>>4458547
No no no!!! You can't like those cameras I simply will not allow it.

File: mft.jpg (103.6 KB)

103.6 KB JPG

>>4458547
Micro Four Thirds... home.

>>4458549
Do you think the thread will be entirely gearfagging or will there actually be m43 pics?

We all know the only "m43" pics posted here will be from huskyfag and her Sony.

>>4458554
Micro four thirds confirmed good for nothing but making youtube clickbait!

>>4458561
That guy must be so proud. He traumatized /p/‘s worst gear thread.

File: original(2).jpg (323 KB)

323 KB JPG

>>4458547
Not my best birb by any means but my most recent. They were quite upset with me so I left quickly.

>>4458576
Who is nup?

File: large.jpg (112.3 KB)

112.3 KB JPG

>>4458577

>>4458576
the trips are the only people on /p/ who consistently post photos...

File: large(1).jpg (183.4 KB)

183.4 KB JPG

>>4458580

File: large(2).jpg (299.1 KB)

299.1 KB JPG

>>4458582

File: large(3).jpg (137.8 KB)

137.8 KB JPG

>>4458583

>>4458583
wow!

i see better shots from d750 and 5diii budget chads. clearly mirrorless isnt actually easier to use lol.

>>4458592
BbbbbbbbBUTT my m43 has better DR, chud.

File: P8111866.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

Didn't snap any building corners today.

File: P4030268-Enhanced-NR.jpg (656.5 KB)

656.5 KB JPG

i was reminded by this thread of the existence of my 4/3rds olympus e500 and i will bring that to work tomorrow, expect some plane photos

i like how this camera has a really deep rich look to its photos. its the kodak ccd + olympus cfa.

>>4458600
>>4458592
my e500 has no dynamic range, this thing just falls flat on its face if you ask anything above iso 400, its pretty retarded actually. even the 6mp konica ccd + 10mp pentax/sony ccds i have work better at iso 400-800.

it cost $140 locally with a 50mm f/2 prime that apparently is a retarded desirable lens in 4/3rds mount

File: P4060365-Enhanced-NR.jpg (969.6 KB)

969.6 KB JPG

>>4458612
i do like the artistic expression (read: unique look) i get out of it

its pretty fun to use all things considered, but the awb isn't accurate at all. i prefer my konica minolta 5d, it can give a similar deep saturated look with more versatile DR/better details from the larger sensor (apsc vs 4/3), but the olympus glass is really sharp all things considered.

this stupid camera actually makes me wanna pick up my first not-vintage camera (olympus em5 mark iii). i think i would be served fine by m43 considering most of what i shoot is with telezooms and as long as i get better image quality than my phone i'm happy (almost certain since olympus glass is great).

File: P4060370-Enhanced-NR.jpg (808.9 KB)

808.9 KB JPG

>>4458613
anyways olympus em5 mark 3 or a pentax k1 mark ii, and i kinda feel like the em5 has a better place in my collection since its half the price, way better autofocus, and a lot of my pentax lenses are apsc anyways

>>4458614
>even m43 is better than pentax
oh no!

current rankings according to assorted /p/ users
film > phaseone > hasselblad> canon = nikon > sony > m43 > pentax > fujifilm

>>4458581
In the real world you're not awarded just for participating.

>Sugar
has never posted a decent photo and rarely posts anything in focus
>Huskyfag
has never used zir camera for anything other than test shots and is also an animal rapist suffering from psychosis
>fe2fucker
just a fatter clone of sugar (not easy)
>cANON
I don't think i've ever seen cANON post a photo other than that fatguy mirror selfie
>RPuser
braindead newfag gen alpha
>clueless faggot
as described

File: large(4).jpg (77.8 KB)

77.8 KB JPG

>>4458644
i don't care about any of that, where is your m43 bird photos loser

>>4458645
bird phots fucking suck, they're all the same, especially the wikipedia tier shit that gets posted here.

>>4458626
>phaseone
Say his true name.

>>4458644
>Sugar
Modern day ansel adams
>Huskyfag
A talented landscape photographer who has shot professionally
>fe2fucker
Lewis baltz the early years
>cANON
Posts a lot of photos with his trip off, mostly landscape, all well received, from a VPN, so his snaps dont get IP wiped when he names the

>>4458613
Four thirds looks a lot less flat than micro four thirds. The vintage sensors didn't cope as hard and embraced their low DR and resolution. Micro four thirds tries and fails to compete with better cameras.

>>4458644
>clueless faggot
>as described
No argument there really.

>>4458657
>the air gap in the mirror box makes the light more 3d
hahaha thats great

>>4458657
The vintage sensors also came out during a time when they were trying their best to convince people to switch from film to digital. That's why they along with the Nikon D200/D40-60, KM 5D, Canon 5D Classic, etc all have a similar look. It also has to do with the strong CFAs used on the sensor itself (the Sonys from the same era have weak CFAs and need more editing despite using similar CCD sensors as Nikon for example)

File: PXL_20250809_191305792~2.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4458644
Rekt and kekd.

Incidentally, I've purchased an M43 cope cam to add to my collection - an E-P7 with the 40-150 kit, plus a panny 20mm 1.7. I shall report back on IQ when it makes its way out here from the orient. The seller just informed me that Nippon is taking the week off, and I only hope it gets here before the tariff king spots it at the border.

>>4458657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x77sPknyRQ

Olympus E500 vs EM10 Mark III

Olympus colors just rock desu. If Olympus used bigger sensors they'd sell a lot more cameras. Imagine a FF OM-1.

>>4458602

that looks like Proust

>>4458668
M43 system can't have an APS-C sensor can it? (like Sony and Nikon have both APS-C and FF cameras with the same lens mount) The lenses are too small in diameter, righ?

>>4458695
negative. same issue EOS M mount had; mount is at capacity.

>>4458693
The book? Les Miserables I think, it's not mine.

>>4458654
absolutely correct

there's more talent in sugar's swollen index finger than there is in this entire thread and the huskyfag-doghair complex genuinely outdoes most of /p/ despite working with less than ideal environments (a bunch of dead grass and ugly pine trees and a farm littered with 100 years worth of garbage respectively)

File: P8121917.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

Does anyone have either of the OM-5? Can it do exposure compensation in manual mode when iso is auto? Or can it change iso with a wheel?

> Empty churches with transparent doors.

>>4459023
> exposure compensation in manual mode
Well, I just had to look it up and it can.

>>4458668
There was rumors they were looking at making a medium format camera. Probably a GFX/Hassleblad competitor.

>>4459081
> tfw it's an m43 twin lens reflex

>>4459141
Square format sensor would be incredibly based for a dtlr. Even if it was M44... M1? Still pretty cool. Wouldn't buy it, but it sure would be neat!

>>4459081
M4turds weird lust for dx medium format is like when a 5’2” guy fantasizes about being 6’2” simply because normal height is 6’0”

meanwhile people who are already 6’0” dont care that other people are 6’2” and people who are 6’2” dont care that people are 6’0”. they are all brothers in laughing at manlets. such is the relationship between 35mm and 44mm sensor brahs.

aps-c (5’10” king of manlets) can hang too

>>4459141
That would be incredible

>>4459150
Anon take your gay fantasies to a different board. This is for talking about photography not your ex boyfriends

>>4459152
>he starts thinking about gay sex when people taller than him are mentioned
Who’s gay here? Not me

>>4459153
>I'm not gay I just like thinking about tall guys and how I'm such a short guy

>>4459156
I’m normal height (6ft) and use a normal camera (ff)

>>4459168
You shoot 8x10 as well? Based.

> Took a bunch of photos with Oly kit lens at f16-f22.
> They look awful.
Yeah, I'm a retard.

I like just like how some of the older cameras are pretty cheap for what you get and the smaller sizes are really nice for vacations as an amateur at least
I just got an old GF3 with kit lens for 100 eurobux
The previous owner was unfortunately a smoker
I read positive things about baking soda and vinegar that I’ll try out

>m.zuiko 50-200 f/2.8 coming sep 10th
>it's huge and white
Well ok I guess. I'd rather have a lighter and smaller 50-200 f/4 like the Panny. I use the 40-150 2.8 with a 1.4x for this but the whole setup is way bigger and heavier than the Panny. (No sealing is a no go for me, I frequently shoot close to or on the ground and water.) I bet this stupid thing will be close to or over 2kg. At least it appears to have IS.

Just how many X0-Y00 zooms an average birdfag needs?

>>4464232
To be fair it's weird Oly makes so many 80-300 equivalents and not a single 100-400 equivalent, a standard zoom range for birds. It's also weird to me we don't have a nicer 150-600 equivalent, they're all plastic and soft and slow at the long end.

>>4464180
>this stuipid thing will be close to or over 2kg
>for a 100-400mm f/5.6 equiv.
>on a camera with 800 base iso
>it's probably also $1500+
Like... I don't get the point. So, you're gonna have a lens as big as a full frame lens, that costs just as much (or more considering used market), with specs that are slighty worse to about the same, on a body/sensor that's not going to be able to do it justice even at base ISO.

No really, someone try and sell this to me and make it make sense because I don't know why you wouldn't just get an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or Nikon equivalent.

>>4458614
>>4458612
I was gonna suggest looking for an E-5 or E-510 since those have newer sensors and way better DR, E-5 has the same sensor as the E-P1 and E-P2 so it also supports video

Dang it, I got a nice E-P1 and E-P2 from auctions on Buyee and both pages said they were fully functional.
The E-P1 didn't have a picture of the screen turned on but the E-P2 did and it looked fine.
They arrived today and both show show an orange flashing IBIS light, indicating it isn't working.
Can shipping damage IBIS?
The E-P1 came with a 40-150mm f4-5.6 so it's not a bust luckily and I still got my money's worth.
I'll just use stabilized lenses on them and learn to ignore the flashing IBIS light.

File: 2025-08-23 18.58.43P8230145.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

>>4464994
All my cameras with IBIS were shipped to me and still have functional IBIS. Early Pens were cheaply made though. Sorry for your loss anon.

>>4465005
Thanks anon.
I found old forum posts that mentioned IBIS breaking being an inevitability on the old Pens.
It's a shame but oh well.
That aside, the old designs are really nice.
I know the era has passed but man I'd like to see some of that design incorporated in new cameras again.

>>4465015
They're great, but feel antithetical to OM's current plans, which is frustrating. I had hope with the 17 and 25 f/1.8s being given a version II we'd see a pen... I guess it's not impossible.

>>4465039
Indeed, I fear the OM-3 is the closest we’re getting instead

>>4465152
I cannot help but think this line is straight from OMDS markeing: "maybe if we say OM-3 is a successor of Pen series, more people would buy it".

>>4465162
I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re thinking:
>Only if people buy enough of this 2000$ model, we’ll consider making a new 1000$ model

>>4465182
except what they're actually thinking is
>I wonder how many suckers are going to buy this $2000 camera before we sink the company for good and retire

>>4465188
kek

>>4465182
> Look up OM-5
> 1700 Europoor money with kit lens
Wtf are they thinking?

>>4465387
Having a huge old used market with highly depreciated lenses and bodies that are not materially different from new drives camera makers to sell more pro and expensive gear. If you are buying a dedicated camera in the year 2025 you most likely want a kit that is "pro" in some sense, ESPECIALLY if you are buying new. This puts 2025 m43 in a very rough spot. People criticize OM for abandoning their low end gear but it was the best move they had, even if it's a losing move. (I love my m43 gear for what it's worth and think the market is stupid and not the end all for quality-- Pentax would be far better represented if that were the case and Fuji APS-C much less so, for example)

>>4465410
>om5
>high end
>pro
Lmfao. M43 is inherently low end. The all plastic om5 makes it even worse. The 20mp om3 is pure idiocy. Om system is a fucking joke. A literal scam brand.
At least the g9ii does SOMETHING (high speed camcorder that looks almost like apscope)

>>4465414
>anon fell for the price = quality meme again

>M43 is inherently low end
trvth nvke

>>4465505
M43 being a poorfag/cheapskate system isn't a secret.

Ok, I promise to not complain about OM Workspace for at least a month. Today I learned that apparently Fujifags have to process images in-camera (and with the exact camera that shot the raw) if they want to get Fuji's own color science.

>>4465039
Monkey paw. They turn Pen into "vlogger" camera: no sd card, no mechanical shutter, only continuous autofocus. That would be $1500 plus tip.

>>4465387
grey imported mine for £800, the nips get em cheap. 5 year warranty from the importer.

>>4467015
That must be body only, right?

>>4467076
nope, body and the 40-150 kit lens, £879 delivered from cotswold cameras.

I bought my first camera and it turns out it's a Micro 4/3, whatever that means. What now?

>>4467090
I'm afraid you might have to actually take photos.

File: P9050012.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4467094
Preposterous

>>4467089
Well, I guess it's not as outrageous as I thought; 1700 is with the f/4 lens that costs 600 Euro on its own. Still outrageous how everyhing in Japan is less expensive than in Europe, where we are constantly fucked by taxes, VAT and what not.

>>4467164
oh yeah its fuckin obscene the markups we get, thankfully uncle chang lies to HMRC all the time so i rarely pay any import taxes on anything really. Where were you seeing it for 1700 with the 40-150 f4 pro?

>>4467315
I meant the 12-45 f4 pro.

>>4458613
>>4458614
imagine looking at this irl and thinking "yes, this is beautiful" lmfao..thank god i live in beautiful switzerland and not in a concrete jungle hellhole

>>4458547
I hate m43 youtubers. That new 50-200 from Olympus they all yap about how it's small and compact. Hell you fucking retards - it's the same size and weight as the Nikon Z 100-400 while being 1000 Euros more expensive. kek

File: NZF_2286.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4458547
hey, it's former m43 anon who sold all his gear to invest in bitcoin and get a fuji macro four thirds.

just wanted to say I bought a Nikon Zf after test driving a fuji GFX lol

(would post other photo but 5MB limit)

peace out

>>4467857
It's almost a pound lighter actually, not unsubstantial. It's about the same size, probably because the m.zuiko zooms internally (unlike the Nikon).

>>4467857
Exactly what I think of whenever someone is like MUH FOURTURDS is so LIGHT and COMPACT.
Nigger, you're slapping on lenses the same size as FF tried-and-true that have half as much aperture size. M43 marketing relies on the fact we arbitrarily slapped f/stops on the barrel to sell lenses instead of the pupil entrance size. The same way phones rely on talking like they're big boy cameras "we're totally using a 28mm lens guys, and it's f/1.9 that's so good and wide and omg foolturds in shambles".
>>4467859
A difference I'm happy to admit to, but it still shows that for the low low price of more money than full frame and 1/4 the sensor area, you too can save 200g off your hiking kit. Woo.

File: NZF_2825.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

>>4465387
yeah that's why I got a Nikon Zf insted. for the same money. (without a lens but I already had Nikon glass and that f8 equivalent zoom kit is a joke anyway). OM is peak retard. even used their cams are way too overpriced.

>>4467321
>24-90 f8
>600 euros
whew

>>4465387

its $900 in america body only brand new and $6-700 used, +$300 for mark ii

maybe your market sucks

>>4467863
Bro what's wrong, you've hardly touched your $1000 general purpose kit zoom

>>4467861
> Comes to a schizo containment thread to lie
> Lie is pointed out
> I admit to lying hehe
You gearfags are pathetic.

>>4467863
> Creamy_dreamy_cummy_yummies.txt

>>4467877
I'm not whatever anon you think I am, and I'm admitting the four turds is lighter because I'm not in denial like you thirdies are about your fashion accessory cameras.
I can admit my opponent's victories because it makes it easier to point out their failures.
In this case your f/8 kit zoom paired with your micropeen pixel pitch and horrible sensor tech and debayering that costs more than a legit big boi system, all so you can save a few hundred grams for your basedlet wrists.

File: the m43.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>>4467862
yeah micro four thirds is quite shit. i tried it for a while and stuck with nikon ff. even shooting "le equivalently!" the difference is real. it's just oversized 1". better to get that sony zv-something pns instead if buying a small camera.

mind the difference in light color (it's actually the color of the light)

>>4467870
https://explore.omsystem.com/fr/fr/om-5-mark-ii-silver-12-45mm-pro-lens-kit

File: the ff.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4467882

File: 51Zj4waDDiS.jpg (63.7 KB)

63.7 KB JPG

>>4467882
yes there it is
the sony zv1
aka rx100v but paradoxically cheaper

>>4467882
>>4467884
So equivalent settings dont actually work? wtf lmao

>>4467883
grim its 100 euro more before converting euro to usd, once converting 1700 euro = $2000 usd

might unironically be cheaper to fly to nyc and buy one

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1900663-REG/om_system_v210071su000_om_5_mark_ii_mirrorless.html

>>4467886

why would it, its a smaller sensor. smaller sensor = higher iso/shutter speed/aperture needed vs larger sensor

File: em5iii.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4467886
No.
m43: panaleica 45mm f2.8 wide open iso 1600
ff: 24-120 f4 kit zoom 80mm f5.6 iso 6400
caveat: shot months apart
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4454569/#4455121

>>4467888
why would you do this to yourself? just buy an older one instead of blowing z5ii money on a phone sensor. micro four thirds isn't even that good in broad daylight. it underperforms vintage dslrs.

>Pentax confirmed >>>>>>>> olympiss
Pentaxsisters we're better than something!

>>4467870
>$900 for a re-badged EM5.3 which already was a re-badged EM5.2
you have it so good over there in the US! based market!

>>4467890
Equivalent settings do work anon.

You just have to buy a G9II, stick to lenses costing at least $1500 each for an f2.8 prime, and shoot in pixel shift!

>>4467890
> Out of focus picture of a dog in trailer park
I don't doubt that better gear makes bad photos a bit better, and I don't doubt that current OM gear is bad for the price. But this photo is bad not because of gear.

File: 25-03-04-DSC02780.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4467898
>ohhh noooo your image quality example snapshit isnt a work of art. i can see grass that isn't a putting green so this is clearly a trailer park.
that's a campground not a trailer park. thanks for the tacit admission you have literally never touched grass.
>out of focus
it's in focus. that's the sad part. it's a zoom. m43 zooms that don't cost as much or more than comparable (better) lenses for bigger sensors are just like that.

i would rather use a sony than micro four thirds
behold the a7c and its 28-60 kit zoom, at a whopping iso 6400

>>4467902
Anon, you bought into 3 different systems to haphazardly snap your backyard animals. Then you proceed to argue that OM is not good value for money. At least shoot the night sky or something.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-14 at 18.40.33.png (485.3 KB)

485.3 KB PNG

>>4467902
>behold the a7c and its 28-60 kit zoom, at a whopping iso 6400
but le fool frame is so huge and heavy! you literally have to carry 100g more!

Micro four thirds was never meant for photographers. It was meant for the "family photo" market that made poorly shot SOOC jpeg vacation 4x6s with purse sized. Especially that market in japan, where ultra casual vacation cameras were a thing for longer than they were in the west. It is huge engineering challenge to get the quality on par with a 16mp APS-C DSLR, optically and electronically. When the family snap market dried up due to phones, olympus tried and failed to appeal to photographers by adding tech gimmicks that photographers barely had any use for and therefore olympus died. Panasonic went for the amateur video market instead, since image quality is borderline meaningless for video but the small sensor size enables faster readouts and less heat generation for less money.

So in the end, olympus made garbage and spending more than $350 or so on an olympus body is for idiots, and panasonic made really good camcorders for the money.

Anyone viewing an m43 photo at the full 16-20mp, with web browser scaling, is going to be disappointed. These cameras were never meant to spread their 20mp across 72dpi. That's hard to make look good even if you own a hasselblad because bayer hits its limit fast. They were meant to squish it down into a 300dpi 4x6. An 8x10 for photos that people would never be able to look closely at, maybe.

>>4467905
I take photos of more than that
not for /p/ though. i'm not the kind of person to post hastily censored shots from other peoples weddings on the same site as /d/.
>bought into 3 different systems
I had and sold the m43 shit for about what i paid for it
the a7c was bought underpriced and sold for an extra $50

most of the cameras i've bought i sold for break even/a small profit jej. do people really do it any other way?

File: shittyfilmsimnotafujiorisit.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4467907
most people who insist on m43 are kind of gearfaggy and speculate about scenarios where the gimmicks might matter, and end up spending $$$$ to un-disappoint themselves

if you just shoot it has nothing over aps-c and is more like less convenient 1"

>>4467909
> Out of focus tilted photo of a bride against blurred rubbish bins
Yeah, /p definitely lacks that.

>>4467909
anon tell me more about the a7c. is it actually not shit? considering one. why did u sell it?

>>4467906
Side note but it's crazy how they managed to make the OM-3 lighter than the a7c, but it has a stacked sensor, a real shutter with better flash sync speed, much better weather sealing and ibis etc.

File: 4a82f0668eba0da9ed20127ec3e8e08c.jpg (35.5 KB)

35.5 KB JPG

>>4467911

File: Screenshot_20250914-104741~2.png (429.7 KB)

429.7 KB PNG

M4turds btfo again, kek.
> inb4 muh equivalence

>>4467914
I take it back. I want you to be my wedding photographer.

>>4467916
Depends on how many times you plan on getting married.

>>4467913
Then they proceded to make it twice as large and expensive. Clown world.

Doghair, huscuck, and corgearfag are the same person and you’re all being trolled

>>4467919
He also posts about how he's the only worthwhile photographer here when he's never taken anything of merit.

>>4467910
>he has a fuji "now"
Stop falling for it

>>4467920
Watch out. Next he’ll show up as doghair and defend himself.

>>4467919
You're giving us a lot of credit for keeping up a lie with that much complexity over years of posting on multiple boards.
If there was any real evidence of us being the same person it would be posted constantly. The charade would have been over long ago.

I really enjoy the schizo theories you guys come up with, so I'm fine with it.

>>4467910
sorry huskyfag im unironically considering either a om5 with a 20mm pancake like you had (or 14-32mm panaleica lens) or a z30 w/kit lens

i like how it slim it feels and a comparable sized apsc isnt gonna have a viewfinder or flash

i also dont want to pay 2x for a a7c and pancake lens

>>4467913
it's lighter because it's made of plastic. also stacked baby sensor is irrelevant because it's a baby sensor with worse IQ than some 10 yo fuji x-tranny sensor

File: a7c.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

>>4467912
The a7c is a good camera. I liked it more than the a7cii and took it on a few hikes with my dog. The 300% pixel peeping zoom/dog fur rendition/distant pine needle quality is not as good as some other cameras because of the AA filter, but it has soul, and doesnt have the zombie skin issues of the a7riii/a7iii and the jpegs can be good if you mess around with the profiles so color calibration isn't an absolute must. Just watch out for the bad batch of magenta tinged rear screens. I think most of the hate for it is because it's not as good of a vlogging camera as snoy pretended it was and some people like looking through viewfinders more than they like getting nice photos later.

Micro four thirds literally could not take this picture (iso 100 -2ev) which would be sad, because my dog was being very cute

>>4467937
I never owned and can not recommend an om5
I had an em5ii and toyed around with an em5iii (spoilers: it isn't any better than the em5ii at all)

>>4467960
em5iii = om5

same shit just gains live nd mode, a extra stop of stabilization, and truepic 9 vs truepic 8

i have a ff dslr at home this would be just a edc/car/travel camera

>>4467940
Pretty sure the OM-3 is made from metal.

>>4467910
>most people who insist on m43 are kind of gearfaggy and speculate about scenarios where the gimmicks might matter, and end up spending $$$$ to un-disappoint themselves
>>4467913
>gimmick copes
Prophetic… is huscuck lisan al ghaib? His dog does look like timothee chalamet

>>4468021
>a real shutter with 1/250 sync speed is a gimmick
>high fps without rolling shutter is a gimmick
Maybe you are just retarded

>>4468065
>sub stop sync speed difference meaningless since lol hss
>high fps with low rolling shutter is a gimmick because high FPS is a gimmick especially with micro four thirds crappy autofocus
The vast majority of legendary photos were shot with <10fps cameras
10fps+ cameras have mostly produced a lot of time spent culling and only keeping the first one

High FPS is a professional feature for people who get fired if they do not get some permutation of a specific shot like the first kiss, so they can just spam shots instead of exercising timing skills. Unfortunately for the overpriced-micro-turd (aka OM3) micro four thirds is not a professional format and sucks so bad it gets turbomogged by a used canon 5ds

>>4468065
My phone shoots 120fps!

>>4459081
>They call it the OM-X to reference the cancelled modular system

>>4467990
They should do a "bleeding edge" body that's retro-styled but has hyper-advanced features like debuting the 50mp sensor, 8k video, high-speed flash sync, and Z-axis IBIS (sensor moves forward and back like a Contax AX film plane)

>>4468200
Also they should call this body the OM-4 to reference the original OM-4 film camera being the most advanced of the OM film bodies

>>4468200
They should start making ff cameras that accept m43 glass with an adaptor.

>>4468207
yeah, just include a 2x speed booster and be done with it.

desu I had this thought today about nikon and them making """medium format""" cameras. they could just include a 1.25x speed booster with the camera (like they did with the FTZ adapter). hell most Z-mount S glass is good enough to fill a digital medium format sensor without terrible vignetting without a speed booster at all.

also why are we calling this 0.79x crop shit even medium format? that's more like full frame+. hell even the small real medium format 6x4.5 has a crop of 0.62x ... proper medium format like 6x7 starts at 0.5x crop.

fucking marketing assholes

>>4468200
They aren't doing shit. The company is gone, they're just being milked by a venture holding firm. There will be no new innovation, just rehashes.
>>4468207
You want to adapt lenses that project an image on half of the sensor and expect that to go well? So, you just want to get like 6MP out of your 24MP cameras or?

>>4468216
i see two options:
1. they make a FF with a 60mp/80mp sensor or something like that so the m43 crop mode is 16mp or 20mp. but that's unrealistic and would be too expensive
2. they add AI based in-camera upscaling to their 24mp/33mp full frame body that would upscale the m43-crop image to 20mp resolution.

>>4468216
>>4468264
Yep, they'd need a 80MP FF sensor, but if they had one, that would be a way to sell more gear while keeping the core audience of m43 lunatics.

File: om-1_cross_section.jpg (35.1 KB)

35.1 KB JPG

>>4468283
>Core audience of m43 lunatics
Less than 1% of the market? A dying minority as more and more accept that the a7c is a good camera or some fuji is better?

We have this guy who sounds like an ex-mu-43 goon readily admitting that there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5 >>4467960
Olympus is cooked

Their only way to live after they're done milking this doomed from day one digital shit is to restart a film camera production line. The OM-1n and OM-2n can not be too difficult to produce. They're dead simple SLRs designed around the manufacturing capabilities of a japanese warehouse full of 40s and 50s level tech. All of the lenses are already designed as well and making them to the same standard would be cheap as chips. That's basically what china does with ttartisan etc. And because film shooters are idiots and a low volume market, they could just make them exactly like they did before, for the same price adjusted for inflation, and charge $1500 for a metal box. And actually sell a ton. What's the competition? $6000 leica and $800 pentax fixed lens half frame.

>>4468290
Not that they have any other audience.

>>4468290
>A dying minority
you don't know how right you are. the average m43 user is 74 years old by now
>there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5
there isn't. there's even a downgrade as the em5.2 had a metal body while the om5 is plastic. only difference is 16mp vs 20mp and the om5 has finally the "favorites menu" where you can save menu items to. oh also some computational crap that no one uses after they try it out once

File: 2025-09-13 08.08.20P9130113 1.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4468290
>We have this guy who sounds like an ex-mu-43 goon readily admitting that there's no major IQ or usability upgrade between the em-5 II and om5
I used both as well and (anecdotally) found the om-5 to be noticeably better, PDAF AF is a huge improvement too even if it's not om-1 level.

>>4468325
PDAF is a meme for static subjects, olympus tracking AF is a meme period and relies on every zoom being f8-11 to save itself

I demoed it once and the pdaf was only noticeably better for single point af-c otherwise its a mess. Slightly below the level of a decent canon DSLR ie: 5div. I think their cameras outside the epl are kind of a scam. If it doesn't pocket it's pointless gram shaving gearwank and might as well be aps-c at least.

Even that one petapixel shill will take his gm5 out over the various meme olympuses

File: 2025-09-06 08.55.32P9060061 1.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4468325
>PDAF AF
lol I forgot what PDAF stood for

>>4468327
>PDAF is a meme
Can't agree, maybe other CDAF systems are better but the e-m5ii struggled

>>4468329
E-PL7 CDAF is pretty good

How hard is it to focus on trees? Maybe your lens was broken

File: 2025-09-06 14.56.3620250906-P9060386.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4468330
I take photos of critters when I can too :3

>>4468331
AF-S could take this photo 100%

File: P9110855_45.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>stop lurking /p/
>actually go out and take photos
>have tons of fun
>realise the only thing that ever matters on 4chan is engaging with the board hobby
>paradoxically this means you'll spend less time here because you're actually doing the thing
>but it also means you can ignore anyone that doesn't prove they engage with the board topic
Anyway here's a picture I actually like.

>>4465594
Yeah, you plug the camera into the computer and the desktop software apparently uses the camera “color module” or something. The only pros I see who actually shoot Fuji just use Capture One, which apparently does a close enough job

>>4467858
How are you liking the ZF?
I’ve been looking at it, and it’s at the super high end of my budget range, but I like what it offers.
Only problem is that it’s kinda big and the Z lenses are stupidly huge. I know reviewers desperately crave le edge to edge sharpness, but I just don’t care that much. I’d way rather have a lens with some vintage vibes at the same size/weight point as older AF glass.
So ZF plus 7artisans jank lenses, I guess haha

That or a7C, I guess
I’d lose the retro controls but it’d be smaller. Granted, Sony files apparently take a lot more work to be processed, which would also be a pain.
Thoughts on the comparison?
>>4467940

>>4468330
Another anon. My E-P7 refuses to focus on furry animals, a black cat is a lost cause. If pdaf impoves it, it would be a win.

>>4468509
lmao I owned an E-PL7 brief while and also noticed it struggled with feathers and fur. Going Canon was night and day for AF. That shit is magic.

>>4468482
The zf can use auto-manual-focus (trap focus where you hold down the button and it fires whenever its in focus) at the same time as subject detection. No other cameras can do this at the moment. So the ZF can use leica M mount lenses almost flawlessly.

The sony can't adapt any old manual lenses at all without fucking up the corners noticeably. It can only use new designs.

>Sony files apparently take a lot more work to be processed
Only in lightroom. In my opinion both sony and nikon files benefit from a better default preset from cobalt image or RNI and canon+capture one or canon+DPP is the only full frame color science that's good period.

File: IMG_8092 (1).jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4468482
I like it. Except for the huge Z glass. BUT here's how I cope:
For everyday shooting I have the small 28mm f2.8 - that's compact enough so I can carry the cam all day with me and not really mind the size/weight. It's not as compact as an A7C but it's good enough.

When I take out a bigger lens it's always for dedicated photo stuff so I don't actually mind the size at all. Ergonomics aren't an issue at all when you don't do the stupid one-handed shooting. Just support the lens with your left hand and it's a non-issue. I don't even have a grip attachment.

My only problem is that I'd love to have a compact 35mm lens. 28mm is just a focal length I don't really enjoy. I already got an E-mount adapter (Viltrox) and I'm going to get the Snoy Zeiss 35mm f2.8. According to the internet that lens works well with the E-Z adapters from Viltrox and Megadap. So that sould be my EDC setup then.

I don't shoot manual glass so I can't say anything about that.

What I really like about the Zf is the autofocus. It's finally good enough to get my hyperactive 4yo kid in focus. My Z6II and my OM-5 always struggled with that. With the Zf it's not a problem anymore. But that's a pretty niche use case on this board I guess.

The IBIS is good but not as good as that on the OM-5. And when shooting thunderstorms I miss Live-Time.

If you don't really need the retro style body take a look at the Z5II - it's the same camera in a modern body. I think I would have bought that but it wasn't announced yet when I got my Zf and now I like my Zf so much I won't sell it.

Having said that I'm going also to test the A7C in the future. It's a soulless piece of shit but it's really small so might be the better EDC camera. But then again the Zf is going to get in-camera grain with the next firmware update so I don't think I'll switch away from the Zf. (I recreated some of my favorite C1 looks in NX Studio and nowadays I shoot 90% SOOC JPGs so the grain feature will be killer for me).

File: IMG_7953.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4468647
apologies if i'm mistaken (i don't know much about raw processing, barely know anything about lightroom,) but isn't RNI only film sim and not a camera-specific calibrated formulation like cobalt image?
picrel: my own first camera, previously used to borrow my dad's 6d+kit lens

>>4468725
don't listen to colorscience fags. they're the younger version of boomer noise fags

>>4468743
Color science is "real" but not in the way gearfags say it is (tied to specific sensors)

There are two hardware aspects that influence color
Sensor metameric error (when the CFA dyes spectral response can't discriminate between two colors under certain lighting) - this can be quite high or quite low for cameras people say have good color, because they were only ever looking at jpeg profiles
And lens color cast (basically, the glass itself is colored no matter what you do and filters out and enhances some colors)

The rest is arbitrary software. Defaults may not be good. No camera brand has 100% good jpegs (cameras have limited processing power to run demosaicing, nr, etc, and the profile is made to appeal to best buy demo room peeps). Very few cameras have a 100% great default profile in any raw editor. It is merely that some editors are better to start off with than others but color critical photographers must calibrate their shit.

>>4468756
So color stretching would be a metameric error?

>>4468759
No "color stretching" is a zimbabwean word for "i am out of money". It sounds like english due to a weird coincidence.

I received a deal for a GX9 with a 12-32mm pancake lens and 35-100mm lens for 700 eurobux and it's really tempting me
I love my GX7 but I've been a worried about the dial not always responding and I read that the GX9's design would remediate that issue

>>4469335
The GX9 is really an upgrade compared to the GX7, both from an image quality and an ergonomic standpoint. It's my main camera and using it is a real treat.

>>4469337
Thanks anon
Have you ever compared the two?
I really like the protrusion on the GX7’s grip and it feels great in my smoll hands
The GX9’s seems more slim compared to it

Redpill me on GH4 for photography.

>>4469345
It fucking sucks. Buy an aps-c camera.

>>4469371
>nophoto
Any camera made within the last 10 years is good

>>4469374
Then your phone is better than oversized m4turds

>>4469375
>nophoto

>>4469374
>/p/ be like
>u can still take good photos t. paid $800 for a 14yo phone sensor
>the good photos they dream about: trashy cunts getting naked - free art points
>the photos they actually have: building corner

>>4469387
t. wedding photographer counts hairs on bride's butthole, needs 60MP

>>4469338
Yes, I went from the GX7 to the GX9. It was hard at first to lose the grip, but I have mainly small primes and I just got used to it. The extra megapickles did not make me look back.

>>4469399
Thanks anon
I decided to pull the trigger on the deal
I've been interested in a 35-100mm for holidays anyways and this'll probably be my last crazy expenditure since I'll be getting married and have a kid next year
Having a more reliable camera to take pics of the kid will pay off in spades

>>4469387
The photos Jeremy, where are the photos?

>>4469433
Congratulations (for the kid, lel). Having a portable camera really makes a difference. My child really became my number one subject.

>>4469442
Thanks anon!
Any photo tips for kids besides keeping in mind that they'll probably do anything to make you mess up shots?

>>4469458
Try getting high aperture lenses if you are shooting indoors, they're moving quite fast. Aside from that, you'll have time to experiment and improve.

>>4469466
Thanks anon
I've got a Linux 14mm and 20mm that should cover it I hope

>>4469470
nta but i like the 20mm fov for indoor stuff like this! that's a beautiful lens too

File: IMG_0945.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4469433
start saving up for when the little one starts walking and then running. you'll need something with good AF ... or you will have to shoot burst and fish out 20% keepers.
making this hardmode is that many of those images will be shot indoor in your home. where I suppose you don't have harsh and bright lighting. so you will need fast shutter speeds and wider apertures and high iso to get useful photos out of it. but then again shooting wide open means lesser depth of field means more missed focus. so yeah.
toddler photography is probably the most demanding thing on this planet when it comes to equipment. I can't imagine anything else where the conditions are so stacked against you. :0
when my kid started walking I had a Z6II ... which couldn't keep up with him most of the time. now he's 4yo and I have a Zf and it's much better. his movements are way more predictable and the current gen Nikon AF manages to track him properly. but the Z6II was hopelessly outgunned.
enjoy the baby phase with your gx9 - it's a fine cam for when you don't need action shots. but start saving for an OM1 or G9II ... should be less expensive a few years down the road.

>>4469499
Yeah, excellent lens indeed! I switched to the Panasonic Leica 25mm for the faster focus motor, but it should be plenty in your case.

>>4469499
I've only used it for some low light stuff at night so far and I loved it
Can't wait to take more in-house pictures with it next year

File: IMG_1542.jpg (75.5 KB)

75.5 KB JPG

Some I took recently

File: IMG_1525.jpg (50.3 KB)

50.3 KB JPG

>>4470036
Acadia is gorgeous

>>4470036
>>4470038
Damn, really nice shots.

Saw this review about the new Olympus System OM-3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T98sYhOX78

The photos look extremely pleasing and very close to the 35mm film look (I'm a film shooter for years now, don't really touch digital).
Does anyone know if that camera has that looked baked in or is it some heavy post-processing to imitate the look of film? Because if it's baked in I'm buying. I'd just shoot jpeg, I'm not into editing. I take my film pics as they come out the lab since they already look perfect to me that way.

>>4470235
that bitch is into heavy post processing

>>4470236
I would give her some heavy post processing, if you catch my drift.

>>4470236
So it does not actually have the film look. Oh well.
Gonna do Canon 5D Classic jpg's then, at least that's got some aesthetic by default. Only issue is the extremely limited dynamic range, it only seems to take good photos indoors imo.

>>4470237
that old hag? i'd rather fuck ozempic-emily from micro four nerds. (beore she took ozempic)

>>4470235
I think it may be shillng for the optional post-processing that's built into the jpeg engine (le "creative dial" or whatever it's called). If it's that, you can bake it in jpegs if you want. A similar thing exists in E-P7 which is 3 times cheaper, but only the manual knows what's the difference.

>>4470237
What did anon mean by this?

>>4470237
>>4470256
God, you people are disgusting.

File: PANA6937 low.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

gave my watch to a tree

File: 1000000874.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

>>4470686
Gave my trees to the streets

>>4470699
>>4470686
This is one of the few times (outside of /dst/ and /fag/) that i have seen a camera have image quality shit enough to be noticeable without zooming in. Micro four thirds really is a system for NPC gearfags.
>Pictures look like shit
>BUT THE SPECS AND FEATURES
Just get a canon aps-c holy fuck

There is no reason for any micro four thirds camera to cost more than $150 this looks like actual garbage and not in a good, 0.3mp hp photosmart way. In the late model sony PNS that not even zoomers want because it combines modern soullessness with shitty tech way.

>>4470699
>3/4 of the frame is tree leaves
>Such a smeary shitty mess not a single leaf is identifiable.
The power of micro TURDS.

File: 1000000785.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Jesus fucking Christ you faggots are anoying on a Level that it should be illegal. Must be a severe mental retardness that the only joy you get out of photography is bitching about gear. You cunts are so pathetic. I will not acknowledge your existence any longer.
But I will admit that I fucked that last image badly. Anyhow. Fuck you.

>>4470718
Imagine bitching that hard and then posting something like that

>>4470718
Yeah nah this looks like garbage

No wonder mft fags are always hating on snoy for not being engineered to perfect like a medium format nikkorblad. Because it’s mft sized ff and despite its flaws looks 10x better than this. Jealousy and buyers remorse.

Maybe you should stick to close ups or evenly lit things and heavy handed color grading like every other coping digislug so you can pretend your camera isnt shit. Even 100 year old tech renders better images than this in sun/shade.

>>4470720
>perfection
>close ups of
Phone autocorrect sucks fucking balls

>>4470716
> late model sony PNS that not even zoomers want because it combines modern soullessness with shitty tech
Best description of micro four thirds ever

Its really exactly the same look as the zv1s and rx100s everyone buys and then throws away because their phone is better

>>4470721
Suits you just well

>>4470719
You fucking guys even listening to yourself? Imagine bitching that hard but posting nothing else!

>>4470724
>mfturd realizes he has no retort and his photos do in fact suck
>rather than accept he made such a bad purchase that simply pointing the lens at mixed light exceeds the limits of his shit camera, he resorts to feminine low t beta male insult slinging
Fucking 35mm film is better than this shit
Mft is a scam only good for "naturalists" who want to zoom all the way in to take ID photos of animals for wikipedia
Absolutely useless for photography, exceeded by 35mm film, exceeded by a sony a6000, exceeded by a canon rebel

>>4470726
>digital camera is a scam that takes objectively bad looking photos in situations a funny piece of plastic would have handled just fine
Many such cases under $1000
Digital photography is so bad it got replaced by phones

>>4470718
This is nice I like the trees and the sky

> Snoyschizo wanders betwen threads to bark at people.
Not surprising. His snapshits are even worse, except he wasted $3000 on Snoy-branded gear.

>>4470732
>makes up characters and conspiracy theories to cope
or micro four thirds is shit and only soulless camera gear nerds use it because its shit? all the real artists shoot film or soulful digishits.

ffs look at you imagining a snoy boogeyman when the point being made was mft is the only thing worse than a snoy. do you internalize how significant that is? to be the only thing worse than a snoy, is like being the only person dumber than a downie

>>4470734
> Comes into a thematic thread
> Snoy snoy snoy in every post
> DON'T IMAGINE SNOY
You're a clown. Don't bother to reply.

I'm thriving in the other threads because no autist comes at me for using M43. Getting rid of the EXIF really was a master plan.

>>4468309
>there's even a downgrade as the em5.2 had a metal body while the om5 is plastic. only difference is 16mp vs 20mp and the om5 has finally the "favorites menu" where you can save menu items to.
The EM5.2 doesn't have the single favorites menu but lets you assign entire MySets (complete drive mode and setting options) to both PASM dial spots you don't use, instead of one Custom spot and a submenu, as well as individual buttons (which are all right near the shutter so your finger can reach instead half on the left on that dipshit half moon thing above the power lever now), which was removed entirely for some unknown reason and never brought back. In terms of utility it's genuinely been downhill since the 5.3.

File: IMG_1395.jpg (139.9 KB)

139.9 KB JPG

>>4470726
Man you must be a delight. Why come in to a thread just to shit on the thread. Do you have anything

>>4470738
yes, it's like freeing the slaves or allowing women to vote. now those subhumans can secretly destroy our society.

File: PANA6937 aa.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4470716
>image quality shit enough to be noticeable without zooming in
my image was zoomed in massively, this is the original

stop shitting up m43 threads, im happy with my camera

>>4470821
It does look pretty bad. DSLRs win again.

>>4470827
>>4470726
your photos?
Wait let me guess, you won't post them here because it'd be casting pearls before swine o algo

>>4470821
is that from a lumix phone?

File: 1000000888.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4470847
I really think we should consider the old saying: "dont feed the troll"
These frustrated low lifes who only join a thread to rant about gear, just imagine the level of wretchedness, dont deserve anyones attention because that is their only goal. Lets just keep posting photos and discuss m43 topics.

File: 1739113104964343.jpg (18.3 KB)

18.3 KB JPG

>>4470860
>m43 topics
Dear lord, and he calls the rest of us gearfags?
Please point us to any other location on the board / internet where people discuss Full-Frame topics or APS-C topics.

>>4470882
M43 is a cult. They hang out in a sensor size specific forum called mu-43 and talk about how larger sensors are worse and m43 will take over any day now.
> Please point us to any other location on the board / internet where people discuss Full-Frame topics or APS-C topics.
There’s LF forums but because those cameras are hard to use and overlap with advanced film processing techniques, not because they are all coping with buyers remorse.

File: FB_IMG_1748118281456.jpg (112.5 KB)

112.5 KB JPG

>>4470904
Holy fuck your comment made me realise that the m43 thread is basically a community-run emotional support safe-space.
If any of you MFTurd flingers actually took photos for the photos instead of the gear, you'd post in /rpt/ instead of jerking each others cock off over muh pixel shift. There's even less of a reason for /m43/ to exist now that exif is gone, because it makes it easier for you all to blend in with the other anons who do it for the sake of the photos.

The only reason to post in /m43/ is because you care more about the gear than the photography.
Don't like the fact we're calling out reality in your safe-space? Then off the fuck you go to /reddit

>>4470910
It has been that way since the inception of this general over a decade ago...

>>4470910
The coping gearfag emotional support group problem is inherent to m43 and derives from olympussy's and panashit's features-first product strategy. Huscuck said it best
>>4467910
>most people who insist on m43 are kind of gearfaggy and speculate about scenarios where the gimmicks might matter, and end up spending $$$$ to un-disappoint themselves
Go in for muh pixel shits and IBIS, keep spending because "surely equivalence will save me", instead of accepting that it's just shit, retreat into a circlejerk and get pat on the back for pretending this shitty system is anything but bridge cameras for nerds.

>>4470926
>keep spending because "surely equivalence will save me"
>Spends $1500 on a 40-150 f/2.8 PRO just to imitate a fucking 80-300mm f/5.6
>but muh grams! It's so purse-friendly!
A fairly standard 70-300mm f/4-5.6 costs a third as much and would still get you an extra 25% reach on aps-c. AND you get a whole stop of light on the wide end. I will never understand why turd worlders do it to themselves.

>>4470939
the pixel gimmicks and video codecs bro. the 4k120 is uncropped bro (it fucking better be, if ff shoots it at 1.5x any mft crop would be over 2x)

File: FXE36267.jpg (349 KB)

349 KB JPG

Burgers and such.

File: P9270553.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

Received the 14-150 the other day. It's nice to shoot something longer after the kit zoom.

>>4470981
This is way worse than a phone pic.

>>4470988
This is about as bad as a phone pic.

>>4470988
>>4470981
i am now thoroughly convinced that even a lowly nikon d5100 beats this gearfag mirrorless shit

>>4470988
Quite nice. Ignore the triggered burgers, they only see themselves in that pic.

>>4470998
Well, schizos are right in that I missed focus on the snout, but then I haven't yet figured out how to properly focus.

>visit the videogame board
>no one plays
>visit the literature board
>no one reads
>visit the photography board
>no one takes photos
What causes this

>>4471008
I'm burnt as hell after work and spend what little energy I have on other stuff. Haven't played vidya in months either.

>>4471008
Frustrated retardfaggots who think they can elevate their sorry asses when bashing on others, but never contribute anything else than that. A miserable and despicable kind of inbreeds

> OM increased the price of E-P7 by 50 Euro
> Original OM-5 is no longer on sale and is the same price as Mark II
Lol, why?

>>4471007
You need to use a higher aperture to get the whole animal in focus. Sort of ironic that your mini sensor still couldn't afford you enough dof...
Adding a little extra contrast to your image would make it look a lot better as well.

>>4471052
I absolutely hate how you crushed the blacks in this image.

>>4471216
It's f/5.6 (meaning f/11), maybe should have gone for f/8. I want to learn to focus with less dof, but in the moment I just point and shoot and don't think about anything else.

>>4471229
Start with ensuring the eyes are in focus then use dof preview to ensure rest of animal is as well, or however much of the animal you want is in focus. If you're usinf very shallow dof then you can use live view as a focus aid.
I've never used your camera, but that's how I do it with mine.

>>4471230
Yeah, I need to practice. It's E-P7 and has no viewfinder, which I regret. On the screen I can zoom in to see whether the right area is in focus, but I have to remember to actually do it instead of pressing the shutter button right away.

>>4471233
Ah bummer. You will need some practice then. No viewfinder will make things more difficult. Good luck

>>4471210
because the om-5 is more capable lol om5.2 had some features cut and nothing new really added
your brain on japanese blackrock

>>4470988
What I don't quite appreciate is the vignetting that randomly appears past 120mm or so, but oh well. Hopefully having the proper metal mount and being able to shoot below 40mm is worth it.

>>4471237
Meanwhile MPB lists a bunch of OM-5 "like new" for 850 Euro. This pricing is just all over the place.

>>4471679
Haha, no, this thing vignets always; got some at 60mm.

>>4471717
mpb like new is actually "falling apart with fat finger prints on the sensor"

Any thoughts on the Leica 42,5mm f1.7?
Thinking of getting it for my g9, which I enjoy using more than any other camera I have owned so far

>>4471717
western price gouging, get them direct from Japan for a lot less then just download an english manual. Even better get Uncle Chang to send you it from Hong Kong and lie on the customs form and you dont pay any taxes.

>>4471788
Do you mean f/1.4? I bought it used, and it's one of the best lenses of the system.

>>4471825
Sorry my Bad. No Leica in that. Just a 1.7 with 42,5mm focal length from Panasonic

>>4471828
It's OK. A bit soft on wide apertures. The size is really the main point of the lens.

why do they hate us
just because we are poor_

File: Screenshot 2025-10-09 at 13.16.49.png (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB PNG

>>4458547
behold the power of m43

File: PA031194 under 5MB.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>>4471008
Here I took some and its better someone see them than them just sit nowhere forever

File: IMG_0889.jpg (629.2 KB)

629.2 KB JPG

>>4471008
>>4473685
Nice! Looks good. I’m having lots of fun this year with my first camera, the EM5 mark ii. I love my 45mm Olympus lens, but my Panasonic 12-32mm zoom is just ok; I got it for the low cost. I’m saving for the Leica 15mm. I live near a lakeside bike path in Vermont, and like to take bike rides after work to take photos. I’m worried I won’t be able to shoot much in the winter, though, since it’s always dark when I leave work for 5 months out of the year. Maybe I’ll get to work on my night shooting skills!

>>4473921
looks like a phone. dont waste your time on chasing lens sharpness with these shit pns bodies. get the lumix 20mm, olympus 17, 45, 25, etc. Avoid expensive lenses they dont matter when you have 1/4 of a real sensor and defeat the point of having 1/4 of a real sensor.

The real reason /p/ hates sony is becaus an a7c+35 is the more sensible alternative to their 2-3 body gearfag minmaxed setup.

>>4473925
You are aware that you are gearfagging yourself?

>>4473926
gearfagging can also be good like armed gangs can be bad but when they’re a trustworthy police force they can be a force for good. normalize pointing out when cameras are wastes of money. normalize drawing a line. normalize having standards. normalize overpriced camera gear being objectively bad to purchase and own. stop being afraid to criticize each others choices. bullying is just social hygiene.

File: IMG_1013.jpg (190.7 KB)

190.7 KB JPG

>>4473925
Yes part of my learning curve will be processing and all that; this photo and the last were taken with the 45mm Olympus lens you mentioned. Both images are from a batch where I downloaded the pictures via the Olympus app right from my camera, then edited them on my phone, both of which have had an impact on the quality. I’ll post some better ones from a previous batch from my pc later

>>4473934
Genuinely not sure wtf you’re talking about lol. I’d appreciate feedback on my editing, composition etc., since I don’t really care about gear wars. Just trying to take some photos I think are nice.

>>4473934
Most "criticism" is from jealous coping poorfags.

>>4473951
It is simple. Never spend more than $500 on a full frame lens. Apply the crop factor and round to a clean number for other formats.
APS-C = $350 max
M43 = $250 max

Exceed the price limit and you’re being bent over for shit that isnt real or doesnt matter

>>4473921
>>4473951
In the m43 thread you aren't likely to get any more feedback than, "m43 lol". I guess, the first photo does have THAT m43 look (aperture to small perhaps?), but the second one is nice.

>>4473954
Honestly one of the few based takes in this thread. I would say like 600$ for a full frame due to tariffs but yeah that really is the max you should spend on a lens. All the cheaper lenses render better in my experience. Frankly you only really need like two focal lengths if your not a bird fag.

>>4473954
Do you mean reverse crop factor?

>>4473970
And which would these 2 be?

>>4473989
Do you mean inverse crop factor?

>>4474246
Yeah you are correct. Would you like an updoot, golden star, or both?

>>4474328
just star my github repo

Micro Four Turds

>>4473970
>All the cheaper lenses render better in my experience.
How?

>>4475263
NTA. Normally due to lower element count and less corrections resulting in better bokeh and colour rendition. Lenses are that clinically sharp or overly corrected tend to be a bit lifeless at times.

Denoise 100 gang?

Hey guys, what's the best m43 camera with an EVF for every day carry? Something pocketable with a pancake lens?

>>4475269
glass to air surfaces and aspherical/ed tonal vampirism are not memes

>>4481088
full frame (sony a7c) would improve this picture significantly

>>4481082
gm5, accept no susbstitutes but be prepared to pay 1200 USD for an early era mirrorless with bad autofocus and battery life. It's awesome otherwise.
>>4481087
I thought like this until I saw Yannick.

File: 1000026818.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4481126
I have one (a7cr) and I disagree.

is this the phone photo thread? sure looks like it

>>4481358
grrr you take that back!! you dummy i'll show you someday!!

>>4481356
there is no quarter frame lens in the world that will capture that much detail

I got a gh1 because I fell for some meme about it being "cinematic, well that was bullshit but I like the pictures it takes. And it's feels very low noise compared to MFT I've had before

>>4483013
I'm a retard and forgot to comment
Lumix GX80
Olympus 45mm f/1.8
10mm macro ring

>>4483013
Xiaomi phone anon there’s a new blurry
macro attempt for you to mog

File: PC251659.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4490289

File: PC251541.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4490290

File: OC246235_b.jpg (611.2 KB)

611.2 KB JPG

>>4490290
based I love the vibes

>is this the POWER of
hello where are you?

why is there always someone seething whenever a m43 threat opens?
Are m43 really that bad or whats up with anons malding over them?

>>4492832
the photos are very, very low quality, about on the level of a sony rx100, maybe worse, see
>>4458580
maybe up to aps-c shitter with less than ideal settings quality if they know how to use a camera, see
>>4490289
but a few of the gearfag users (om5 idiot and g9ii thirdie) are irritating gearfags with obvious psychological issues, notorious for incessantly shilling these digishits as superior with a bunch of ass-backwards misunderstood math, and incessantly shilling against fuji and sony because the a7c and xe5 are really better choices than any new m43 now

one of them is "going away" which we all hope meant "committing suicide" because his incessant gearfaggotry (over $5000 USD spent, 12+ hrs per day spent between 4chan and taking the same test photo of the same tree over and over) leaked into real life and cost him his home, wife, son, and marriage

so perhaps micro four thirds can be a /dst/ copy again, full of people with $250 em5 mk2s who literally cant afford full frame, as it was always meant to be

>>4492837
Whatever floats your boat, sweatie.

>>4492832
That's all poopco he's basically our village idiot

>>4493116
Big if true

File: P1160120.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4493108
Looks like a screencap from the terminator.

File: maxresdefault (30).jpg (109.6 KB)

109.6 KB JPG

Damn I bought a new phone and it saddens me than my new phone has better video and even can beat my m43 camera in photo quality in certain areas.
My phone is smaller and I carry it all the time. They say the best camera you have is the one you have with you. Why would I carry additional camera if my phone already beats my m43 camera. Also my smartphone can upload the pics faster not to mention has powerful AI tools which can negate its weakness over m43.

I admit that we have lost /m43/. All this years I'm too stupid to realize it. We have coped hard enough. I'm selling my /m43/ at a lost to some poor schmuck who can fall for om system marketing. Phone + FF camera is the way it is now.

>>4493328
damn son that looks like it was taken by a $20 digishit. I seriously hope you didn't spend more than $50 on that camera.

>>4492837
>one of them is "going away" which we all hope meant "committing suicide" because his incessant gearfaggotry (over $5000 USD spent, 12+ hrs per day spent between 4chan and taking the same test photo of the same tree over and over) leaked into real life and cost him his home, wife, son, and marriage

KWAB

File: Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-III-with-Panasonic-Lumix-G-Vario-35-100mm-F4.0-5.6-ASPH-Mega-OIS-lens.jpg (55.7 KB)

55.7 KB JPG

Thoughts on the Lumix 35-100 f/4-5.6 on the EM-5 mk II? Is it bad for the Olympus?

Looking for zoom telephoto lens for travel with my missus.

File: P1050342 (1) (1) (1).jpg (57.6 KB)

57.6 KB JPG

>>4493362
I only have time with a f/2.8 and an older one at that, but I assume it'd be fine. Minimum focus distance is a kick in the dick sometimes but realistically unless you're in a really tight spot it'd be alright in my experience, even better if yours has one that isnt as far out.

File: IMG_4629.jpg (220.1 KB)

220.1 KB JPG

Just bought one of these. What do I think of it?