Does your digital camera matter if you primarily shoot analogue

>>2966688
I'm primarily a film shooter, I got an M43 for casual stuff about half a year ago. Here are my impressions on it:

Pros
- Easy to adapt film glass on
- Fun to dick around with super teles, EVF is bright and easier to work with slow lenses like cats than optical
- Small and handy to bring along
- Information like shadow/highlight clipping on viewfinder is convenient

Cons
- Can't put out enough detail for landscapes
- MF with anything short of super teles is garbage, gets impossibly hard in low light and focus peaking only helps at short distances
- Battery drain
- Native lenses are stupid expensive compared to almost any other system on the market
- High ISO performance is shit, gets noisy as fuck already at ISO 800

Meets the need I got it for, but it's not something I'd want as a main system.

>>2966721
I'm a mft shooter, primarily, after coming from a Pentax DSLR. (The pentax was a better camera, but I don't have space for it in my edc like I do mft)

I agree with all of this, except; I never had trouble manual focusing, the process is just slower than with my old film cameras. I keep an fn button dedicated to punch in.
The native lenses aren't expensive at all in my opinion, you can get the 14-42ez pancake for $200 new, the 14mm or 20mm pancakes for $200 each refurb or new, and I bought the 45 1.8 for $220 new with prime shipping. I also want the 14-150 wr which can be found for $300. That's a LOT less than a superzoom from other companies that resolves like a modern lens.
I will agree that the pro range seems to be out of place- If I was going to kit out my gear with lenses bigger and more expensive than pancakes, I would NOT recommend MFT. Go Fuji or Sony or Nikon or Pentax.

I can only recommend mft if you need your camera to take up an extremely small amount of space in your bag, or if you want to get into photography for the first time VERY cheapy. KEH has bodies with batteries for $60 and kit lenses for the same.

>>2966688
If you want to use your digital camera for metering, which I recommend, it's best to use a mirrorless camera for the live histogram. I don't recommend Fuji for this because your film exposures may come out wrong based on the Fuji's slightly different metering.

>>2966768
>If you want to use your digital camera for metering, which I recommend, it's best to use a mirrorless camera for the live histogram. I don't recommend Fuji for this because your film exposures may come out wrong based on the Fuji's slightly different metering.
how is fuji metering different?

Depends what you want the digit camera for. My only digital camera for years was my iPhone while I shot strictly MF. Worked fine for me as the iPhone is perfect for snapshittinf daily life. Eventually I got myself an a7 though. For me, if I'm going to bother carrying a camera it's got to have pretty damn good quality and I personally didnt want to settle for anything less than FD for a few reasons. One major plus is the camera makes for a killer film scanner as well.

>>2966846
That should read FF, not FD

File: LolympusEM5.jpg (378KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 2000x1000px

I just finished taking apart and repairing my EM5 that I use solely as a light meter. It's a turd but it does a good job at metering light and it's great to have an actual histogram. I also use the zoom lens with the thing to walk around and find comps with at various focal lengths before setting up the 4x5.

I just set the thing to f22 using AV and have it tell me the shutter speed, making adjustments as needed. Problem is, it kept fucking switching between P and A modes rapidly on its own, pretty much preventing me from getting measurements and looking at the histogram after taking a shot. Took it apart and cleaned the crud on the mode wheel and good to go.

Fuck I hate digital, my film camera just has a bunch of air inside of it. This thing is full of fuck.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:17 16:02:10
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>2966789
They overstate the sensitivity compared to other manufacturers. (ISO is only a standard for film, so that's technically not wrong)

>>2966721
>gets noisy as fuck already at ISO 800

Well, compared to 35mm film, m43's high ISO performance isn't even bad.

>>2966768
The EM1 and EM1ii can trade blows with some top tier DSLRs at a lower price.

>>2966768
>I can only recommend mft if you need your camera to take up an extremely small amount of space in your bag, or if you want to get into photography for the first time VERY cheapy.
Both of these reasons are why I got into micro four thirds. I got a used body, 14-42mm, and 40-150mm lens for about $400 and the whole kit fits into a tiny camera bag while leaving it half empty, plenty of space for water bottles and mini tripods and other odds and ends. Great for walking around conventions or zooming in at concerts. The equivalent kit in FF would barely fit in the bag just on its own.

I think for most intents and purposes image quality on m43 and APS-C are near equivalent. I would only go into a new system if I had some pressing need for short shutter speeds in low light and even then it would be by adopting full frame.

>>2966936
I wouldn't call it equivalent. I'm the guy you're replying to even- aps-c cameras I've used excluding Canon have an insane amount of flexibility in their raws these days. And better high iso. And lower noise when underexposed. And are available with more pixels while doing all those things. But, they're bigger and more expensive, which is money you could spend on other things.
>>2966890
If I was going to spend that much money on a camera, I would get something else. Hooray to ultra fast burst rates, but the picture quality is no better than my $400 used compact with the same sensor- I know this because I've done a side by side comparison myself.

>>2966853
alex you're an absolute madman

>>2966948
Gonna a need to provide evidence. Comparisons oft pit it against Sony shit.
Also find me something with better pdaf+ibis+4k

>>2966991
These are things I don't prefer over image quality. I may be old fashioned, but I still use my cameras at low isos and well stabilized on tripod if necessary. You want a fast camera of course, but I don't think most people would want to sacrifice gorgeous giant prints for 60fps raw with rolling shutter

>>2966991
Sony a99ii

>>2966853
Why not just buy a light meter?

>>2967000
The 16&20MP sensors can do large prints as well. You still haven't shown any proof of them being on par with just old point and shoots other than "trust me."

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/01/20/quick-comparison-fuji-x-e2-sony-a7-and-olympus-e-m1/

While it's using older models, it's a pretty good comparison.
Of course the OMD wont be on par tit-for-tat with the A7, but to blow it off is foolish.

And hell, across the board reviews for the EM1ii are stellar, the only true gripe is price tag.

>>2966688
> Does your digital camera matter if you primarily shoot analogue MF?
It mattered so much that it's now the primary camera.

> I see people here slamming M43 and mirrorless but are they good enough?
Sure. Sony in particular has put a dent into Canon / Nikon's dominance. But more than Sony are "good enough" for most people.

> could a phone even do the trick if you don't seriously shoot digital?
Maybe.

It's however a question like "could a Holga work when you don't seriously shoot film?"

Sounds still really quite stupid when you're already on a photography image board. How about simply giving a tiny bit of a shit and just operating a normal modern MILC / DSLR, same as you wouldn't operate a toy film camera with the worst film possible but just a normal one?

> the IQ of some consumer shit cameras is rivalling much higher end bodies
Eh, which cameras are you talking about?

> are as good as SLRs for scanning film. they may even be superior for compact travel / snapshit cameras
Yea, decent MILC are basically equal to DSLR, and I guess smaller and lighter makes them better for people who want a smaller and lighter travel camera.

>>2966991
> Gonna a need to provide evidence. Comparisons oft pit it against Sony shit.
The EM1 can not even really keep up with the half as expensive A6000. And it doesn't look like the EM1 II has a chance against the A6500 either.

That's *without* the further disadvantages on the lenses, which have less resolving power.

>shoot mostly film
>mostly MF
>have camera that was released this year
>used it maybe 10-20 times
It's neat to have the convenience, but unless I'm getting paid, I can't justify carrying that extra weight around with me. I like using it, but it's just not the same. I also find that if I haven't finished a roll when shooting 135, that I'll usually leave the digipleb shit at home and just take more film with me. This just creates an endless cycle. I've also used my A7 more this year as a quassi lightmeter at night and calculating reciprocity from there.

They're good for snapshits of my dog, or when I need to photograph some film, but outside of low light natural light shooting, I don't see them being worth the extra weight/batteries.

>>2967107
This is me.

Handheld night shooting or going out when the light won't be nice? Take the a7.

Anything else. Shoot 120 film.

Don't want to carry a camera period. 35mm in the Stylus Epic.

>>2967057
Lightmeters are mostly old-tech garbage. Non-backlit LCD's covered in proprietary heiroglyphics, controlled via 3 unlabelled buttons, no viewfinder, usually need bullshit adapters to spot meter, which you then need to manually compensate for, usually not sensitive to very low EV's, often take some random size or number of alkaline batteries you don't want to carry, often with a broken battery door you have to tape shut, because they're made from crappy 80's injection moulded plastic, no histogram, no WB/colour temp/RGB metering, often no "highlight, shadows, midtones" reading memory function (ala OM-4); and finally, they're way too fucking expensive, for what they are.
Also, can't take digital snapshits for instagram.
>is that enough reasons?

>>2966883
I disagree in that film grain is far more pleasing to look at than the mucky sensor noise that M43 starts putting up at ISO 800. That said, I rarely if ever shoot film above ISO 400, I was hoping the OM-D would cover the 800-1600 area at least, but the results are so ugly most of the time that it's just wasting time. In the end I'm restricted to the same speeds I shoot film at which is a bit disappointing.

>>2967102
>implying the a6500 will ever be able to shoot 1second exposures handheld.
>imping the a6500 has more than 1 top dial
>implorving the a6500 doesnt have that weird green tinted colour gamut.
>implywooding the a6500 has comparable autofocus-
not to mention dual card slot and the a6500s rolling shutter

>>2966983
Kinda odd that I just tore apart that complicated digital thing, but when it comes to my Mamiya 6 I decided to send it out for repairs and adjustment. I guess I just don't care about the digital nearly as much and I figured I'd just have to replace it if it broke during repairs anyway. It's just a tool.

I frequently wander around with just that camera and find comps, then when I find my spot I put the camera down on the ground in that exact spot and go grab my bag of gear. Well, this summer a cattle stampede came over a hill out of nowhere and kicked the shit out of the shit out of the Olympus, thing still works fine (the mode button has been acting up since before then). I broke two EP-1s in two years, this current one has lasted over two years so hopefully after the repair I can get another year or two out of it. Anyone want to buy a used camera from me? Minty condition, I swear...

>>2967057
This guy >>2967142 mentioned pretty much all the reasons why I don't just use a light meter. The benefits of the digital "polaroid" outweigh the downsides. Plus yeah, snapshots and videos etc.

>>2966721
>- High ISO performance is shit, gets noisy as fuck already at ISO 800
E-M1 owner here. I shoot ISO 6400 all day long with good results.

>>2967102
>Implying the A6500 will ever be able to shoot TWENTY SECONDS hand held like the E-M1 II + 12-100 f/4 IS

>>2967215
Post some results nigga. My EM-10 is fucking garbage already at 1600.

File: MaximumISO04.jpg (4MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1920px

>>2967237

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	948
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:11 20:00:55
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	25600
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1920
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: MaximumISO05.jpg (4MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2560x1920px

>>2967237

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	948
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:11 20:00:58
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1920
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ISO Maximum01CROP.jpg (603KB, 1122x702px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 1122x702px

>>2967239

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	890
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:11 20:08:09
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1122
Image Height	702
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2967168
Lol it gets compared rather well against shit like the A7 line.

>>2967078
Sure it may be able to do medium sized prints, but you're talking about spending MORE money on a SMALLER format camera with LESS image quality. For this reason I would not recommend this camera to almost anyone unless burst rate (not even AF tracking) is their highest priority. I don't have any of my own side by side samples because I don't keep test shots unless they're relevant to the look of my images. I didn't buy the em1 because the samples look identical to even an epl5, so no need to waste hard drive space for it.

>>2967168
> implying the a6500 will ever be able to shoot 1second exposures handheld
Why wouldn't it?
> imping the a6500 has more than 1 top dial
Should be the same as with the two models before - still *two* top dials, one at the back.
> implorving the a6500 doesnt have that weird green tinted colour gamut
On SOOC JPEG? They changed the more neutral but perhaps slightly yellow-green tint to a more magenta one in the A6300, 'cause people apparently like that.

in RAW? That's pretty meaningless DESU.
> implywooding the a6500 has comparable autofocus-
The A6500 is probably better?

Olympus still has to match the A6300 on any of their cameras (surprise, surprise, Sony apparently didn't give them the *best* sensors for these - even though Olympus cameras got much faster PDAF with the Sony sensors).
And the Panasonic sensor of the E-M1 wasn't even beating the A6000 yet.

>>2967258
the EPL5?
That's considered a pretty decent/good camera for the price. It lacks the other things the E-M1 has, like the weather sealing and shock proofing.

>>2967423
The point is that you're spending $1500 for the results of a "pretty good" $400 compact

>>2967260
>still *two* top dials, one at the back.
a fiddly small thumb wheel that has 0 ergos?
>Why wouldn't it?
sorri i meant to say 15 seconds
>On SOOC JPEG?
in raw. havent you seen all the frustration of sonyfags spending hours in lightroom trying to get skin tones right just because sony doesnt know shit about colors?
>the A6500 is probably better
better than the movement predicting autofocus algorithm thingie of the em1?

kek

>>2967430
The EPL5 isn't a compact.

The EPL5 has a top of the line (for its time) sensor, but lacks the pro features.

Imagine a Fool Frame Canon or Nikon with Rebel level AF and durability. Kind of like the 5D and 5D II were.

>>2966688
Why not use a consumer-grade DSLR in the same system as your film body? Sharing lenses is a pretty massive bonus.

File: 0280f2ee13c0f13992a9fa8616b0640d.png (414KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 600x600px

>>2967533
>Consumer grade medium format DSLR

>>2967430
The EM1 is $600 grey market, or typically goes on sale for $1,300 with the PRO 12-40 f2.8 (which alone is worth about $1k new). It also came out in 2013 and gets overshadowed by the MKII

>>2967534
Righto. Can't read, missed the MF part. Continue.

>>2967516
Top of the line sensor? My k10d has more exposure latitude than that shit.

>>2967557
No it doesn't.

>>2967577
My primary camera is a MFT camera - and it does.

File: Devastated.jpg (241KB, 1730x354px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1730x354px

>>2967591
Even according to DXO - Which is heavily biased toward larger sensors - The EPL5 has almost a stop more ISO performance and almost a stop more dynamic range.

If a smaller sensor is beating a larger one on DXO of all places...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:19 09:10:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1730
Image Height	354

>>2967767
DXO isn't biased towards larger sensors, it's biased towards more expensive cameras (which tend to have larger sensors)

>>2967772
This is kind of true. DxO results also don't always coincide with other reviews

>>2967767
It's not biased toward larger sensors, it's just that these large sensors perform better.

>>2967831
> DxO results also don't always coincide with other reviews
Maybe they measured something different.

If you spot an actual error, show it to them so they can fix their tests.

On /p/ and elsewhere there is just this constant bitching about DXO's results, but never any proof that they're doing anything wrong.

>>2967888
Not numbers, but in field performance.

>>2967947
It's measured performance, it will be the same in the field.

>>2967888
>On /p/ and elsewhere there is just this constant bitching about DXO's results, but never any proof that they're doing anything wrong.

It's because their methodology isn't published. They just give you a number and say "trust us!".

>>2967995
>their methodology isn't published.

Yes it is.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores

>>2968013

lulz, that's not methodology.

>>2968014
Just dig further you retard
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Detailed-computation-of-DxOMark-Sensor-normalization

>>2968016

You think I didn't read that shit years ago? It's not like this is my first DXO argument.

You should read it, because they still don't explain their methodology, they just give fancy-looking formulas that fool morons like you.

I have a F90X, 50mm Zeiss Planar, 19-35mm Tokina, 28-70 2.8 Sigma, 80-200 2.8 Nikon and a Plustek Scanner which gets me 24mpx usable scans. I want another body, would you get a F3 or a D3?

>>2968034
>I want another body
OM-4Ti

>>2968090
>with Zuiko 50/2 Macro
seconded

>>2967767
You are looking at dxo scores. I own both cameras. I don't need to convince internet neckbeards like you. The Pentax can be recovered from a -4 ev expoure, the Olympus cannot be recovered from -2 ev

>>2968090
According to DXO your cam is shit

>>2968105
>needing to recover your exposure
Holy shit, no wonder you fucking neckbeards can't shoot film.

>>2968090
I have an OM-2N and a QL17 G-III and a MJU-II, I want a body for my nikon lenses. I might end up getting a D3 or a D700 and then replace the F90x for a F3 or F100