Thread replies: 180
Thread images: 18
Thread images: 18
File: Capture.png (1MB, 934x697px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 934x697px
>M43? You might as well use a cellphone camera!
Where does sentiment come from, and does it actually hold any weight?
>>
>>3110256
Depends on the image sensors dummy
>>
no m43 crushes any and all cellphone cameras
even the cm1 only has a 1" sensor
>>
>>3110256
No
m43 is the best format, nice compact size, great lenses
and better IQ, and dof than a FF camera with slightly worse, but usually on par low light performance
it can even throw blows at MF cameras
>>
>>3110256
> Where does sentiment come from
Probably from MFT devices being much worse than FF or MF when you want resolution or low light performance.
It takes more expensive glass to get equivalent sharpness, and ultimately it barely reaches up to the upper midrange of APS-C, so really that generally won't make FF users happy.
> does it actually hold any weight?
Depends on the exact devices.
>>
>>
>>3110278
>better IQ, and dof than a FF camera with slightly worse, but usually on par low light performance
>>
>2x crop factor
No thanks
>>
>>3110256
I've never heard that. M4/3 is great, small, compact and great image quality. If you need it, you also have a 2x crop.
>>
Honestly you get about 4 extra stops of light out of a M43 camera than you do a full frame.
1 stop for the base ISO being 200 not 100. 1 stop for in body stabilization. 2 Stops from the DoF being 2 stops greater on any given M43 F number
>>
>>3110341
>1 extra stop of light for the base ISO being 200 not 100
That's not how this works.
>>
>>3110324
>Also the meme that M43s are "smaller" and "more compact" is bullshit.
bodies are generally smaller, though not by much, but the lenses are definitely smaller and lighter
>>
>>3110256
>does it actually hold any weight?
think for a second and obviously not
a m43 sensor is still several times larger than any sensor in a cellphone, the image processing in a dedicated camera body is going to be much better, and even the shittiest kit lens is going to be much, much better than a cellphone camera lens. and the same can be said for many fixed lens compacts desu
>>
>>3110278
>reactionary memeing
to be fair, "m43 is no better than a cellphone" is also a meme
>>
Why do camera with smaller sensors cost so damn much compared to apsc cameras?
>>
>implying my E-M10 II photos aren't better than your Sony snapshits
>>
>>3110564
all MILC crop-sensor bodies are priced about the same, except for the m43 flagships and Fujifilm X-T2
>>
>>3110447
Yeah, but proportionally to the sensor? It makes absolutely no sense having a tiny camera when it won't fit the average hand - so making it bigger does exactly what differently to an APSC / FF ? It's a flawed shit design that I have no idea why people still buy into.
The beauty of APS-C is that you have comparable output similar to a FF, with an actually more compact system. It's a win-win.
>>
>>3110568
>I have no idea why people still buy into.
pretty much the only m43 cameras I hear people talk about are Pannys: GH4/GH5, G7/G85, and the GX85 to a lesser extent. So, in essence, videographers or people who do at least 50/50 video/still and just want to buy one camera.
though once Sony gets its shit together about battery life, overheating, and ergonomics, more videographers/no budget digital filmmakers will jump ship (and many already have)
>>
>>3110571
Pretty much.
But I fucking hate gearfagging, I'm ashamed to say the opinions that I did, because I truly don't give a fuck when I'm out and about taking snaps.
>>
>>3110409
>Go outside on a sunny day
>set camera to A mode
>set iso to base (200) set aperture to f/16
>camera sets shutter to 1/200
>>
>>3110568
There are a couple pro photographers on youtube that use E-M1 MkII cameras, granted they always have lens converters and use nonnative glass.
>>
>memecro four turds
>can't make good prints larger than 11x14
lmao
>>
>>3110620
They don't make m4/3 cameras with more than 14 megapixels? huh. really makes you think.
>>
>>3110628
>larger than
lrn2read
>>
>>3110635
They don't make 20 megapixel m4/3 cameras? Huh. Really makes you think.
>>
>>3110620
>implying you absolutely need 300 dpi for a good print
>>
i'd like to try non-micro four-thirds, but that's deader than my soul at this point
>>
>>3110664
why the fuck? m4/3 is better in every conceivable way
>>
>>3110674
i like the mirror+prism shenanigans. that's about it
>>
>>3110256
>does it actually hold any weight?
not hardly
and mft is closer to aspc than aspc is to ff
>>
>>3110256
Imagine going into dominos, ordering your za, you open the box and see they only gave you 2 slices, a quarter of the pizza, this is what life with m43 is like every day.
>>
File: IMG_5492-768x432.jpg (81KB, 768x432px) Image search:
[Google]
81KB, 768x432px
>>3110256
Because for the price you can buy a fullframe camera.
Doesn't make sense to get an m43 instead unless you are hurting for every ounce of weight.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Image Width 768 Image Height 432
>>
>>3111038
A fullframe system will always be heavier and bigger on average than a MFT system
A bigger sensor need sa bigger prjected image, for which you need a bigger front element, for wich you either need bigger lenses or thicker lenselements to concentrate the beam tighter and then spread it over the sensor-area. It's basic physics.
You might find the occasional FF-lens with similar stats that is a bit smaller than a MFT lens, but it isn't the absolute rule. And it's the same with the price.
A FF camera with equal stats will always be more expensive than a MFT camera. You might find conditions under which this isn't exactly true, but over a broad, empirical line speaking, it is true. A new A7 is more expensive than a new GH4, a New a6500 is more expensive than a new GX85
And the fact that you systematically go through all these threads to post the same image and the same lie over and over again just proves that you're learn-resistant or a shill
>>
>>3111038
>Because for the price you can buy a fullframe camera.
No you can't
Where can you buy a new digital FF camera + lens for $600-700 USD?
>>
>>3111017
>eating more than two slices from a whole pizza
fat ass
>>
I never understood the appeal of M43. It's a compromise between APS-C and compacts. There are APS-C cams of the same size and weight that perform better. I got to play with an OMD and I liked it, it's small and compact and the image quality is decent but it's not the camera for discerning hobbyists.
There are no M43 cams that can stand up to FF even previous gen FF cams. My Df would bitchslap almost every APS-C cam on the market and most FF cams, to think M43 could hold a candle to a D4 sensor is either blatant trolling or autism. And even factoring in the compact size of the M43 format, and I hate to defend Sony here, but the A7 is marginally larger than most M43 cams and has an FF sensor and that cam can give the Df a run for its money in the performance department.
>>
>>3111204
>missing the point
>>3111211
>m43 can't compete with FF
no shit, dumbass, and no one has ever asserted such. and as for the middleground between aspc and compact sensors, m43 is much closer in performance to aspc and beats the fuck out of 1" and smaller
and why does everyone keep comparing camera bodies between formats, where it's true m43 size is only marginally smaller. it's the lenses where that compactness shows up.
>>
>>3111211
Sugar doesn't understand something? Stop the fucking presses.
>the A7 is marginally larger than most M43 cams and has an FF sensor
m4/3 isn't about body size, fucktard, it's about lens size. while the a7's body is small, the lenses are uniformly gigantic. meanwhile, while the size reduction on m4/3 bodies isn't all that great, the lenses are considerably smaller and lighter. that's the difference, and half the reason m4/3 exists.
smallish body, small lens? ergonomic heaven.
smallish body, huge lens? terrible in every single way.
olympus and panasonic both are also blisteringly fast innovators as far as ergonomics and features are concerned. what does the little ring around the shutter button do on your df? turn it on? that's cute. on a panasonic camera that's one of your dials, and it works beautifully. how many completely programmable buttons does your DF have? two? three? the gx85 has nine. how long can you handhold an exposure with VR? maybe 1/15? olympus will let you go out to 2 seconds, no problem, and panasonic isn't much worse. how many other manufacturers offer both in-body stabilization AND lens stabilization that work together? how many offer the weatherproofing that olympus does? Maybe pentax, and that's a big maybe.
Video is the other reason m4/3 exists, and panasonic cockslaps sony up and down the aisle in this regard.
>>
>>3110256
>tfw you realize teenage autists imported console war bullshit from /v/ and retooled it for cameras
>>
>>3111200
He is comparing it to a Pen -F which is $1,000 for the camera
>>3111038
>puts a retarded grip and the biggest piece of glass he can find on a pen - f
>look how big it is guys
If I put a 20mm f1.7 on it or a 14-42 f3.5/5.6 it is a pocketable camera. You can add to that that I have 2 other small as fuck lenses. Only really 3 of my lenses have any real size and one of the 3 doesn't weigh anything.
>>
>>3111224
Panasonic better than Sony at video
lol okay
Panasonic cant even into autofocus
iso is trash
m4/3 shills are worse than sonyggers
at least Sony has legitimate spec sheets to feel superior over, m4/3 just has over priced everything that's barely better than compacts.
full frame mirrorless is about going back to the days of a small cam like om-1 but with the quality of modern lenses. you can't compare any m4/3 flagship to a7rii or let alone xpro2
>>
>>3111423
8 B I T
B
I
T
Also overheating. The gx85, a $500 camera, can do 90 straight minutes of 4K without shitting the bed. What Sony can do that?
>>
>>3111427
oh wow 10 bit
doesn't fuckin matter if you can't go above iso 400
g a r b a g e
>>
>>3111432
>needing high iso for production
wut.
>>
>>
File: 1425311250835.png (42KB, 325x247px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 325x247px
>>3110278
>it can even throw blows at MF cameras
>>
Does anyone know how to change the exif data on images? I feel like it would be funny to take a bunch of M43 images and then present them as though they are full frame images and watch as no one on /p/ can tell the difference.
>>
>>3111473
ebin :^)
>>
>>3111440
you've never made a documentary in your life have you?
>>
>>3111817
Sorry Errol, I haven't.
>>
>>3110256
>that rope strap
Looks neat, but I can't imagine it being more comfortable than a normal one.
>>
File: 13649203_1133004420098289_151706462_n.jpg (71KB, 640x640px) Image search:
[Google]
71KB, 640x640px
>>3111111
>full frame is much larger
Explain the oly xa then, 35mm f2.8 lens that when mounted to an a7 doesn't even go past the handgrip.
>>3111200
Sony a7 go for as low as $500 on the grey market.
>>3111224
>lenses are uniformly gigantic
What, like the new 85 gram samyang 35 2.8 (17mm f1.4 equivalent on m43) the olympus 17mm f1.8 is 50% heavier, 2mm longer, half a stop slower, 30% more expensive and has worse total resolution.
Why would anyone defend this trash?
Just because sony prioritised professional lenses first, doesn't mean they don't have some tricks up their sleeve. If you and other m43 users actually valued compactness there would be a lot more lenses like pic related on the market.
>>3111427
>90 minute long shots
Lmfao, why cuz, no one will ever want to watch that, no single shot should really go over a minute.
>but interviews and reportage
Use your phone, like most media outlets now do.
>but 8 bit
Sony does 10 bit just fine with an atomos, everyone has an atomos. Also, it's pretty irrelevant.
>>3111458
Britney spears can throw blows at mike tyson too.
>>
>>3111913
>half a stop slower
things I learned, that f1.8 is half a stop slower than f2.8
>>
>>3111930
I think he has it backwards.
Regular APS-C: 23.6x15.7mm, 370mm2
M43: 17.3x13mm, 225mm2
>Horizontal crop factor: 23.6/17.3 = 1.36
>Vertical crop factor: 15.7/13 = 1.21
>Diagonal crop factor: 28.3/21.6 = 1.31
>By area: log2(370/225) = 0.72 stops
Take the Olympus 17mm's aperture and multiply it by the APS-C horizontal/diagonal crop factor:
>1.8 × 1.36 = 2.448
>1.8 × 1.31 = 2.358
Rounded up, they both equal 2.4.
f2.4 is half a stop faster than f2.8.
Granted, the Sony is around $100 cheaper, and the larger sensor means you can crank the ISO up to make up for that half-stop.
>>
>>
>>3111888
You can hang yourself while taking selfies
>>
>>3111964
Oh, shit. I should learn to read.
In this case, you're right.
I wish Sony would make a FF with the classic SLR controls like Fuji does.
I'd switch in a heartbeat.
>>
>>3111971
It has quite a few dials, an exposure compensation, shooting mode, one for Aperture and one for Shutter speed. And another one that is programmable.
It has more controls than my film SLR.
What more do you need? A fake winder?
>>
>>3111971
I feel dirty as fuck for even mentioning this, but if you want a sony sensor with classic controls, you do know that the Nikon Df is a thing, right?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: Sony-A9-top.jpg (68KB, 1024x620px) Image search:
[Google]
68KB, 1024x620px
>>3111982
I am a total sonyfag but...
>all those dirt cheap, juicy screw drive nikkor lenses
That price though...
>>
>>3111984
You can get lucky and find them for surprisingly cheap from time to time, but then again, it's still a top flight sensor in there rocking the same one that's in the D750.
>>
>>3111986
I don't know shit about Nikon.
Are there aperture rings on most of their lenses, or is there a dial somewhere on that body for aperture?
>>
>>3111986
Gimme one with an a7rii sensor in it and I would consider it.
Or just give me a Nikon adapter with a screw drive built into it.
>>
>>3111989
>>3111989
Old film era nikkor lenses have aperture rings extending to the screw drive af lenses and some of the third party stuff have had them until quite recently. Around the same time as nikon put out the screwdrive af, they also implemented aperture control on the body. Off the top off my head. So yes, all nikon bodies made in the last like 30 years have aperture control, but some lenses have them as well so can use them in old film bodies...
>>
>comparing mft with ff
let's compare a Ford Focus with a Corvette next
>>
>>3111982
A nikon designed sensor made by renesas. A good sensor nevertheless.
>>
>>3111913
>bragging about a third party lens to say that Sony doesn't have gigantic lenses
Wew lad.
>>
>>3111211
Find me an APS-C camera with a zoom lens under $1000 and we'll talk. I'd kill for one, the closest we have right now is the ZS100. Shame for that tiny 1" sensor though.
That said, it looks like you guys are defending m43 DSLRs. What the fuck, m43 was made for compacts with kit lenses, not to haul some retarded bridge with a huge footlong lens everywhere.
>>
I fucking loved my PEN F when I had it but it's not £1000 worth of camera. I sold it and got an X100F when I came to my senses.
Now eyeing up Leica M240s...
>>
>>3112109
>Find me an APS-C camera with a zoom lens under $1000 and we'll talk.
Literally everyone but fuji's entry level setup. Like you can walk into Walmart right now and get a Nikon 3000 series or Canon Rebel right now with a zoom for far less than a G.
>>
>>3112109
>m43 DSLR
those do not exist
>>
>>
>>3112113
There's a whole bunch of fuji kits under $1000, the cheapest one being x-m1 & 16-50 for 399€ up to x-t10 & 18-55 for 899€ where I live. And this is an expensive country.
>>
>>3112131
Ah, my apologies then. Everyone has kit for under a g then.
>>
>>3112117
it lets in the same amount of light, but a smaller sensor won't capture as much of it
>>
>>3112142
Oh, so you must need a longer shutter speed as you go down in sensor size, right?
>>
>>3112144
No. The density of illumination is the same across sensor sizes (we're assuming a uniformly lit scene like shooting a gray card). It's only the total illumination that goes up/goes down with the sensor size.
Like, if you have a pizza that has a half inch of cheese per square inch, a pizza that is 10 inches across has more total cheese on it than one that's 5 inches across, but the depth of cheese is the same on both.
>>
>>3112153
And since I forgot this bit: it's the depth of the cheese that determines the exposure, not the total cheese used.
So yes, there is more total light hitting a larger sensor; however, the distribution of that light at a given aperture will be the same as for a smaller sensor, and it's the distribution that determines exposure.
>>
>>3112153
So then it's the same. Really makes you think.
Why does 135 get to be the standard for equivalency? No one ever looks at an 85 f/1.4 and says "lol yeah right more like 300mm f/8"
Seems like you guys just like to make up rules and spew bullshit just to make yourself feel better about your own consumer electronics purchases.
>>
>>3112160
>So then it's the same. Really makes you think.
Only idiots like Northrup get hung up on the total light thing. It's a result of one of the quirks of photography being that you can measure essentially everything in stops. Some people don't realize that just because something can be measured doesn't imply that it's useful to measure it. That said, you can use the whole "equivalent" aperture thing to figure out depth of field across sensor sizes, but that's really all it's useful for, and even then, there are better ways.
>Why does 135 get to be the standard for equivalency?
Because it dominated the market for basically a century and if going by the number of extant bodies and lenses is still by far the most populous set of sizes. In the digital age, it's little more than "it's how we've always done it" but as a standard, it's something that we all mostly understand.
Also, 85mm is 85mm, no matter if it's on a 1/3" sensor or a 6x17. Crop sensors literally do nothing but crop the center of the image out by not using what light falls outside of the sensor. There is no change in focal length. Focal length equivalency is a lie perpetuated by idiots, just as telephoto compression/wide angle extension is a function not of the focal length but of the relationship between the camera and subject.
>No one ever looks at an 85 f/1.4 and says "lol yeah right more like 300mm f/8"
Because like explained above, that's stupid.
>Seems like you guys just like to make up rules and spew bullshit just to make yourself feel better about your own consumer electronics purchases.
Nope, historical precedent. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the wankery over sensor sizes, well, you're probably onto something there.
>>
>>3112160
>Why does 135 get to be the standard for equivalency?
Because it absolutely dominated both amateur and professional photography for decades.
>>
>>3112169
>There is no change in focal length. Focal length equivalency is a lie perpetuated by idiots
Since no one can be arsed to specify FoV, equivalent focal length remains an extremely useful measure to determine how a picture will look on different cameras in the same circumstances. I don't really give a fuck about the physical focal length of the lenses on my phone, my travel camera and my lolpro SLR; if I see that they're all 28mm-equivalent, I know I'll get the same frame coverage on all of them. Physical focal length only matters if you're adapting a lens to a non-native format and want to know the resulting FoV.
>>
I'm trying to follow but I'm an idiot. Do you get a larger depth of field with wider lenses or more tele lenses?
>>
>>3112182
You get a larger depth of field by being farther away from your subject and a narrower depth of field by being closer. Go look up how hyperfocal distance works.
When it comes to the whole lens equivalent thing, smaller formats will have a larger depth of field than larger formats if you frame the subject the same way (as in fill the frame with the same amount of subject--like head and shoulders only in both) which because of the crop factor requires you to move farther back with the smaller sensor.
>>
>>3112144
Not at all. If I take my pen f outside on a sunny day and set the iso to 200 (the base iso) and the f stop to f/16 then my shutter speed will be 1/200th
>>
>>3112144
It only makes a difference for ISO performance.
>>
>>3112182
You get a larger DoF the wider the lens is. For example I have a 17.5 mm f 0.95 and a 75 mm f1.8
I can get better bokah and more subject isolation with the 75mm even stopped down to f2.8 than I can on the 17.5mm because of how close the 75mm makes my subject appear.
>>
File: Telephoto_dof.png (345KB, 1200x909px) Image search:
[Google]
345KB, 1200x909px
>>3112182
DoF is a fairly complex optical phenomenon that can't be easily expressed as a function of one parameter. Technically, DoF becomes smaller when zooming in, but only if distance to subject stays the same, which makes the comparison meaningless because the framing of your subject drastically changes.
Also, note that DoF is not the same as visual foreground/background separation. With the same subject framing and the same DoF (in meters), a telephoto lens will give more apparent subject isolation (pic related).
Also, different lenses having different kinds of out-of-focus rendering also affects how pleasing the focus separation will look.
>>
File: the p theory.jpg (117KB, 834x669px) Image search:
[Google]
117KB, 834x669px
ITT
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>
>>3112196
Okay. So my 25mm lens on my PEN F will give more background separation than my 50mm on my Leica M9.
>>
>>3112201
The opposite. For any given f stop the Leica will have 2 f stops smaller DoF.
Like if you take your Pen F and shoot at f/4 you will have the equivalent DoF as a Leica user shooting at f/8
And honestly that isn't a bad thing. You can get good seperation using any of the 42.5mm + m43 lenses.
The Pen F's "intended use" is street photography/reportage/ make pretend photojournalism or documentary.
The way the Pen F and Leica market their products, they are marketing them for uses where you are more likely to shoot at f4-f11 and in that case, the Pen F gets 2 stops of light on the Leica.
Let's say it is a sunny day and you want to go street shooting. The Leica user will set his ISO to 100 and his aperture to f8 because it is where the lens will be sharp and will make zone focusing easier. If he does this his shutter speed will be 1/400
A Pen F user on the same day will set his ISO to base ISO (200) and his aperture to f/4. This provides the same Dof (assuming both are using the same equivalent focal lengths).
The Pen F user now has a shutter speed of 1/3,200
(assuming there is 0 shade anywhere and everywhere is just sunny)
>>
>>3112101
What's wrong with 3rd party lenses?
>>
>>3112211
>The way the Pen F and Leica market their products, they are marketing them for uses where you are more likely to shoot at f4-f11 and in that case, the Pen F gets 2 stops of light on the Leica.
Way to be confusing.
To clarify what this anon is saying you get to use a narrower aperture and lower ISO because your main goal in this case is achieving a certain depth of field. Wanting a certain depth of field from the Leica requires locking that aperture value to f8, so you have to dick around with your shutter speed and ISO to get to the right exposure.
With the Pen, to get the same depth of field, your aperture is now locked into f/4 which lets in more light requiring you to let in less light via the shutter and ISO to achieve the same exposure.
>>
>>3112201
No, you got it in reverse.
More DoF -> Less background separation
Less DoF -> More background separation
>>
>>3112211
I might be spoiled by FF, but I quite often can't get enough subject isolation with 45/1.8 and 25/1.4 lenses in my travel kit, and faster m43 lenses are prohibitively big and expensive.
>>
>>3112225
eh I have a 25 f0.95 and a 75mm f1.8
>>
>>3112227
>CV 25/0.95
That's a fairly hefty (by m43 standards), manual-focus/manual-aperture lens, not something I'd want for traveling. There's nothing worse than getting to a hotel in the evening and discovering that the best shots you made are slightly out of focus.
>>
i bought today a Panasonic GM1 + 12-32mm OIS lens for 300$. Good deal? I have also 20mm 1.7
>>
>>3112239
I have a CV 17.5mm I have a Mitikon Speedmaster 25mm f0.95
>>
>>3112243
Not a fan of GM1 due to how gimped the controls are, but if you want to maximize IQ to weight ratio, it's a decent deal.
>>
>>3112113
Oh fuck I meant a compact APS-C camera under $1000, sorry. The whole point of m43 is having pocketable gear
>>
Is there *any* reason to choose Olympus/Panasonic over Sony/Canon/Nikon/Pentax crops?
>>
>>3112403
Smaller, lighter, better lens selection, doesn't burst into flames
>>
>>3112403
They are a tad bit smaller (usually just the lenses, bodies can be as big or bigger than even the massive X-Pro series. Super small bodies exist, but they are usually lacking in some other regard).
If you need every single ounce of space you can, and you wont be shooting in.low light situations, it is a very good choice.
>>
>>3112403
You can put an olympus in your pocket and the light thing is kinda overblown as there are at least 5 f/.095 M43 lenses on the market
If you are shooting between ISO 200 and 800 I would be fucking shocked if someone could tell the difference between a M43 image and a full frame one without the exif data
>>
File: newzealand10second.jpg (256KB, 1015x1280px) Image search:
[Google]
256KB, 1015x1280px
>>3112422
M43 is still pretty good up to around 2200 ISO, which is equivalent to APS-C 3200 ISO.
With IBIS and a fast lens, you'll comfortably be able to stay within that ISO range.
Hell, this was shot handheld at 1600 ISO for 10 seconds and it's very usable
>>
>>3112422
>You can put an olympus in your pocket
People are saying the RX100 is unpocketable and you're saying m4/3 is?
>>
>>3112065
A corvette costs more than a ford focus, a z06 is more than twice as much as a focus rs.
A pen f is £200 more than an a7 right now.
>>3112117
Yes, but.
What gathers more light if left out in the sun, one sheet of paper, or 4 sheets of paper.
Considering exposure is determined by the amount of light gathered, do you not think it relevant to compare how much light is gathered?
Now let's look at the practical application of equivalency, you have ~2 stops less dof and ~2 stops better noise on ff. ie, exactly the same shot (ignoring the massive boost to resolution on ff) can be taken by dropping the iso and aperture by 2 stops on m43. Considering every tangible difference can be quantified by one variable, why not use it.
Oh, and wrt light transmission f1.8!=f1.8, t1.8=t1.8.
>>3112144
A longer ss changes the photo composition, raising the iso and dropping the aperture doesn't.
>>3112156
The depth of cheese determines the ev, the total cheese determines the snr (noise, or lack thereof)
>>3112160
Because 135 has been the standard for over a century. Why do we use equivalent horse power to measure cars when we have plenty of ready to use units that fit in with the rest of physics instead of being arbitrary.
>>
>>3112508
A 2 generations ago sony A7 costs the same price as a pen f. Like the original A7, if you want an A7II or the R or S versions they are $500-$1,000 more.
Unless you are a pro photographer, you are literally never going to see the resolution difference between a ff and M43.
Exposure isn't determined by how much light is gathered it is determined by light per unit of sensor area.
A t1.8 lens is a t1.8 lens is a t1.8 lens.
If I go out and shoot a full frame, a crop, a mf, and a m43 at noon on a sunny day at t16 using 100 iso the sutter speed will be 1/100 on all of them regardless of their sensor size.
Unless you are doing something specifically where you need that high ISO performance 99% of people really can't tell the fucking difference and it is one of the least important parts of taking photos.
Like do you think any normie will notice if you took something in medium format instead of full frame?
Hell if you want good images why use digital instead of film?
And once again, more pros (at least on youtube) use m43 (and usually a cannon or nikon full frame) than use a sony
>>
>>3112522
Do any pros use Fuji?
Or am I forever a Luddite?
t. Curious Fuji Sheep
>>
>>3112525
Zack does
>>
>>3112525
Not really. They don't have professional level lenses, flashes, or even raw files.
Some use them for wedding photography, but that isn't real photography.
>>
File: ss+(2017-02-04+at+08.15.43).jpg (92KB, 729x488px) Image search:
[Google]
92KB, 729x488px
>>3112525
Define pro desu.
There are lots of people, but are you looking up to them? Does their work matter to you at all. Jason Lanier uses Sony but eh, I think we all see where this is going.
>>
>>3112528
Zack who?
>>
>>3112531
Zack Arias
>>
>>3112522
>If I go out and shoot a full frame, a crop, a mf, and a m43 at noon on a sunny day at t16 using 100 iso the sutter speed will be 1/100 on all of them regardless of their sensor size.
If you go out on a rainy day and place one bucket down in one area, and 4 buckets down in another area, which area collects more water? If I do the same but with rainmeters, taking an average of the 4 readings for the 2nd area, which is likely to be most accurate?
It's the same with light, the bigger sensor = larger quantity of signal, = better signal to noise ratio, and more samples = more accurate = less signal to noise. it is why the high mp sony a7rii has better low light performance than the a7ii or a7sii.
>but a7sii is the best camera for low light on the market
Yes my simple friend, and the reason is simple, sensor size, the a7s range are the only ff cameras that use a whole sensor readout, others perform line skipping or pixel binning. Sensor size is king
>you won't even see the sharpness difference.
Let's do some logic here, lets set some knowns;
1. modern Sensors universally outresolve lenses
2. People are prepared to pay a £4k premium for an otus over a canikon 50mm, difference in lens resolution is maybe 20%, the otus still won't outresolve most sensors.
3. M43 with an equal mp count to ff will need a lens that resolves 4 times as much detail as it's ff counterpart to be truly equivalent.
4. There is no magic stash of optically perfect glass.
From just these 4 objective truths we can ascertain that not only is there a tangible difference, people are prepared to pay £4k for an image quality improvement 1/20th of what the image quality difference is between m43 and ff.
Small sensors are a false economy.
>>
>>3112529
OK, I'll bite.
>professional level lenses
This is a vague statement. What do you consider "professional"? Do you mean weather resistant? In which case, Fuji has a whole lineup dedicated to that.
>flashes
You've got a point.
>RAW files
The earlier versions of Lightroom had issues with it. But that problem has long been patched out, and many other RAW editors work perfectly with .RAF files
>>
>>3112549
Fuji makes 3 flashes, godox and nissin makes flashes for fuji and in addition to that, with cactus v6ii you can use canon and nikon flashes remotely with ttl and hss support. So there's pretty much everything you'd ever need.
>>
>>3112522
>If I go out and shoot a full frame, a crop, a mf, and a m43 at noon on a sunny day at t16 using 100 iso the sutter speed will be 1/100 on all of them regardless of their sensor size.
Yes, but diffraction will not be.
>>
>>3112548
>M43 with an equal mp count to ff will need a lens that resolves 4 times as much detail
...over a 4 times smaller area. This doesn't necessarily even it out, but it helps.
>>
>>3112598
He said T/16, it doesn't say anything about diffraction.
>>
>>3112548
There are more faster cheaper lenses available for M43 than for sony. I've never seen a native sony lens with an f/0.95.
Once again unless you are doing something where you need to shoot high as fuck ISO you won't know the difference.
Also the average person shooting doesn't own $20k lenses and sony has shit glass. 99% of the time no one is going to notice any change in resolution, especially with the format images are currently sold in.
>>
>it's a retarded analogy episode
>>
>>3112709
f/0.95 ?
if youre gonna be an autist trying to get razor thin dof without full frame aps-c + speed booster at least makes sense
>>
>>3112800
I am not trying to get razor thing DoF. f/0.95 is like f/2 DoF.
I own 2 lenses with f/0.95 a 17.5mm and a 25 mm. They shoot pretty well in low light and don't have DoF issues
>>
File: 1391449783763guk1m.gif (198KB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
198KB, 640x360px
>tfw /p/ bullies me because I use mft
>>
>>3112851
don't sweat it
the people who constantly shit on m43 are gearfags, and everyone knows gearfags are awful photographers so they obsess about having the technologically "superior" camera
>>
>>3112878
M43 gets outperformed by iPhones, literally.
>>
>>3112882
*farts*
>>
File: guyrunninginscrapyard.png (309KB, 598x397px) Image search:
[Google]
309KB, 598x397px
>>3110256
>M43? You might as well use a cellphone camera!
I was thinking about this the other day, and in all honesty who cares? I mean, most of us are taking photos for web anyways, so we aren't going to blow our photos up to Ansel Adams proportions for a gallery showing.
Micro four-thirds is an adequate choice, especially if the web or instagram is your target photo sharing location.
I'm in the market for a camera that shoots video, and the Panasonic Lumix G7 is 1/4th the price of a used 5D Mk IV, and in all of the sample videos on youtube, the quality is actually better.
Plus, I don't think anyone can really tell the difference just by looking at it whether it is a crop sensor or a full frame sensor.
>>
>>3111423
>sonygger
you have to go back
>>
File: LEMMEcURbhole.jpg (35KB, 1012x153px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 1012x153px
>when your format is so shit you have to combine two manufacturers to lose to sony
>>
File: 1481898946000_1285144.jpg (35KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 500x500px
>>3110256
>2017
>not shooting medium format
>>
>>3112645
>there is no stash of optically perfect glass
No, it will be just as soft as any other ff lens, because the raw material is the limiting factor.
That's why apple moved to sapphire crystal for it's iphone lens, obviously this is unfeasible for anything more than a few mm across.
>>3112709
>there's no f0.95 lenses
The mitakon 50m f0.95 begs to differ, irrelevant though as anything faster than 1.4 on ff is meme af.
>cheaper
I don't care how poor you are, really cheap adapted legacy lenses still produce sharper shots than leica m43 glass.
>high iso
I've never been over 3200, and they come out clean as a nuns cunt.
>sony has shit glass
You mean sony has the best performing glass of any oem, right? Just take a peek at dxo's top lenses list. If you don't like sony, zeiss have 2 great exclusive lines, samyang have fantastic exclusive lenses, sigma have the dn range and are coming out with more fe exclusives later this year, if you like mf check out the voigtlander, tokina, handevision offerings, if you like canikon you can get full featured and full speed af with their lenses too. No one else comes close.
>>3112812
Let's compare sharpness from my a7 & 28 f2 and your pen f & 17.5mm, my combo is cheaper and lighter though.
>>
>>3113123
>No, it will be just as soft as any other ff lens, because the raw material is the limiting factor.
Raw material is not the limiting factor. If it was, cellphones with their 6x crop factor (36 times smaller area) would've been limited to less than 1 MP.
>>
>>3113164
The iphone 6 had a lens & bayer limited resolution of about 1.4mp and was considered best in it's class by quite a margin.
So, yeah, you're not wrong.
>>
>>3113167
>The iphone 6 had a lens & bayer limited resolution of about 1.4mp
[citation needed]
>>
>>3111913
> Sony a7 go for as low as $500 on the grey market.
Where?
>>
>>3113529
The lowest ebay/CL prices are on the order of $600-700 for used bodies so I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.
>>
>>3113531
The lowest I saw in Germany was 550 eur for a scratched one on ebay. They go for 650 - 700 there.
I used a7 for about a month and for manual lenses - it's really good. If the price would go down to 500 bucks as that guy mentioned I would buy it for fun.
>>
>>3113535
If I had to use manual lenses exclusively, I would probably pay more for mkII to have stabilized live view, handheld focusing in zoomed view gives me nausea.
>>
Micro four turds is dead
>>
MY PEN F and 25mm 1.8 is not pocketable but it's still a damn sight lighter than any other interchangable lens camera with comparable image quality.
I had the XPro2 for a while and it was noticeably more bulky and heavy. The PEN F looks less intimidating also if that;s important to you.
>>
>>3113921
>damn sight lighter than any other ilc
Sony a7 and samyang 35mm 2.8 is nearly 100g lighter than your combo and offers a sensor 4 times the size and lens with 4 times the image circle size. It outperforms your combo in every metric apart from size and the sony costs less.
Sony also have a smaller ff body coming, reportedly smaller than the a6000.
>>
>>3113934
What about a 50mm lens?
>>
>>
>>3113938
With the fe 50 1.8 the weight is pretty much identical. But we would need a 50mm f4, which would be miniscule, to have an apples for apples comparison.
>>
I hate Sony. Which mirrorless system should I invest into?
>>
>>3113939
Pen f with batt but no sd - 434g
25 1.8 - 200g
Total - 634g
A7 with batt & sd - 474g
35 2.8 - 85g
Total - 559g
Sd card is 2g, total weight difference = 75g
The sony fe 50 1.8 makes the sony weigh 25g extra, but that's not a fair comparison as it's equivalent 2 stops faster than the oly. Slightly cropping the 35mm f2.8 shot is a much fairer comparison.
>>
>>3113941
Sony.
There is no real competition still.
And as you mentioned "invest" sony are the only mount with lenses likely to appreciate, thanks to Sony's ties with the cine industry.
>>
>>3113945
Well Olympus 25mm lens is 137grams and the 17mm lens is 120grams which is a better comparison seeing as you changed it to a 50mm in the first place.
>>
>>
>>3113954
>I always expected FF lenses to be a lot heavier than that.
It is mainly the zooms that are larger. Most of the primes are on the more compact side.
Now everything is G or GM, and absolutely massive.
The one time Sony made a super compact zoom (16-50 for aps-c) they got slammed for its mediocre image quality (and no one has yet to make anything better than the 16-50 in aps-c).
>>
>>3113945
>f/1.8 is two stops faster than f/1.8
Sonygger logic
>>
>>3113954
>I always expected FF lenses to be a lot heavier than that.
They usually are.
That one is just a plastic piece of crap.
But once you compensate for crop factors there is no real difference between FF and other formats. - it's the light gathering capabilities (plus the build quality) that make them big and heavy, not the sensor you put behind them.
>>
>>3113983
I thought as much. The Sony 50mm F1.8 is 186grams which seems pretty light desu. I guess that would be my choice if I was a soulless Sony cuck like these boys.
>>
>>3113979
>sensor size is irrelevant
Moron logic
>>3113983
Plastic has better thermal expansion properties, regardless, it's an all metal construction on the samyang.
>>3113989
Dslr lenses are actually larger and heavier as they need retrofocal correction to compensate for the mirror box. (Basically the same as putting a lens on a speedbooster). Hence why 99% of lenses on dslr wider than 40mm have shit image quality, weigh a ton and cost a fortune.
>>
>>3113934
Where the fuck are you getting a Sony costs less bullshit? Every a7 I see costs $200-1$1,000 more than a pen f
>>
>>3113940
>comparing M43 lenses to sony lenses that are over over 2 stops slower
Are you a moron?
>>
>>3114156
Well you see, his statement is true in the following three cases:
>he claims that a shop around his corner sells one for 700 bucks
>he can find a cheap, used or grey market import from someone who probably wont even deliver
>he can find a single ebay-listing of an overpriced MFT camera
REKT I would say!
>>
>>3113945
>The sony fe 50 1.8 makes the sony weigh 25g extra, but that's not a fair comparison as it's equivalent 2 stops faster than the oly. Slightly cropping the 35mm f2.8 shot is a much fairer comparison.
Except it literally isn't. If anything the Pen F has 2 stop better performance than the Sony because you can actually use the wide open stops and still have your subject in focus
>>
>>3113989
One can always find exception cases.
I'm sure there are E-Mount lenses with similar qualities that are of equal size to MFT lenses. But in the end one can't beat physics and a larger sensor will always need a larger lens.
>>
Fuck m43 users fucking faggots
>>
>>3114158
The a7 for $700 isn't much of a stretch.
The a7ii has been as low as $735 on sale on amazon.
>https://slickdeals.net/f/10229432-sony-alpha-a7-ii-body-only-733-from-amazon-fsss?src=SiteSearchV2_SearchBarV2Algo1
>>
>>3114160
Dof is about subject to camera distance, not aperture, if your dof is too shallow, you are using the wrong focal length.
Aperture is there to offset light.
And I bet any of my shots taken wide open are a fuck ton sharper than yours. ;)
>>
>>3110278
this is what you become when you look and ask stupidly and ask the salesman for general information on cameras
of course he will tell you that the cameras based on the pricerange that fits scrubs like you is the better than even large format
>you have Wifi
>you can tilt your cool lcd screen
>turn wheel for cool sepia bw effects
>you can even zoooom look here !
>and this beautiful f5,6 - 8 lens is standard,,,everyone has this !
>last but not least we also recommend you to watch the youtube chanel for tutorials
>inserts name of the cuck bc i forgot his name
>>
>>3113945
The 50/1.8 is the best case scenario though because fifties are so abundant and small.
I do feel the limitations of quarter frame m43 sensor compared to my lolpro DSLR, but if I wanted to swap my travel kit for a Sony, I would've had to give up a lot of capabilities - no way I'm hauling full frame 24-70, 85 and 150-600 around for an entire day.
>>
>>3114597
I've got 2 very sharp lenses.
>implying sharpness matters for 99% of the bullshit people on /p/ do
>>
>>3115000
50's are only small due to the 40mm flange distance on an slr, shorter flange, smaller lenses down to around the flange distance, then you need more complicated retrofocal optics.
Mirrorless isn't just a meme, slr's have some retarded drawbacks for 2k17.
>>
>>3115022
>meanwhile, all of sony's primes consist of 2 lb 22 element monstrosities
such progress!
>>
>>3110256
Anyone know where I can get that exact paracord strap to hang myself with?
I love the way it looks.
Any idea which OLY lens that might be too?
>>
Can anyone here even provide one single example of a good photo taken on a m4/3rds? Thought not.
>>
Can I just opine for a moment? Please stop buying up wideangle and ultrawide classic glass, like for the 35mm OM mount, to adapt to your digital stuff. Those lenses don't have the rez over the part your camera is cropping for, to properly exploit your expensive (and soon outdated) sensor. Plus there's the retrofocal design disadvantage, which is completely pointless when there's no mirror box. My motive is of course that you shouldn't drive up the prices for kit that's mostly useful for shooting film -- i.e. for cheaparses and eccentrics.
Teles and such are fine for adapting. Don't pay too much for a 200mm f/4 though.
>>
>>3110256
for the form factor, apsc is the minimum.
until they can make that organic magical sensor
>>
>>3115028
>sony lenses are too heavy
You mean by having the lightest full frame 10, 12, 15, 20, 28, 35, 50, 12-24mm lenses on the market? Lol.
>>
>>3115132
Half of those are not Sony.
>FE 12-24mm
It's like 10% lighter than SLR lenses. That's hardly an achievement.
>>
File: phat cat.jpg (109KB, 1199x676px) Image search:
[Google]
109KB, 1199x676px
>>3110256
>using adapted 35mm on MFT
>70mm literally the most useless focal length ever
I have a M4/3 for casual snapshitting. Using adapted lenses isn't that great because most force you into using awkward lengths like 70 or 100. Super wide lenses typically result in awful corners. It's more useful with teles but the difficulty of focusing and poor high ISO performance are some major cons unless you're shooting on a tripod at some static things like scenery or the moon. Best used with some cheap native lens like the 2.8/19 Sigma as a lightmeter that can also sort of work as a backup camera. I feel the system is too limited because of the crop factor, poor high ISO and noise showing up in long exposures, to warrant serious investment. Maybe if the lenses were half the cost of what they currently go for.
>>
>>3115175
I like how my voigtlander preforms. I have a 17.5mm f/0.95 so that is like a 35 mm f/1.9 at iso 800 on a full frame. The 75mm f1.8 (150mm f/2.6) is a great lens that can stand up to full frame lenses. And if you want to go small my mitikon 25 mm f/0.95 (like 50mm f/2ish I don't think it actually goes down to 0.95) is really fucking small
It depends on where you want to compromise, I have those 3 lenses that can stand up to full frame pics. I also have things like the 20mm f/1.7 (40 mm f 2.4) , a 14-42mm f/3.6-5.6 (functionally a 28-84 mm f/16), and a 45mm f/1.8 (90mm f/2.6) that are all totally pocket able.
>>
>>3115161
>it's like 10% lighter
Sigma 12-24 f4 - 1150g
Canon 11-24 f4 - 1180g
Nikon 14-24 f2.8 - 1000g
Sony 12-24 f4 - 565g
Nice try senpai.
>they're not sony
They are exclusive to sony fe mount though, and when you open up your mount format so everyone has full compatibility, what does it matter? It's not like canon/nikon/bentax/puji who do all they can to prevent 3rd party companies producing competitive products, and in some cases stopping lenses working altogether (cough, canon)
Thread posts: 180
Thread images: 18
Thread images: 18