and panny has the best stabilization. I dont like blurry backgrounds because Im trying to film stuff around me so I dont care about the auto focus.

>>4016815
>>4016869
>>4016885
>>4016897
>>4016898
>>4016901
>>4016904
>>4016907
>>4016914
>>4016916
>>4016925
>>4016928
>>4016929
>>4016931
>>4016933
>>4016937
>>4016938
>>4016939
>>4016942
>>4016949
>>4016950
>>4016954
>>4016970
>>4016973
>>4016986
>>4016990
>>4016994
>>4016996
>>4017000

OP asked a simple question and all you faggots do is argue over bullshit
>>
>>4016398
mft, because "the one you have with you" and my oly lives in by backback, my 5D lived in my wardrobe.
>>
>>4017108
that sounds more like a you problem than a system problem
>>
>>4017227
I guess "my system should fit my life" is technically a me problem, but I'm the one paying for the camera so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>>4016815
>countering size and weight with muh equivalences
>countering good enough resolution with muh lens limit
>countering dof with muh human eye
that's a lot of cope. also:
>doesn't know m43 has much less thermal noise than ff during long exposures
>>
>>4016885
>No, you're still looking at the same stars going the exact same relative speed.
it's not the stars that move.
>>
>>4016398
APS-C

if you use m43 then you're a poor boy and should just save up for a DSLR instead, and if you use full frame then why are you in this thread? You're wasting your life, you already have a camera!
>>
>>4016409
>weak little basedboy hands can't handle holding 5 pounds while looking at some birds

also bigger sensors let you capture wider shots and have more detailed images. I get that "20mp is enough", but you're not going to get 20mp on most m43 cameras.

APS-C is simply the best choice all around unless you NEED FF
>>
>>4017646
Relative speed anon, everything is moving. Why are mft users so thick.

>>4017644
>How dare you have reasons I can't argue against
>Hey but, err, mft has less thermal noise

Wow, thermal noise which even at its worse is completely insignificant to the 2 stops worse noise on mft. Thermal noise doesn't even get to 1\8 of a stop on any modern FF camera.

>>4019803
>Apsc is the best except for full frame which is better
??? Don't say you're still too poor to get a FF camera anon, they're so cheap now?!
>>
They are tools for different things.
If you gonna print for magazines, large posters, any sort of media and is working in a studio, full frame all the way or even medium/large format.
If you need to carry your camera around etc (think urban photography, travel or wildlife) the size of focal lengths required to deliver without vignetting make the lenses too big and a pain in the ass to carry, so it makes no sense.

It’s a tool, what matters is the photographer behind.
>>
File: 12-45mm.jpg (313 KB, 1600x1857)
313 KB
313 KB JPG
>>4019803
My em5mk3, 12-45 f4 pro, Sirui 3T-35K tripod and an extra battery weighs in at 960 grams total. 960 fucking grams dude. Oh it's not a lot you think. 100g here, 200g there. Before you know it, you're a kilo overweight. Across a serious hike, youve just increased your energy and water requirements while at the same time consuming more of your total weight ration.

That said, I'd love a little xt4 and a 100-400 for that sweet 240fps. Who tf shoots wildlife stills anymore, I dont know.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M1X
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
PhotographerBRUCE KITE
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5056
Image Height3792
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2020:02:11 14:15:48
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.72 m
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5056
Image Height3792
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4016398
APS-C. I could get a FF but slightly better IQ and low light performance would not make my snaps any less boring.
I have not tried Micro 4/3 but I have used a (not micro) 4/3 DSLR at bronze age and did not like it, mostly because 2x crop optical finder than anything else.
>>
>>4019894
And don’t forget that you got some serious technology in your little camera. It always feels like Olympus think they have to make up for the small sensor so they throw in all their space age computing and stabilizing gadgets.
>>
>>4016398
Aps-c because it's right in the middle
>>
>>4016398
the main reason people prefer full frame is because it's called "full frame". If your work genuinely requires higher megapixel count and depth of field, you would use medium format. If it doesn't, APS-C and MFT (if it weren't dead as a platform) is more practical.
>>
>>4016817
This board is full of noodle arm faggots who need to save every gram if they ever hope to drag a camera up to their eye
>>
>>4021557
Post physique
>>
i fucks with full frame only
>>
>another gearfag thread about hypotheticals and no photos
Reminder it is better to master the one you have with you rather than get caught up in specs and not taking photos
>>
>>4016398
half-frame 35mm and 6x7 medium format
>>
>>4016410
There's nothing wrong with ISO noise but it should be added as a creative choice, not enabled by default
>>
>>4023587
my nigga
>>
>>4016409
>>Size & weight
Unironically do you even lift?

>>Low light
>FF excels in low light, but to say that is it's strength is not accurate. Any camera given adequate exposure time can produce stunning low light images.
Exposure time is the limiting factor in many scenarios though, isn't it?

>You can certainly do astrophotography with an m43 and expose the milky way to a satisfactory degree with acceptable noise.
Fast prime FF Milky Way shots are vastly superior to any smaller format. You do not capture any where near the IQ or detail with slower systems. It's one of the main reasons I finally went FF. If you're going to do sky-only on a tracking mount, sure, you can use anything because the tracking lets you extend exposure time. But for astro-landscape FF with f/1.4 or faster glass is a necessity.

>>Megapixels
>20mp is more than adequate for most people's needs, including clients.
After shooting 50mp FF I never want to go back.

>When you are sending a set to a newly wed couple and the size is multiple gigabytes, do you think they're going to appreciate it?
First wedding I shot on high resolution FF convinced me I had made the right choice. Large print of the couple on the dance floor at ISO 1600 was clean as fuck and had the detail of MF 6x7 film despite being cropped down to ~33mp. The shallow DoF was also critical to the shot. They never asked for the full RAW file, but they sure as hell liked the print.

>Where you'll require more is in billboard and commercial product photography.
Billboards can get by with shit resolution because you view them at distance. Commercial product photography is demanding.

>>Depth of field
>FF can produce a more pronounced bokeh, but this does not translate into a better performing system.
A system with more options is a better system.
>>
>>4016410
>The war on noise is completely unfounded and people just accept that noise is something you don't want. I find m4/3 systems look a lot like film and I like that.
Digital noise looks nothing like film grain. Digital noise is always a negative, as is color film grain. B&W film grain is the only form of noise that has any "style" to it.

>Extra pixels and depth of field and low noise is not what photography is about.
If that's the case shoot an Apple QuickTake from 1994.
>>
>>4016398
FF all the way.
>>
File: 1620107206007.png (279 KB, 854x346)
279 KB
279 KB PNG
>>
>>4023686
>A system with more options is a better system.
only if you need those options.
>>
I'm a semi professional videographer, and I do client work on the side maybe a couple of times in a month or two. I've found that for me Panny MFT just gives the best balance of useful video features and recording options, great IBIS, good lens selection and affordability. I mean sure even Panny FF like S1H has better overall image quality and low light performance. But when the final delivery is for web, will anyone really notice? Not anyone who's paying you for the video will. And you can bring lights to a scene where there is none like 95% of the times. Solved.

That said, if Fuji comes out with a X-H2 with improved IBIS, no video recording limit and an option for a XLR mic adapter, I might change over. I also know from a good source that Canon is coming out with crop-sensor R bodies, but I know they're gonna cripple the video features like always. But it seems like I'll just stick with my MFT Pannys for now.
>>
File: IMG_20220501_121708505~2.jpg (776 KB, 2203x2093)
776 KB
776 KB JPG
>>4023622
Are you me?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5) Plus
Camera Softwarepotter-user 8.1.0 OPSS28.85-17-6 21457 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2203
Image Height2093
Image Created2022:05:01 12:17:32
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating640
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
F-Numberf/1.7
Exposure Time1/15 sec
SharpnessSoft
Focal Length4.28 mm
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
SaturationLow
ContrastNormal
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure Bias0 EV
Image Height4032
White BalanceAuto
BrightnessUnknown
Image Width3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Lens Aperturef/1.7
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
I don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio, so FF or APSC it is for me, simply based on that.
>>
>>4023903
THIS. I don't get how you can spend +2600$ for a camera that shoots nearly square. Like wtf man, it's 22 now, we rectangles now
>>
>>4016406
Ngl, I picked up a lumix with it’s kit lens in Best Buy a few weeks ago and I see why people like mft. It was absolutely adorable how small and light that lens was lol
>>
>>4019803
>t.eyecancer haver
>>
Nikon Z
>>
>>4016398
For video?
>>
File: 161177727045360.png (168 KB, 752x634)
168 KB
168 KB PNG
reminder
>>
>>4023903
better for instathotting
>>
>>4023686
you don't have options (under 15k) for long focal lenghts
>>
File: gigachad jihad.jpg (74 KB, 912x1024)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>4016815
Editing isn't photography tranny
>>
>>4016398
Whatever's on sale.

Of course you'd research a models lens options because there are a few companies that lure you in with cheap bodies and then stick you with lens prices, but for the most part, it's all good. Beyond that, it's mostly up to you to make it work.
>>
File: fixed.jpg (131 KB, 752x654)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>4027982
>misuses a meme meant to highlight the lowest common denominator getting along with the highest performers to shill his format of choice
Boomer detected. I fixed your shitty meme

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4028168
Nah senpai I strictly shoot MF and not a chance I would touch your toy camera.
>>
>>4028191
>he thinks by elevating micro penis sensors in a stupid pepe meme not only must I use micro cuck cameras but I must be slyly advocating for my chosen format of choice
Not everyone is a shill, it simply serves the maymay better. I use 10yo compact cameras
>>
>>4028198
>I use 10yo compact cameras
>toy cameras

Spot the difference
>>
>>4028128
Editing has been at least 50% of photography since forever.

You're just mad at the realisation that you needed to develop a skill beyond "I click button" to be mediocre at this hobby.
>>
>>4028168
kys
>>
Full frame + RX10m4
>>
>>4027989
>you don't have options (under 15k) for long focal lenghts
At 50mp FF with a sharp lens I can crop sports shots to 2x, even a bit more, and still have enough MP for a sharp 16x20. So my $2k 100-400 II is effectively an 800mm without a teleconverter.
>>
>>4028397
bro, you're genius, why didn't anyone tell these guys.
>>
>>4028397
>50mp body for minimum 3.5k
>400mm for 2k
>just crop your shit mang

is this satire?
>>
File: tele in the court.jpg (392 KB, 1280x720)
392 KB
392 KB JPG
>>4028402
It's called business expenses. Dont pay any attention to what pros use. These guys make good money. All that shit is just a tax sink they claim back on their tax return. Pic related

>>4028403
I dont know what he's using, but you can still get A7RII new around $1.8k. If you cant find one, A7RIII or Z7II comes on sale for 2500 bucks every now and then. All those are 42MP.

Sigma 100-400mm for sony is $900 bucks. It's $100 less for the Nikon but it's only for F mount so works out more expensive with the adapter. Dont know how the autofocus would work with Nikons dogshit ftz crap but it is what it is. Sub-$3k total setup either way. That's less than what you said it costs for a 50MP body. I know its 42MP, but its close enough. When you crop in, that's 21MP effective resolution at 800mm equivalent at max focal length. Thats enough pixels for the micro four guys.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4016818
>>4016841
The PEN-F has film grain simulation in the monochrome mode, it's even an advertised feature.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera ModelE-M1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)80 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:04:22 18:56:15
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastSoft
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
File: panny boy.jpg (113 KB, 1280x720)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>4028422
Actually I've owned a couple m43s and argue for it all the time myself but didnt want to bring it up because I get called a shill constantly, so thanks for bringing new people to our cause friend.
>>
>>4028427
also, if we used foolframers' "equivalence" shit you should be looking at the snoy 2 stops to the right of the panny.
>>
>>4028427
let's respect equivalence faggot
>>
>>4028454
>spend 3k on 7yo gameboy with no warrenty
>no native lens AF, no IBIS, no 4k60, no native lens, no dynamic range, shit menus, no ergonomics, green skins,
>it's the FF way
FFsisters, how do we recover from this?
>>
brooooos
>>
this shouldn't be happening FFbros
>>
not even the fat photosite a7s3 can't compete with the poorfag G9 if everything is equalized
>>
the R3 can at least claim to be in the same game
>>
>>
File: 1635665180175.png (23 KB, 383x241)
23 KB
23 KB PNG
>>4028466
damn so M4/3 is 2 stops worse than FF?
>>
>>4028469
no, it's half a stop better than the flagshit scanon FF if you equalize focal length, aperture and DoF.

or suddenly you don't want to equalize everything anymore?
>>
>>4028470
>if you equalize focal length, aperture and DoF.
so where's you 85mm f/1.2 35mm equivalent M4/3 lens?
>>
>>4028471
Where's yours? Timestamp plz.
>>
>>4028471
in the same place as your FF 800mm f11 lens that doesn't weigh 20lbs
>>
File: 1629352265179.png (32 KB, 808x369)
32 KB
32 KB PNG
>>4028475
based
>>
File: 1633533705257.png (37 KB, 809x431)
37 KB
37 KB PNG
>>4028475
And I'll even one-up you
>>
>>4028476
>canon - RF mount, R, RP, R5 and R6 get mogged by the G9 in Dynamic range, video features, not-overheating, menu system, IBIS, IBIS, etc
>also single focal length compared to 100-400 panaleica
>Nikon Z - $6500

lmao
>nikon
>>
>>4028476
>This is an F11 lens. Period. There is no aperture iris. You can’t change the aperture, so every shot taken with either the RF 600mm F11 or RF 800mm F11 will be at F11
>nikon is 7k

bruh
>>
>>4028168
irony of calling someone else a boomer then using logic to try and make a meme
>>
>>4028476
>>4028477
>fixed lenghts
>lemme zoom out a little to frame that deer better
>oh shit i can't
>better walk 50m back
>oh shit the deer moved
>lemme change my spot again
>[...]
>profit?
>>
File: 1641828011142.jpg (559 KB, 640x870)
559 KB
559 KB JPG
>>4028479
>>4028480
>>4028484
cope and sneethe

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2010:11:22 11:28:21
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length30.00 mm
Color Space InformationUnknown
Image Width648
Image Height881
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1639458333761.png (63 KB, 1077x424)
63 KB
63 KB PNG
>>
>>4028486
you taken big Ls before but your retardation with DoF equivalence is your undoing.
you'll get BTFO in 5 minutes from now on.
>>
>>4028488
>want 600mm?
>just buy another 6k lens bro, what are you, poor?
>>
>>4028492
>oh you want 700?
>can't do that on FF bro
>>
>>4028401
Actually the last 16x20 I made from a 2x crop was women's volleyball for one of the players.

>>4028402
>hurrr these sports illustrated photographers use dedicated big lenses!
I would too if it was my profession instead of a hobby/side gig. More to the point, what they are NOT using is m43. Which kind of blows a hole in the "reeeee FF doesn't have long tele options / m43 best!" argument, doesn't it?

If photography is a hobby/side gig and your main focus is daylight sports, birding, wildlife at a distance, m43 can make for a fine kit. But so can APS-C and high resolution FF.

>>4028403
The kit is used for many other things and scenarios you idiot. I don't crop UWA landscapes or portraits. Point is with pixel density I don't have to drop $10k on big white glass when I occasionally need reach > 400mm.

>>4028405
Do you have a fetish you want to tell us about anon?

>>4028419
>When you crop in, that's 21MP effective resolution at 800mm equivalent at max focal length.
MP is an area measurement so at 2x it ends up being 1/4 as many MP. That's 10.5mp for the 42mp cameras you mentioned, 12.5mp for a 5Ds. For most reach scenarios that can still get you to 16x20 with careful scaling. A volleyball player or a bird is not nearly as demanding as large print landscapes, fashion, or commercial product shot.

>>4028422
That's fine if reach is all you need. But I wanted to do things that were best suited to high resolution FF. With high res FF in hand there's no point adding another body for reach when I can simply crop in. I could also add a 1.4x tele thereby reducing the crop/increasing MP for an 800mm equiv. shot. But it's extremely rare that I need that kind of reach. I mean...the print I mention above was shot while changing positions and I had to walk around another court next to the court I was shooting. I was completely out of position. All the other shots that day were uncropped in the 200-400mm range.
>>
>>4028470
>this has now degraded into a DR debate
See, this is why no one can stand m43 fags. You fuckers are so unbelievably insecure. You will reach for anything you can to try and "win" the argument for m43. Small sensor syndrome is a real thing.

You don't need massive DR when shooting in most reach limited scenarios. Massive DR is needed when sun AND shadow are in the frame, i.e. landscapes.

No one even said that FF was the "best" for all reach limited scenarios ever. This started because a m43 fag smarted off 'hurr you don't have affordable FF reach options.' Which is just a retarded statement.
>>
File: 1633548306049.png (56 KB, 792x726)
56 KB
56 KB PNG
>>4028492
>>4028495
you micopenis fags actually retarded?
>>
>>4028475
>in the same place as your FF 800mm f11 lens that doesn't weigh 20lbs
>>4028476
>>4028477
Holy shit BTFO.

>>4028479
>>canon - RF mount, R, RP, R5 and R6 get mogged by the G9 in Dynamic range,
Maybe you should look shit up before speaking? (pic related) Even Canon's old FF sensors match/beat the G9's DR from ISO 200 up. In fairness though, if you crop for equivalent FoV you're going to lose some DR, probably putting an R5 on par with a G9.

>video features, not-overheating, menu system, IBIS, IBIS, etc
>MUH IBIS!
G9 has some better video features than the R6 but not better IQ. R5 has a shit ton of video features. Both the R5 and R6 have probably the best IBIS in the industry.

>>also single focal length compared to 100-400 panaleica
I mean...if you have an R5 and 100-500 you can literally just crop. G9 is a fine camera, but it doesn't "win" every use case. Neither does the R5/R6/Nikon/Sony/whatever. You need to stop shilling for a company that will never love you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width2554
Image Height1248
>>
File: dove.jpg (372 KB, 1352x1014)
372 KB
372 KB JPG
>>4028512
>Even Canon's old FF sensors match/beat the G9's DR from ISO 200 up.
It appears to me that you're obsessing over charts too much. A little bit of noise never hurt. It can be removed with AI perfectly, if needed, I find it far better to have more reach.
Can I ask what are you shooting?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-G9
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.5
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)528 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2022:04:25 00:31:18
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/5.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/5.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length264.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastHard
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
>>
>>4028514
>volleyball players don't hire photographers
Maybe if you left your house once in a while...

>>4028520
>when m43 fag thinks g9 has moar dr
OMG REKT M43 BEST FOREVER!
>when it's pointed out that this is not true
I don't know why you're obsessing over noise.
>>
>>4028510
>DR doesn't matter when it's being pointed out that equalization makes FF sensors lose 2+ stops of DR
I've now heard it all from FF copers
>This started because a m43 fag smarted off 'hurr you don't have affordable FF reach options.' Which is just a retarded statement.
foolframers literally don't have affordable long reach options.
>>4028511
>just spend 3k on a 5lbs lens and lose 2 stops of light cause you have to use the tc bro
>>4028512
look 2 iso steps to the right faggot for FF cameras. FF always loses: canon, snoy, nikon, all of them lose to a 1k camera when all is equalized.
>Both the R5 and R6 have probably the best IBIS in the industry.
holy dementia
>R5 has a shit ton of video features
especially overheating after 5 minutes
>you can literally just crop
just spend 3x the amount and crop your shit bro.
>>4028527
>pointed out
It was explained to you faggots, using your own "muh equivalence" request, that once you equalize focal lenght and aperture (to quote the FF tard "because i care how photos look") the FF sensors will need two more stops of ISO to have the same image brightness as the m43 sensors.
so on all those DR charts, the correct FF DR value is 2 ISO steps to the right

there's no way you're coping out of this now.
>>
>>4028419

>It's called business expenses.
>>4028402
Those guys probably do not own those lenses. The company they work for does.
But that wasn't the point, I know.
>>
>>4028668
>>DR doesn't matter when it's being pointed out that equalization makes FF sensors lose 2+ stops of DR
No, DR doesn't matter when it doesn't matter. How many athletes, birds, and wildlife photos have you taken at 800mm with the sun in the frame? Zero? Because the sun would fill the frame, blind you, and/or blow your sensor? That's what I thought.

>foolframers literally don't have affordable long reach options.
Multiple examples have been given in this thread. Sorry you can't COPE.

>FF always loses
How do you figure that when shooting uncropped at base ISO the FF cameras have 2ev better DR than the G9?

>holy dementia
I'm sorry you struggle with facts.

>just spend 3x the amount and crop your shit bro.
You really want to compare the G9 to high res FF when not cropping? That you CAN produce solid prints at a 2x crop just means you don't have to buy a 2nd system or super expensive glass for reach.

>It was explained to you faggots, using your own "muh equivalence" request, that once you equalize focal lenght and aperture...the FF sensors will need two more stops of ISO to have the same image brightness as the m43 sensors.
If you're cropping FF by 2x then everything is already equal. You would NOT use separate exposure settings for each body. 400mm f/5.6 on FF cropped by 2x will deliver the same results as 400mm f/5.6 on m43 because 1/4th of a FF sensor is literally the size of a m43 sensor (except for the slight ratio discrepancy).

You are correct that DR will degrade because of the 2x crop. But given identical sensor tech the resulting DR of a m43 sensor and a FF sensor at a 2x crop would be identical. Cameras don't necessarily have identical sensor tech so a particular cropped FF may do a bit better or a bit worse. But you can't estimate it by looking "two ISO stops to the right" because the FF sensor wouldn't be at that setting.
>>
>>4028402
You're implying these shots aren't heavily cropped either, which isn't true. Dummy.

>>4028403
>How dare you crop photos
>Just buy a camera that is missing 3\4 its most important part and automatically crop all your photos

>>4028488
Who would ever buy an f9 equivalent zoom for $7500¿

>>4028668
>You have to stop down otherwise it's unfair
Ok, but I need f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms on full frame for weddings and events. What mft lenses should I get?
>>
>>4028684
>No, DR doesn't matter when it doesn't matter.
carefully re-read the thread, the long reach lens subject is separate to DR, retard.
>Multiple examples have been given
A canon that's technically not a lens, a nikon for 6k and a 5lbs snoy that needs a TC - joke
>How do you figure that when shooting uncropped at base ISO the FF cameras have 2ev better DR than the G9?
That happens because the DoF isn't equalized, you sinister mongoloid.
Equalize for focal lenght and DoF and all FF flagships go under the G9 in DR.
>I'm sorry you struggle with facts.
When everybody knows Olympus and Panasonic have had best IBIS for years......no comment.
>That you CAN produce solid prints at a 2x crop
Yes, with inferior dynamic range for 3x the price. GJ, tard
>If you're cropping FF by 2x then everything is already equal.
Except DoF which is basically the point. Thanks for making it painfully obvious you have no idea what's being discussed.
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
play with this until you understand you're a retard.
>>
>>4028690
>Who would ever buy an f9 equivalent zoom for $7500
I dunno, you could buy the Panaleica 100-400 4-6.3 for $1400
>Ok, but I need f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms
The low aperture primes are a valid point (probably the only one next to megapickles)
As for the zooms, what focal ranges do you need?

For the wide end of course m43 doesn't have f/0.6 lenses to match DoF.
Same as it's obvious FF doesn't have 600+mm lenses that you can actually use, carry or afford.

As for the parts that CAN be equalized, FF loses due to the ISO causing DR degradation.
All of this while being heavier and at least 2-3x more expensive.

If you're gonna advocate FF, at least do it for what it's actually better at, AF (but only compared to Panasonic) and aperture at low focal lenghts.
>>
>>4028697
>Mft has better SNR after lens equivalence
No, you're only quoting figures from the sensor, not lens and sensor, smaller sensors need higher resolving lenses for equal performance, but obviously they don't have any that hit the 4x resolution required to match FF.

Everything in an image that's not 100% as it should be, is noise, including softness.

And mft will never hit the max DR of full frame, as it doesn't gather enough light, so FF will always be much better at base iso (and mft has no comparison when it comes to equivalent aperture of any pro prime or zoom!)

Mft is ok if you're happy for everything to be worse.

>>4028701
>You could buy an f13 equivalent zoom for $1400
>clownfaceemoji.png

>What f2.8 zooms do you need
12-24
16-35
24-70
70-200

Mft doesn't have any rectilinear nearly as wide as 12mm, and doesn't have any zooms faster than f5,6 equivalent. Sony's compact kit zoom is faster than that.

>FF doesn't have 600mm lenses
I've got a sigma 150-600, and because I'm on a larger sensor I can still crop into a 1200mm equivalent before I get down to mft image quality. How much cropping can you do?

>FF more expensive
Equivalent lenses on mft are 99% of the time much heavier and more expensive. How much would a basic 50mm f1.8 equivalent cost?
>>
Youre all a bunch of gearfag consumers

I buy whatever's on sale and sell it when Im bored of it for a steal on ebay so poorfags can get into the hobby for cheap.
>>
>>4028705
>No, you're only quoting figures from the sensor
Holy turbo copium.
>higher resolving
Is this the new FF snake oil?

You got BTFO so thoroughly using your own criteria you are now inventing measurements to cope.
MFT is cheaper, lighter, has better IBIS, doesn't overheat on video, AND has better DR and noise when all FL and DoF are can be and are equalized.

Cope and seethe snoy foolframer.
>>
>>4028705
>I've got a sigma 150-600
post camera body and lens screencapped, plox.
>>
>>4028728
Leica slapped their badge on my old smartphone too, does that mean my old phone is as good as a full frame Leica?

>We have fast manual focus lenses from cosina, and a 60mm f1.6 equivalent from them is only $1800

Lmfao. A 50mm f1.8 is like $100-$200 on full frame, and offers better resolution, and autofocus. Oh and weigh around 150g, not the 750g of the voigtlander. Lol.
>>
>>4028728
>"Fastest lens on the planet"
>Gathers significantly less light than any f1.4 lens on full frame.
>>
>>4028697
>carefully re-read the thread, the long reach lens subject is separate to DR, retard.
Fine. FF is more flexible thereby yielding greater DR in many scenarios, and equal DR in others.

>A canon that's technically not a lens,
The 800mm f/11 isn't a lens? Really? What is it, a coffee cup you stupid fuck?

>>How do you figure that when shooting uncropped at base ISO the FF cameras have 2ev better DR than the G9?
>That happens because the DoF isn't equalized, you sinister mongoloid.
You can equalize DoF and get 2ev more DR. Just use a slower shutter speed. That's an option available to the FF landscape shooter but not the m43 shooter. The FF wedding shooter might choose to hold ISO and shutter and open aperture instead. Again, an option available to the FF wedding shooter but not the m43 shooter.

>When everybody knows Olympus and Panasonic have had best IBIS for years
Did have.

>>That you CAN produce solid prints at a 2x crop
>Yes, with inferior dynamic range for 3x the price. GJ, tard
DR will be roughly the same in this scenario. For same tech it will be identical. Not that it really matters at 800mm FF equiv, long tele shots are not high DR shots.

>>If you're cropping FF by 2x then everything is already equal.
>Except DoF which is basically the point.
No retard. If you crop a FF sensor image 2x then for the same lens/aperture/subject distance the framing/FoV and DoF will be identical to a m43 system. (Again, disregarding the slight ratio difference.)

>Thanks for making it painfully obvious you have no idea what's being discussed.
You're so fucking ignorant that you think DoF remains the same when you crop a FF image to m43 dimensions, and yet you presume to lecture other people? Fucking hell...
>>
>>4028701
>FF loses due to the ISO causing DR degradation.
No retard. Equivalence with identical sensor tech results in equal SNR. You're mistaking small differences in sensor tech for format differences because you don't understand any of this.

FF is never going to be worse than mft. At equivalence it will be the same. But if you're free to open the aperture or use a slower shutter speed then it's going to be superior.

>>4028714
>You got BTFO so thoroughly using your own criteria you are now inventing measurements to cope.
You don't even begin to understand this shit, yet you're telling other people how BTFO they are.

>MFT is cheaper, lighter, has better IBIS, doesn't overheat on video, AND has better DR and noise when all FL and DoF are can be and are equalized.
It does not have better DR/noise. At best it has equal DR/noise for equivalent FL/DoF. At worst it's 2ev behind because the FF shooter did something truly radical like open the aperture or keep the shutter open longer. If I'm on a tripod shooting a sunrise the absolute best DR I can get off a G9 is 9.94 stops (PtP scale). Canon R5? 11.85 stops. And this ignores the elephant in the room which is that the R5 will absolutely rape the G9 on resolution, sharpness, and maximum print size. That won't even be close.

>>4028730
>just m43tard things
>>
>>4028733
I take 3 f2.8 zooms, a 35mm and 85mm f1.4 and two bodies.

This is quite a normal setup.

You're definitely going to need at least a 70-200 and 24-70, fast short Tele and fast wide\normal. A macro is a popular choice too.

In fact if you go "what's in my wedding photography bag" then 5 lenses seems to be the absolute minimum.

Are you just mad that you can't afford a nifty fifty and seeing people talk about gear is a constant reminder that you can't afford to be a professional photographer?
>>
>>4028733
>Want to know how I know that you're a LARPing faggot? No wedding photographer on the planet is taking four fucking 2.8 zooms to weddings.
When did he say he was taking all four to a wedding? Also: most wedding photographers are showing up with a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8.
>>
>>4028743
This is it. This is the m43tard's mental break. It's all down hill from here.
>>
>>4028732
>Fine. FF is more flexible thereby yielding greater DR in many scenarios, and equal DR in others.
FF yields 1-2 stops worse DR in most scenarios. Fixed it for you

>Just use a slower shutter speed. That's an option available to the FF landscape shooter but not the m43 shooter
huh?

>The 800mm f/11 isn't a lens? Really? What is it, a coffee cup you stupid fuck?
it's literal copium for fftards to sniff

>DR will be roughly the same in this scenario.
if by same you mean worse for FF then yes.

>you think DoF remains the same when you crop a FF image to m43 dimensions
Holy shit, you're lierally brain dead.
Cropping in post doesn't change DoF, nigger, and in camera, Snoy has 1.5x and Scanon has 1.6x, both universally producing shit images according to reviews.

To achieve what you're describing, aka cropping to m43 sensor size AND keeping DoF at the same exposure the lens would have to redirect all the light it gathers onto a smaller image circle that surrounds the m43 sized area in the center of the FF sensor.
>>
>>4028740
>or keep the shutter open longer
if only an m43 camera could keep the shutter open for longer too; it might even help to have way beter IBIS too
>the R5 will absolutely rape the G9 on resolution, sharpness, and maximum print size
resolution maybe, noise and DR for equalized FL and DoF, never. Cope and seethe.
>>
4/3 (my sensor is a super16) and a speedbooster. you can get cheap f/f lenses which you can either use with the speedbooster, making the sensor look as if it's aps-c/35mm film, or with just a mount adapter, making them tele. The speedbooster also gives you more light and bokeh.
>>
>>4028732
>You're so fucking ignorant that you think DoF remains the same when you crop a FF image to m43 dimensions, and yet you presume to lecture other people? Fucking hell...

That's a very bold claim, anon.
Can you please show us 2 photos taken with the same settings, then crop one to 2x and we'll see if the DoF has changed.

I'm waiting.
>>
>>4016398
MFT because Im a poorfag its all I can afford

Seriously thinkin about pic related 1100 combo
>>
FF, IBIS, 4k60 and at least 40MP (to allow the fables 2x crop in post that magically changes DoF) - minimum $3500, 3.5x more than the G9. Then add the lenses, then the time to crop what you need for each photo.
>>
>>4028771
>I'M...I'M PRIIIIIIINTIIING
>>
File: kek.jpg (1.81 MB, 2455x1910)
1.81 MB
1.81 MB JPG
>just 2x crop on your 3.5k FF camera bro
sadly, it won't do you tards any good
>>
Started off with APS-C, canon 70D and eventually 80D

Moved on to FF with a Nikon D800

Now I'm back to APS-C again with a Fuji X100V

I do street and architecture so I guess the x100v resonates the best with me for now. Might even go to a Ricoh GR3
>>
>>4016939
Nothing against wedding photography, but with divorce rates as they’re now, there’s a slim chance for this.
>>
>>4028781
Unironically, if you can live with the focal length, the GR3 has legit best in class DR.
That and Sigma fp L and the Fuji X-pro3, if you can live without the features.
>>
>>4028777
>needs 2 extra stops of iso if you're matching dof by stopping down 2 stops

or 2 stops longer shutter speed, and shooting a thot at f4 in a field on a summers day is clearly going to be well into base iso territory. in fact a lot of MFT cameras couldn't take that shot, if we go by sunny 16, you'd need a 1/16k shutter speed at iso 100, and many mft cameras only go up to 1/4k.
>>
>>4023715
I get you. Sometimes it’s not just photography, but also video. We’re now mixed media creators. People will argue for hours on cameras, but many camera systems are capable of many things. I’d rather go with the system that gives me more flexibility across a wide range of applications.

That said, many of the people arguing here will focus on a single piece of equipment, without considering all the other tools at their disposal.

A calibrated monitor and camera will go a long way, paired with strobes and continuous lights. Mastering DaVinci Resolve with ACES and having your camera’s IDT for delivering TV commercials quality. Paired with motion graphics, licensed stock music and proper sound effects.

It’s all about video and ocasional photography for me. In the end, it’s been the video projects the ones who are paying for my expensive gear.
>>
File: 200 bucks in it .jpg (236 KB, 1005x730)
236 KB
236 KB JPG
I just dont get why anyone would buy a G9 when the S5 is not that much more. Panasonic's practically giving them away to get people into L mount. And dont give me this size and weight crap. We all went to mft because we were poorfags. Stop coping. You dont see any significant size/weight or cost advantages between pro G mount and L mount until you get to telephoto lenses and how many of us are using those?

There's literally $200 between the S5 with the 20-60 and the G9 with the leica 12-60 right now on b&h. Explain to me, who tf would buy the mft with that price gap unless youre a weirdo birder and need 9000mm or some stupid shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4028789
>or 2 stops longer shutter speed
what happens if, hear me out, it might sound crazy, you also increase exposure time via shutter on the m43 camera
>many mft cameras only go up to 1/4k
flabbergasted.png
>>
>>4028798
the g9 is $1k (even $700 in ausland) and has a shitload of advantages: lenses, photomodes, no 4k crop, ergonomics, price, lens selection etc
>>
>>4028799
I just fuckin told you stupid
>You dont see any significant size/weight or cost advantages between pro G mount and L mount until you get to telephoto lenses
Dont bring up cheap bullshit 250 buck chink special either. We're talkin pro lenses. Shit's expensive for both systems.
>>
File: 1640711285378.png (41 KB, 746x273)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
>>4028799
FF is cheaper, smaller, and faster
>>
>>4028802
plus DR advantage
>>
>>4028804
>add 2 stops of ISO to match the nocticron
>no DR, drown in noise, no leica IQ

kek
>>
>>4028801
>>10-25 - doesn't exist on any FF platform
But the S5 literally comes with a 20-60, a 10-30 mft equiv
>>100-400 - doesn't exist on any FF platform
True, but I specifically said that different format lenses dont really matter that much until you get to telephotos
>>29mm f/0.8 - doesn't exist on any FF platform
ok. The 24mm f1.8 you can get for l mount is a pretty cool lens though and it's like 1/3 the goddamn price of that thing. I know its not the same, but its cool

>>4028802
I havent found it for $700 here. Do you mean used? Where is that? I once saw it on amazon for $999 and am kicking myself for cancelling the order because it would have taken ages to come in.
>>
>>4028806
the difference is, the nocticron literally cannot match an f/1.8 FF lens.
>>4028807
f/1.8 > f/2.4
>>
>>4028809
yes, i was talking about the amazon discount
>>4028804
did we forget to equalize ISO again, lmao?
>>
>>4028810
of course it cannot match it, why would it? it's an order of magnitude better in just about everything.
>>
File: 1620988628241.png (258 KB, 579x300)
258 KB
258 KB PNG
>>4028813
>equalize ISO
>>
>>4028784
I foresee two options:
A) Your wife divorce raped you and you pay alimony instead of the gear you want.
B) You have to ask permission to your wife before buying your gear.

Which one is it?
>>
File: 1644310718685.png (241 KB, 576x301)
241 KB
241 KB PNG
>>4028813
Wow so equal!
>>
>>4028813
>yes, i was talking about the amazon discount
Oh you mean 700usd. I thought you meant ours. I forgot the yanks currency is worth so little these days. That must be why they are so easy to stir up. Cheers mate
>>
>>4028825
>I was wrong so I'll go post shitty pictures from my micro4penis camera
based. I accept your concession.
>>
>>4028804
>believing plastic bullshit lenses will offer up equivalent IQ to high-end Leica-designed optics

This is how I know that most FFaggots on here are poorfags with 10 year old bodies and adapted DSLR nifty fifties. The only thing they can hang their hat on is sensor size, so they cope by diluting themselves into thinking that sensor size is all that matters.
>>
>>4028819
you need to add 2 stops for the same brightness on the FF S5, retard
>>4028804
>no ibis, just lose another 2 stops of light bro
>>
File: 1635373306885.png (25 KB, 520x99)
25 KB
25 KB PNG
>>4028835
the difference is mft lenses need to be 2x as sharp as FF lenses to get the specified MP from the sensor, and the Noctipoop certainly isn't twice as sharp as the 85mm
>>4028836
again micropenis fags are retarded
>>
>>4028835
that's always the case.
>>
lmao 1/3 of the thread just got cleaned
>>
File: g9vs5.jpg (53 KB, 574x291)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>4028836
You mean like this?
>>
>>4028838
>foolfaggot doesn't even understand what I meant
lmaaaaaaooooo
>>
File: s5vg9.jpg (56 KB, 568x288)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>4028836
>>4028842
This just not making any goddamn sense
>>
>>4028842
no, like this >>4028836
>>
>>4028846
oh wait, your Lumix 85mm lens doesn't have IBIS, so you lost another 2 stops. better compensate that ISO.
kek
>>
>>4028819
>>4028822
>>4028836
>>4028842
>>4028845
mft btfo
>>
File: mfw_lmao.jpg (9 KB, 275x183)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>4028848
pure seethe
>>
File: gh6 goat.jpg (210 KB, 571x592)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
>>4028819
>>4028822
>>4028836
>>4028838
>>4028842
>>4028845
>>4028846
>>4028847
>>4028848
>>4028851

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4028838
>le DX0 pseudoscience

And there it is. You believe what grifters say on the internet because you have no experience yourself. Let’s ignore the assumption that sharpness is all that matters for a second because that in itself is retarded; do you honestly believe that most MFT lenses cannot outresolve the current best MFT sensors? If so, how could sensor shift high res shots even work if that were the case?
>>
File: chngchng.jpg (21 KB, 403x297)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>
File: kek.jpg (481 KB, 1230x774)
481 KB
481 KB JPG
FFbros, how do we recover from this?
>>
>>4028855
>If so, how could sensor shift high res shots even work if that were the case?
sensor shift shots don't require anymore lens resolution than a single shot
>>
File: didntread.png (12 KB, 1598x117)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>4028858
if m43 has better DR at "equivalence"
ff bros can just enjoy better DR at non-equivalent apertures
read noise isn't directly comparable
>>
>mft general got nuked
>1/3 of the thread got nuked
good riddance
>>
>>4028861
>people finally start posting MFT images and having civil discussions about MFT gear on their general thread
>instantly gets nuked

What?
>>
File: DSC08663A.jpg (1.33 MB, 1548x1431)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB JPG
>>4028854
Its real! I know that A7S iii was meant to be video centric camera, but what's causing these weird artefact where straight lines should be?

Also what's causing it's jpegs to be as big as 25mp m43 jpegs?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7SM3
Camera SoftwareILCE-7SM3 v1.01
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2020:12:03 14:02:12
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Brightness5.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1548
Image Height1431
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4028864
probably because MFTtards are dumb shitposters
>>
>>4028860
>ff bros can just enjoy better DR at non-equivalent apertures
>pictures is now dark as shit
I guess it's a fair approach.
>>
>>4028871
as in the same (or faster) actual lens aperture (f1.4 on m43 and f1.4 on ff)
dof would be shallower, but then ff has better DR and noise than m43
m43 only has better DR when treating FF as equivalent
i thought it would be obv we're holding exposure brightness the same
>>
>>4028873
Ah, so you'll basically enjoy better DR between 1.2 and 1.8 apertures because m43 doesn't have lenses to match it that low.
fair enough.
>>
>>4028800
So if you're at base iso, f2 and 1\4k and you're overexposing, your solution is to drop to 1\1k?

Are you thick?
>>
>>4028865
Interference patterns, or moiré, the only real way to beat it on bayer\xtrans is to blur the image at a single pixel level, aka an AA filter.

Bare in mind there's going to be effectively zero instances where this happens irl, especially with higher mp bodies like the a7riv.

It's caused when a repeating pattern has an interval very similar to the interval between pixels on your sensor. This used to be a much bigger issue on old 240p TV, where a striped or check shirt could easily trigger it.
>>
>>4028888
i didn't use your cherrypicked summers day scenario, of course.
a decent 2stop nd filter is $10 btw
>>
>>4028751
>FF yields 1-2 stops worse DR in most scenarios. Fixed it for you
You don't understand equivalence and haven't even read the values TWO STOPS RIGHT on the very graphs you are citing.

Pit an R5 against a G9 at PtP. The R5 DR "disadvantage" at an ISO 2 stops higher is always <1 ev. Part of this is due to the fact that the area difference between the sensors is 3.84, not 4, meaning noise/DR differences at the same exact exposure is actually 1.77ev. Equivalence would be an ISO 1.77 stops higher, not 2. Photographers like to round shit to the nearest stop, so in everyone's head it's 2ev.

What's left is due to slight differences in sensor tech. So if you achieved true equivalence you would find that, at worst, the G9 sensor yields less than 0.5ev more DR. And this is specific to this pair, i.e. a newer FF sensor could swing it the other way. The moment the R5 shooter is free to use a slower shutter or wider aperture DR swings hard to the FF sensor's advantage. In the case of these two cameras the R5 can deliver 1.91ev better DR.

>>Just use a slower shutter speed.
>huh?
FFS you don't even understand the exposure triangle. If you're shooting a sunrise landscape on a tripod you don't bump ISO 2 stops for MUH EQUIVALENCE, you just use a 2ev slower shutter speed to hold base ISO for max DR with the desired aperture/DoF.

>it's literal copium for fftards to sniff
It's being used by many people to take better wildlife photos than you'll ever take.

>Holy shit, you're lierally brain dead.
>Cropping in post doesn't change DoF,
But enlarging that crop to the same view size does. That you don't know this means you should stop posting on the topic.

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html
>If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the APS-C crop image, THE DEPTH OF FIELD IS IDENTICAL
>>
>>4028752
>>or keep the shutter open longer
>if only an m43 camera could keep the shutter open for longer too;
In the scenario this would overexpose the m43 image and sacrifice highlight detail producing WORSE DR. The absolute best DR you can get on a G9 is 9.94ev (PtP scale). The absolute best you can get on an R5 is 11.85. But to do that with the same DoF the R5 has to shoot a 2 stop slower shutter. A tard m43 photographer at equivalent DoF and base ISO who says "hurrr imma shoot a slower shutter to" would just blow out his image.

>>the R5 will absolutely rape the G9 on resolution, sharpness, and maximum print size
>resolution maybe, noise and DR for equalized FL and DoF, never. Cope and seethe.
You don't even understand the exposure triangle. Cope and seethe that.
>>
>>4029024
>>4029021
all that cope when you already lost bigly.....
>>
>>4028760
>muh bold claim
No. You're just completely ignorant regarding what DoF is and what factors impact it. I know this is above your IQ but:
https://www.scantips.com/lights/dof2.html

>>4028777
Once again, if you crop a FF sensor to m43 dimensions everything is already equivalent.

>>4028800
>>or 2 stops longer shutter speed
>what happens if, hear me out, it might sound crazy, you also increase exposure time via shutter on the m43 camera
For equiv DoF you blow out the highlights because ISO can only go so low. Fucking LEARN THE EXPOSURE TRIANGLE before lecturing people in a forum.

>>4028836
>"need to add 2 stops moron"
>the ff is still cleaner
BTFO

>>4028860
>ff bros can just enjoy better DR at non-equivalent apertures
Or just...Idk...maybe change the shutter speed?
>>
>>4029027
Speaking of losing bigly: >>4028836
>>
>>4028836
damn m4/3 looks like THAT? I might as well use my phone
>>
File: shadowrecovery.png (562 KB, 573x585)
562 KB
562 KB PNG
>>
>>4029062
>no m43 bros
>not like this...
>>
>>4029086
> having to pushing a file 4 stops

Makes you wonder how people ever shot anything with film
>>
File: 1622119460534.jpg (74 KB, 1024x620)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>4029104
they pushed and pulled the film?
>>
>>4029062
and you're using bigger iso on m43 why?
>>
>>4029237
>what is base ISO?
>>
>>4029238
>what is equivalence
start at iso400 for the s5.
>>
File: 20200831-DSC_2798-L.jpg (144 KB, 800x533)
144 KB
144 KB JPG
>>4016398
Full frame. Im a min-maxer and you all should be too. It's either full frame or <1 inch sensor compact. None of this halfway bullshit. Stop cucking yourselves. You get all the disadvantages of a smaller sensor and none of the advantages of a pocketable. Nikon Z5 is attainable for pretty much everyone. If you cant afford it, buy a capable compact. No inbetweens.

If I had more money, I'd go even larger and use a GFX50S.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.4 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:08:31 18:32:51
Exposure Time1/30 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating220
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length57.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4029244
>[current year]
>no 4k60
>4k30 with 1.7x crop
who's the cuck exactly?
>>
There are only 2 specific arguments for Micro 4/3s

1 - Outdoorsmen
Anyone who complains about weight is probably a onions faggot. Weight matters for survival camping and long hikes where every kilogram means more calories required to lug the gear and eats into your carry weight ration, reducing your capacity for other more important shit.

2 - Birding on a budget
Cheaper and lighter teles.

That's it. I dont want to hear any other fucking bullshit. That's literally it.
>>
>>4029249
>videofag spewing about his movies on a board called photography
Fuck off to the video thread then cunt. It's a great stills machine
>>
>>4029244
>Full frame. Im a min-maxer
no medium format? lol you aren't even honest with yourself
>>
>>4029255
kek, im curious to see how he copes now
>>4029253
>4.5shots per second burst
great photocentric camera you got there, fren
>>
>>4028897
>Who takes photos outside in the sunshine?

Ok goblin.

>Just put a cheap $10 piece of refractive glass Infront of your $2000 camera and lens!

Lmao, mft tards are hilarious.

>>4029237
He's using bigger pushes on the full frame camera, so they both have the same final ev. This test is in mft's favour, not FF, and it gets absolutely spanked.

>>4029249
>Who's a cuck
You for caring about video, I don't think I've ever seen a single video posted to /p. It's not a feature you ever use.

>>4029252
>M43 are for people that are poor and weak
True and accurate.

>>4029255
There's fuck all good lens and body setups for medium format for under $40k. 20 times more than the equivalent would cost on full frame.

Your comment is as retarded as saying "oh, you like going on holiday, well why haven't you been the moon >:(" it just makes you look stupid and jealous.
>>
>>4029270
>all that text to cope for getting bargain bin ff and plastic lenses
>>
>>4029276
>so little text to explain why he felt the need to gimp out on his sensor
Youre both wrong
>>
Of all the fucking things you could do, why would you reduce the size of your sensor?

Manufacturers could work on their fucking battery tech for a start. A 2000mah camera battery weights more than a 5000mah phone battery. They could use super lightweight metal body thats also the integral chassis frame. They could completely remove the grip. They could reduce the size of the screen or fuck it off altogether and replace it with a top mounted basic bnw lcd readout. Or they could go the other way and replace the entire back panel of the camera with a phone grade touchscreen so there are no buttons or contacts or circuit weight. They could make specialized super light primes for this new system. They could do all these fucking things, but they take an apsc, put some complete dogshit mobile phone sensor in it and try to market it as light weight. Thats not light until you get into telephoto lenses and fuck off, youre not using them
>>
>>4029297
overheating causing aberrations, price, easy ibis, long video record time, more space inside for stuff, etc, cheaper and lighter lenses etc
>>
File: 6865909550.jpg (1.23 MB, 2750x1833)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB JPG
>>4029298
Yeah you're right.

The Lumix S5 does destroy all mft arguments

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/9.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length100.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
>>
>>4029300
>cropped 4k
>lower iq and DR
your buyer's remorse is showing
>>
>>4029298
>Overheating causes aberrations
Citation required that identifies the difference in these "aberrations" between mft and FF.
>Price
Repeatedly proven equivalent lenses are cheapest on FF
>Easy ibis
??? How can using ibis be easy or hard?
>Long video
Ahh, for all those scenes you're doing with single takes over 30 mins? Lmao
>More space inside for stuff
??? What stuff and what space, we've already proven mft cameras are no smaller than FF.


You really put down a lot of letters to say nothing at all.
>>
File: 2 birds.jpg (2.42 MB, 4061x1537)
2.42 MB
2.42 MB JPG
Some moron deleted his comment about a full frame camera having worse image quality because of expensive pro mft glass vs cheap ff kit zoom.

Lower image quality? Thats your argument? In what way. I want to see the pictures youre looking at that are worse. Do you even look at comparative pictures between lenses and cameras? A dinky little olympus em10 with a plastic prime produces perfectly fine results so why wouldnt an S5. You literally cannot tell the difference. Im really getting sick of the retardation in these thread

Here's 2 birds I pulled off flickr and cropped down so theyre equal. I challenge anyone. Which one is the olympus and which is the S5?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4029308
>Citation required that identifies the difference in these "aberrations" between mft and FF.
why do you think astro cameras are specifically NOT ff. take some initiative and google it before chimping out on a gear board
>>
>With LUMIX S5, the recording is time-limited to 30 minutes. The reason behind this is the potential failure in certain temperatures
>go on vacation with your FFcope
>it shuts itself down to not die
>>
>>4029298
>>4029316
Overheating is a non issue with the S5. The recording limit is actually model segregation by panasonic to better differentiate S5 and S1. There are multiple reviewers who recorded back to back in warm rooms with no issues.

Cant say that you can do that in the mojave like you can with a GH6, but it is what it is
>>
>>4029305
>>4029315
>>4029316
vloggers leave my board

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Macintosh)
PhotographerPatrick Leong
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)83 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5002
Image Height3335
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:05:02 13:12:23
Exposure Time5 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness-1.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4029316
>dumb enough to think that dividing videos into separate 30 min files while you continue to record will reduce heat production
>>
>>4029315
If you look at any of the ranges for astro cameras, you'll see quite consistently that more expensive models have larger sensors.

Also, there's only a couple of fabs that CAN make full frame sensors, and one of them, canon, do make an astro centric body, the Eos Ra, which is seen as the best option for anyone doing widefield astro. Sony no longer make an astro full frame sensor, hence why the full frame d810a is discontinued.

And finally, ccd, the best choice for long exposure astro, has no facilities that can manage to put out a full frame sensor. Trius still use an aps-c sized ccd unit in their flagship though, with 4\3 and 1" in cheaper models.

Maybe you should have took some initiative and googled it first? You've made yourself look quite stupid.

>>4029316
The reason for the 30 minutes is the Japanese apply heavy taxes on devices that record over 30 minutes and the EU applies heavier import taxes on video recorders than stills cameras, one of the defining factors is the 30 minute limit.

Would you pay an extra 20% for more than 30 minute shots?
>>
>>4029316
>>With LUMIX S5, the recording is time-limited to 30 minutes. The reason behind this is the potential failure in certain temperatures
>>go on vacation with your FFcope
>>it shuts itself down to not die
kek

>>4029334
>If you look at any of the ranges for astro cameras, you'll see quite consistently that more expensive models have larger sensors.
And we're back at sensor tech... It's better to have m43 astro sensor than ff mirrorless sensors. Only when you spend shit ton of cash to have ff astro sensor, you start gaining advantages of larger sensor. It's the same in regular photography. Only when you buy 4k lenses and high resolution bodies, you start seeing advantages that ff offers, but when you're there, it's also better to throw that cash into medium format. So, ff is really a moot pit to throw money in.

>The reason for the 30 minutes is the Japanese apply heavy taxes on devices that record over 30 minutes and the EU applies heavier import taxes on video recorders than stills cameras, one of the defining factors is the 30 minute limit
You're living in the past grandpa. This was twelve years ago! EU laws changed, so now everyone can have unlimited recordings. Unless company decides and gimps their camera so it's not competing with higher priced models.
>>
>>4029338
>It's not that larger sensors aren't better for astro, it's because I can't afford them so live in a fantasy world where no one else can either and I just pretend that what I can afford is actually preferable.

Yikes.

I genuinely feel sorry for you, please go talk to a therapist.

>That was 12 years ago

Wrong, I can see the EU discussed changing it in 2018. Here's an article from 2018 discussing it https://www.fujirumors.com/yes-eu-import-duty-reason-fujifilm-x-h1-limited-30-minutes-will-change-2018-2019/

Do you have a humiliation fetish pal?
>>
Even A7S3s pop pixels from heat, but Snoy doesn't acknowledge this as the reason. They just take 5weeks to reapir your 3.5k camera.
>>
>>4029237
m43 starts at 200 ISO since they cheat like Fuji
>>
I have a shitty little photography youtube channel.

Im pretty sure that the EM1MKIII is the best possible vlog/stills hybrid camera you can get other than a zv1 right?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length100.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
>>
File: 1635344144704.png (712 KB, 543x859)
712 KB
712 KB PNG
>>4029244
>It's either full frame or <1 inch sensor compact
why not both?
>>
>>4029440
the fujis pretty nice
>>
>>4029242
You still don't understand that a landscape photog shooting a sunrise on a tripod doesn't give a fuck about "muh equivalence" he wants the maximum possible DR. So he'll just shoot a longer shutter speed. Same for a wedding photog who opens the aperture.
>>
>>4029244
>Im a min-maxer and you all should be too. It's either full frame or <1 inch sensor compact.
I would never, ever trade my EOS M+22mm for a small sensor compact.

>>4029252
Facts. Though for long hike outdoor landscapes an EOS M body like the M6 II and the 11-22 is impossible to beat.

>>4029270
>Your comment is as retarded as saying "oh, you like going on holiday, well why haven't you been the moon >:(" it just makes you look stupid and jealous.
Holy fuck mftard BTFO.

>>4029315
>why do you think astro cameras are specifically NOT ff.
Because most telescopes can't cover a 35mm imaging circle AND sensor size is of less importance when you're stacking thousands of tracked frames. That said, there are scopes which cover 35mm and that is considered a big selling point.

>>4029338
>And we're back at sensor tech... It's better to have m43 astro sensor than ff mirrorless sensors.
This depends ENTIRELY on the scope. But if all other factors are equal, and the scope can cover 35mm, and you have a choice between two sensors utilizing the same tech, one mft and one 35mm...you want the 35mm one.

>It's the same in regular photography. Only when you buy 4k lenses and high resolution bodies, you start seeing advantages that ff offers, but when you're there, it's also better to throw that cash into medium format.
As someone else already pointed out MF is vastly more expensive than FF for relatively small IQ gains. Contrast this with FF vs. mft where FF might be a bit more expensive but delivers large IQ gains. FF is the sweet spot.
>>
>>4029512
>FF is the sweet spot.
for buyer's remorse, lmao @ ur cope
>>
>>4029541
lmao at your tiny sensor
>>
>>4029512
>MF is vastly more expensive than FF for relatively small IQ gains
>bigger sensor is better except past FF!
lol, FF is peak midwit territory. imagine trying to brag about FF being expensive yet you cant afford MF. and somehow when you compare FF to MFT and so on, it somehow has cheaper and lighter gear. there is no logic to FF copers
>>
>>4029546
$4,000 camera vs. $1,500 camera vs $1,000 camera vs. $1,800 camera at ISO 200 (since mfturd can't go to ISO 100).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width1334
Image Height1316
>>
>>4029546
$4,000 camera vs. $1,500 camera vs $1,000 camera vs. $1,800 camera at ISO 12,800.

mft is btfo at both ends. The Fuji MF is better than the FF, but not 2.6x better. Meanwhile mft looks like shit by comparison to either.
>but muh 5dsr is an old camera!!!
That you can still actually buy new. But point taken, an R5 is like $3,900 and a Z7ii around $2,900. They are also damn close to MF while mft is damn close to a cell phone.

This anon >>4029252 is right. m43 doesn't make sense outside of those two scenarios. I'll add video. There are some competitive m43 options for video. But if you're a hybrid shooter you're going to want FF for stills, so you might as well go FF for video and share a single lens system.

m43 is the least flexible system with the lowest IQ. Cope and seethe with that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width1316
Image Height1314
>>
>>4028203
>>4028128
>>
>>4024045
I upgraded from a g85 to an a7rii and the camera body is just about the same size. I thought the Sony would be huge but it was still very small.
>>
>>4029546
No one says FF is expensive apart from cucked mft and crop users.
>>
>>4029611
>>4029562
>>4029560
>>4029546
so much copium while "forgetting" iso equivalence
>>
File: IMG_20220514_122130.jpg (448 KB, 1025x1064)
448 KB
448 KB JPG
>>4029562
Sorry guys, I remember I care how images look and I equalized for DoF as well. m43 btfos FF and even MF so bad it's not even funny.
>>
Why do you guys argue so much. Go buy an apsc or something and compromise. Not everything is about bi-polar extremes and not everything's a pissing contest.
>>
File: IMG_20220514_122748.jpg (410 KB, 1080x1085)
410 KB
410 KB JPG
>>4029619
Hmm, I'm starting to think I shouldn't have asked m43 fanboys to equalize for DoF as well. FF gets BTFOd way too bad now.
Guys, I don't care about bokeh anymore, let's compare unequal images from now on, ok?
>>
>>4029614
>>4029619
>nooooooo!
>you can't just shoot a slower shutter speed!
>or a wider aperture!
>you have to use equivalence!!!
You can't demand equivalence while showing different print sizes. Here's your equivalence including print size. 5DsR for the win. (Kinda surprised at the GFX.)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width1328
Image Height1314
>>
>>4029619
Now let's try low ISO equivalence. Gonna go ahead and let the bigger cameras stay at a bigger print size here to strut their stuff. It's OK though, I'm sure the mft files look good at 8x10.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width1324
Image Height1316
>>
So, lemme get this straight.
m43 is by default cheaper and lighter, but no bokeh
if you try to achieve same bokeh as FF you need equally expensive and as big lenses as FF (for low focal lenghts at least), but
these lenses now produce way better images because they are wider aperture, but
now, to match the m43 IQ you also need better, bigger lenses on FF

seems like FF is a trap and you either go MF or get good lenses on m43
>>
File: 1651028911406.png (503 KB, 578x602)
503 KB
503 KB PNG
damn so watchu saying is 1" sensors have both longer reach, are more compact, and have better image quality than both m43 and FF cameras? who woulda thunk?
>>
>>4029628
>leaves out the most popular format size for cameras (that arent compact abominations) in the world
Youre all idiots arguing about shit that doesnt ultimately matter
>>
>>4029628
>So, lemme get this straight.
>m43 is by default cheaper and lighter, but no bokeh
You're half right.

>if you try to achieve same bokeh as FF you need equally expensive and as big lenses as FF (for low focal lenghts at least), but
>these lenses now produce way better images because they are wider aperture, but
lmao no. Your f/0.95 mft prime is going to have shit sharpness next to a FF lens at f/2. And mft lenses need to be much sharper to match FF sharpness. Generally speaking they're not sharper by a large enough amount, even when you pit pro mft primes against pro FF zooms or mid tier FF primes.

>now, to match the m43 IQ you also need better, bigger lenses on FF
FF is never at a disadvantage. Unless you're an idiot and compare different ISO files at different print sizes. At worst, for 'muh equivalence', noise/DR will be roughly the same for the same print size. But sharpness and resolution will still be superior. At best, when you can trade shutter or aperture for ISO, FF will be much cleaner with better DR, in addition to better sharpness and resolution.

>seems like FF is a trap and you either go MF or get good lenses on m43
Seems like you're coping hard today.
>>
>>4029626
>wider aperture
that implies even faster lenses for ff thereby negating the cheapness of your plastic lenses
>slower shutter speed
Good luck going from 1/100 to 1/25 on video L M A O
>muh prints
>muh prints muhfugga
>>
>>4029633
>Your f/0.95 mft prime is going to have shit sharpness next to a FF lens at f/2. And mft lenses need to be much sharper to match FF sharpness.
>source: trust me bro
>>
>>4029634
>>wider aperture
>that implies even faster lenses for ff thereby negating the cheapness of your plastic lenses
No idiot. It just implies shooting at the same aperture value as the mfturd screaming about his DoF.

>>slower shutter speed
>Good luck going from 1/100 to 1/25 on video L M A O
Good luck getting cinematic DoF with your baby sensor.

>>muh prints muhfugga
Imagine demanding EQUIVALENCE! in everything but print size. The cope of a loser.
>>
>>4029633
which one do you think is cheaper and easier to produce
>a flawless 2in diameter slab of optics glass * no.of elements in lens
>a flawless 3in diameter slab of optics glass * no of elements in lens
>>
>>4029636
>source: trust me bro
>t. doesn't understand lens aberrations
More narrow apertures hide aberrations which is why all lenses improve when stopped down 1-2 stops. (Well...almost all...there are a few diffraction limited lenses in existence, but none for mft.) mft needs much sharper glass just to match FF sharpness but extremely wide apertures to try and match it's DoF/light gathering. You can have one or the other, but not both.
>>
>>4029640
>mft needs much sharper glass just to match FF sharpness
show us the measurements of "much more sharpness" foolframer
>>
>>4029638
>It just implies shooting at the same aperture value as the mfturd screaming about his DoF
But the images aren't the same. So you go wider on m43 and you're back where you started.
>>
>>4029639
An f/2 or f/1.8 lens is cheaper/easier to produce than a f/1.0 or f/0.95 lens even if the former is on FF and the latter is on mft. Why do you think 50mm f/1.8 primes are so cheap compared to 25mm f/0.95 primes? Why do you think Canon now has a 28-70mm f/2 zoom? Is there any equivalent f/0.95 zoom for mft? No? Hmmm...

A 25mm f/2 mft lens would be cheaper to make than a 50mm f/2 FF. But not if it has to be so sharp that it makes up for the sensor size gap in sharpness. Or if it has to be an f/1.0. And a 25mm f/1.0 that's sharp enough to match FF f/2 doesn't even exist and probably can't be made at any price a mft user could pay.

Sorry, but physics is a bitch.
>>
>>4029638
>cinematics
you don't wanna look up what sensor sizes Arri and Blackmagic use in most of their prosumer gear.
>>
>>4029642
Just look at any lens MTF chart. Find the contrast level for, say, 20 lp/mm. Now find the contrast level for 40 lp/mm. For mft to match FF sharpness out of camera a lens has to deliver the same contrast at 2x the lp/mm because you have to enlarge 2x more for a given print size. That doesn't happen very often, and never between pro lenses.

>>4029643
>But the images aren't the same. So you go wider on m43 and you're back where you started.
Here's a protip that's going to blow your mind: the images don't always have to be the same. When the FF shooter can accept less DoF, or even wants less DoF, FF delivers cleaner images for the same ISO/shutter.
>>
>>4029645
>muh invented sharpness criteria
show. the. measurements. foolframer
>>
>>4029647
Most cinema is shot on Super 35 which is roughly APS-C. And you don't want to lookup the increasing sales/use of FF in cinema for cinematic DoF effects.
>>
>>4029648
>the images don't always have to be the same.

I accept your admission of defeat.
>>
>>4029650
Look. At. Any. MTF. Graph. Baby. Sensor.
>>
>>4029652
>if you take pictures that my camera cannot take, I win
OK baby sensor
>>
>>4029653
>make claim
>get BTFOd
>"I-images d-don't have to be the same"
>make another claim to cope
>the burden of proof is on you, hehe
>>
>buy ff snoy
>get free vignetting filter on all your lenses
>>
File: 3701765491.jpg (3.8 MB, 3000x2000)
3.8 MB
3.8 MB JPG
Everyday I consider more and more just going to /hr/ to post and leaving this godforsaken place

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 7
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
PhotographerBARNABY BRITTON 202O
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern914
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:11:15 17:10:03
Exposure Time1/25 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating140
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4029639
To reach the wider max apertures that mft needs to compare they have to use speed booster optical sections, which get exponentially larger and more expensive.

Most of the fast mft designs are based off full frame optical designs with a matching focal refuction (speed booster) optical group.

Hence why they're so much bigger and more expensive, and with worse image quality.

>>4029647
Like the arri lf and mini lf, their main 2 bodies, both with FF sensors. Red also use full frame sensors in their higher end products. Sony and canon cine cameras also use full frame at the high end.

>>4029642

It's basic logic dude.

Different lenses have obviously different sharpness\resolution, across all price points, whereas shots from low MP sensors and high MP look pretty much identical when viewed at the same size. This shows that the vast majority of resolution is dependent on the lens, not the sensor MP count.

Lenses are typically measured in lines resolved per mm, or per picture height. If you double the height of your sensor (like mft to FF) then you would need a lens that resolves twice as many lines per mm to reach the same lines per picture height.

Mft lens makers don't have a secret stash of glass that's twice as good. Hence why mft lenses do so poorly in total picture resolution figures compared to ff, and also why a $100 FF lens can dick on an mft lens that costs 5 times as much.

>>4029650
All of dxo is a good start, but I'm sure you're going to piss and shit your pants at that suggestion.
>>
>>4029651
>increasing use of FF for cinematic effects
>doesnt realise the cinematic effect was built up over decades of not using FF
Oh how wonderful it must be to be this low iq
>>
>>4029670
super 35 was the standard for so long because anything large made the film exponentially more expensive and too difficult to handle.
>>
>>4029674
>blah blah some random shit thats not even true
Please stop
>>
some science.

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/why-micro-four-thirds-cameras-are-better-than-full-frame-at-low-light-photography-5ae3851b9986
>>
>>4029698
The 65mm on location camera for shooting Dunkirk weighed over 40kg, one 500' roll costs $850 from b&h, and costs nearly as much to develop ($773), and you get less than 4 and a half minutes of footage.

The same line of cameras from the same brand for 35mm roll film weighs under 6kg, a 2000' roll costs $370 of the same Kodak vision emulsion, costs $430 to develop and gives more than 22 minutes footage.

Which means if you had a 2 hour film and every single frame was a keeper, you'd need 27 rolls of 65mm at a total cost of emulsion and processing of $42,200

Whereas 35mm would be just 6 rolls and a total of $4800. Oh and you don't need to work out how to move 40kg around locations.

And when you consider even IMAX is only 4k resolution, kinda makes 65 or 70mm just an insane choice.

You chose a weird hill to die on though.
>>
>>4029755
More like some cope
That guys doesn't really know his shit and doesn'T post photos either
>>
>>4029656
>>make claim
>>get BTFOd
>>"I-images d-don't have to be the same"
Keep coping baby sensor. Equivalence?
>FF has comparable noise/DR
>FF is sharper/higher res
Not equivalent?
>FF has much better noise/DR
>FF is sharper/higher res
Equivalent, but with a really fast mft lens to try and cope?
>FF has comparable noise/DR
>FF is much, MUCH sharper/higher res, and for way less money.

>>the burden of proof is on you, hehe
I'm sorry you are literally too stupid to understand a MTF graph or what it means.
>>
>>4029698
>35mm film run vertically wasn't the hollywood standard forever
>this wasn't a choice made for cost reasons
OK retard

>>4029771
Based. One correction:
>And when you consider even IMAX is only 4k resolution, kinda makes 65 or 70mm just an insane choice.
70mm film has more detail than 4k. Even Super35 is close to 4k, assuming expert scanning/conversion. Now when they scan the film and project it in a theater they may work in 4k and use 4k projectors (would have to look that up but it sounds right). And that's still enough to impress viewers (oversampling down to 4k instead of upsampling from Super35). Which...kinda makes your point that 70mm is an expensive, insane choice today. And was an expensive, rare choice even when projection was film.
>>
>>4029755
>science!
No, just a retarded medium.com writer who doesn't understand the science behind sensors or photography.
>>
>>4029755
You mean pseudoscience
>>
>>4023693
why don't we just have round photos
>>
>>4016398
Full frame digital / 135 for photography: semiprofessional and professional . ~The perfect balance in the photography world.

Medium format digital / 120: High end professional. ~In short: the most information you can get in an image without being compromised to a tripod with large format.

Super 35 aka crop aps-c for semi / professional video: Cine lenses rule motion pictures. Is the optimum format for getting the most performance out of lenses. Lenses become too large, heavy, expensive, impractical, and complicated for formats larger than S35 to get the same image quality as on S35.

Although nowadays you can shoot on any format as sensor are so good and get a great image.
>>
why wouldn't you want FF anyways? Most of them are about the same size as a micro four shit or aps-c camera assuming you use a prime pancake
>>
File: a7c.jpg (201 KB, 740x494)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
>>4029252
Nope. Not even.

Sony A7C is such a great little lightweight and theres probably others that are better but I know that one best. Let's compare it with olympus with 1 zoom, 1 ultrawide prime and 1 standard prime let's see what happens.

>A7C - ($1800 509g)
Battery - 740 shots 225mins recording
Zoom - 18-105 f/4 G OSS ($799 482g)
Wide - 20mm f1.8 ($800 373g)
Std - 50mm f1.8 ($250 186g)
Total Cost $3650
Total Weight 1550g

>EM1MKIII - ($1800 580g)
Battery - 840 shots 140 mins recording (?)
Zoom - 12-40 f2 8 pro ($1000 382g)
Wide - 12mm f2 ($500 130g)
Std - 25mm f1.8 ($299 137g)
Total Cost $3599
Total Weight 1229g

50 bucks and 300 grams and come on, I really went easy on olympus. None of this stuff is equivalent for mft really because I'd have to pick super expensive olympus lenses.

>inb4 the sony overheats
Yes if you film for an hour and a half stationary inside with zero breeze, but the olympus can shoot 10 minutes more than that before it's out of battery
>inb4 sony weathersealing
It's not as good as olympus. Better off buying one of those if you hike in rainstorms

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>4031161
g9(with 12-60)$1600, 650g
battery - 400shots, 2.5h 4k
usb powerbank - $50, 150g, 10000mah, unlimited practically
wide - leica 9mm f/1.7, $500, 140g
std - lumix 25mm, f/1.7, $150, 130g
zoom - leica 12-60, f/2.8-4, 330g

weight: 1400g
cost: $2300
you can buy another leica 50-200 and still come out cheaper with higher quality glass and focal range that shits on the ff "solution"
>>
>>4031217
A7ii with 28-70 - 820g -$1600
wide - 28mm f2 - 200g - $400
standard - 35m f2.8 - 80g - $200

weight: 1100g
cost: $2200

So it's cheaper and lighter to get full frame gear with proper full frame lenses than the best you could come up with

You can even save an extra 130g if you swap the kit lens for the 28-60, which would bring you to $2300. That means the mft setup weighs nearly 50% more!
>>
mft only has a size/weight advantage IF you're reach limited AND you can compromise on aperture.
>>
>>4031224
>a7ii
>why yes, i don't need video, warranty or any modern features
lol
>>
>>4031232
>Wahhh I need my photography camera to also do video
The a7ii does video

And why anon?

I can't recall a single video posted to /p, have you ever posted one anon? If you do prioritise video you can get an a7s range body instead.

>Warranty

The price I gave is new from a store with a full warranty, not sure what you're talking about here

>Modern features

What's it missing?

Thanks for admitting the Sony is the better choice tho.

>>4031226
AND you don't ever need the extra dynamic range a larger sensor offers at base iso
>>
>>4031233
>4k
>10bit
>photo burst rate
>flippy screen
>good viewfinder
>card slots
>video bitrates

>just get an A7s whateevr if you want video, bro

Nigger, the only Snoys that do 4k60 are the A7IV, A7SIII and A1, starting at $4k.
There's no competition for the G9, GH6, OM1 and the only FF camera worth buying right now, the S5 (just because of that crazy kit sale)
>>
>>4031161
>comparing a consumer FF camera to a pro MFT body

Who are you trying to fool?

>EM5iii - ($899 414g)
Battery - 310 shots 110mins recording
Extra Battery - ($59 45g)
Zoom - 12-45 f4 ($599 254g)
Wide - 12mm f2 ($499 130g)
Std - 20mm f1.4 ($799 247g)
Total Cost $2860
Total Weight 1080g

$800 cheaper, 500 grams lighter, overall much smaller kit volume-wise, with high quality optics with full metal build.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height720
>>
>>4031240
the Printard has probably never touched a metal lens in it's entire life.
>>
>>4031237
>Video
>Video
>5fps is plenty, can you show a photo that you got that needed more?
>Flip down screen works fine on it?
>2.4m dots not enough?
>1 card slot works fine, mines never failed and the shutter count is near 200k
>More video

Weird how you couldn't point out a single thing actually related to photography.

And look, I can do the same for mft

>Has 1\4 the snr of FF
>Poor lens selection with very few new releases
>No f2.8 equivalent zooms or f1.4 equivalent primes
>Needs 4 times as much light for equal noise
>No bsi sensor
>20mp max

Oh no, wait, mine actually have an effect on the quality of your photos.
>>
>>4031246
the only extra effect is the copium from your plastic kit lenses. enjoy your fisher-price setup i guess.
>>
>m43 is smaller & cheaper
>not when you take into account equivalence
>who cares about equivalence
>who cares about xyz other feature or metric
m43 and ff (and aps-c) all have enough offerings to shoot most things at most budgets or size requirements
some cameras are better for some people, why can't we all get along
>>
>>4031217
I like your research and numbers fren. If youre going to go mft, it looks like lumix is the better option than the olympus

>>4031240
My comparison is perfectly balanced in the bodies themselves. The A7C is a prosumer camera just the same as the EM1. The EM1 is not a pro level body. The OM1 is pro level and it's in the same league as the A7SIII. The EOS RP would be considered a consumer entry level FF comparable to the EM5, so let's do that then. I dont know why you went for such an expensive standard lens so I changed it. I also bundled both bodies with the kit lenses since that's how you'd actually buy them. Also you are listing the deal of the century sales price right now. Lets stick to rrp.

>EOS RP - ($1299kit 485g)
Battery - 250 shots 60mins recording
Zoom - 24-105 f/4-7.1 ($0 695g)
Wide - 16mm f2.8 ($299 165g)
Std - 50mm f1.8 ($199 160g)
Total Cost $1797
Total Weight 1505g

>EM5MKIII - ($1849kit 414g)
Battery - 310 shots 60 mins recording (source for 110?)
Zoom - 12-45 f4 ($0 254g)
Wide - 12mm f2 ($500 130g)
Std - 25mm f1.8 ($299 137g)
Total Cost $2648
Total Weight 935g

Now Im really cutting you come slack here because I've just realized I had the 25mm and the 12mm as the sale price on my OP, so even with me letting that mistake fly, you are so over budget and for what? You save 1lb, I'll give you that but at almost $1000 more than the full frame option. How does that make any sense?

>inb4 using a 6D reject binned sensor camera as a comparison
You dont mention the quality of mine and I wont bring up the size of yours. Deal?
>>
Started out with a Nikon coolpix 7900 compact. I started getting serious with photography much later with a Fuji X-E2, and still love that thing but made the switch to an X-T4 which is a beast. So APS-C mainly out of benefit of keeping lenses from the X-E2. But I suspect I'd be very happy with M43 or FF. FF is probably overkill for mee, I hardly print photo's wallpaper size.
Now with the X-T4 I do very much appreciate being able to crop to 1/50 of the original image and still have a great photo for internet posting.
>>
Things we have established from this thread

full frame
>is lighter
>costs less
>looks better

apsc
>dont bother unless fuji but by then you're full frame price territory ?

micro 4/3
>films for 15 seconds longer before thermal shutdown
>better in body stab due to articulation physics
>better weather-sealing because ????

1/2.3"
>costs $50 off ebay
>have free built in teles
>is indistinguishable from mft images
>is objectively the highest price:performance ratio

Compact chads. We win again

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4031256
>no ibis
>bargain bin lenses compared to premium olympus
I see you like to joke.
>>
File: hi-its-peter-here.jpg (95 KB, 1280x720)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>4031272
Alright let's go XT4 then.

>XT4 - ($2099kit 607g)
Battery - 600 shots 85mins recording
Zoom - 18-55 f/2.8-4 ($0 310g)
Wide - 16mm f2.8 ($399 155g)
Std - 35mm f2 ($399 175g)
Total Cost $2897
Total Weight 937g

>EM5MKIII - ($1849kit 414g)
Battery - 310 shots 60 mins recording (source for 110?)
Zoom - 12-45 f4 ($0 254g)
Wide - 12mm f2 ($500 130g)
Std - 25mm f1.8 ($299 137g)
Total Cost $2648
Total Weight 935g

Really makes you think
>>
>>4031256
>imagine trying so hard to hate on the system that you do research on the prices and weight

Get yourself a life bro.
>>
>>4031274
might wanna recheck your weight
and no, it doesn't >>4031217
but the X-T4 at least makes "some" sense.
>>
>>4031274
that camera looks so uncomfortably small
do m43 folks just have tiny hands?
>>
File: Olympus-e-m5III-vs-II.jpg (55 KB, 590x317)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>4031288
No, theyre tiny cameras. I have tried out the new em5mkiii and it was so small I felt like i was gonna drop it and I shoot compact cameras. Its not the size thats the problem, its the fact that it's like a full size camera shrunk down. A compact is easier to get a handle on so it actually feels more substantial. Also the mk3 felt like plastic dogshit. It was the worst plasticy trash I have ever felt in my hands and it was rattling and making all this noise. Liek a fucking fisher price toy or some shit. Dont believe me, go try one out in a store and youll see. Its a horrible camera. The em1 is much better though

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/10.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length100.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
>>
File: fortune.jpg (4.86 MB, 2700x3600)
4.86 MB
4.86 MB JPG
>>4031256
>I don't know why you went for such an expensive standard lens so I changed it

Yes, you've already established that you don't give a shit about lenses and only care about sensor size. I chose the 20mm because I had so much wiggle room in price compared to the A7C kit and picked a high-quality pro prime because I had the money to.

How sharp are your shit plastic lenses wide open? Are they weather sealed? How contrasty are they? Microcontrast? What about focus breathing, barrel distortion, vignetting? Color rendition? Have you ever owned a quality lens in your life?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M5MarkIII
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Color Filter Array Pattern778
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2022:05:17 11:24:23
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/1.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: derek forss.jpg (55 KB, 529x631)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>4031298
I dont even own an interchangeable lens camera. Now that we're bump limit I will say it was fun memeing with you fren. See you next thread.
>>
>>4031300
>I dont even own an interchangeable lens camera
Same. I only have my RX10M4 which blow the crap out of m43 cameras.





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.