Why is m43 so universally despised by /p/? Are micro four thirds

KC tier detected

>>3114245
>universally despised by /p/
it is literally one guy

what's with the m43 spam lately? fuck off

>>3115949
it may be one guy making all the b8 threads, but /p/ as a whole generally seems to dislike it and recs Sony when it come to mirrorless

>>3115955
It's just a fucking Sony shill making all those threads and recommending Sony shitting in all other options like a 12 years old the minute somebody asks for advice. I'm not really sure why all his IP range hasn't been perm'd already.

>>3115955
Objectively untrue. We rec Fuji. And Leica.

>>3115963
only for overpriced garbage

>>3115953
Shut up erik. Kys

>>3114245
Cucked sensor, cucked light capture capabilities, cucked fanbase.

Case closed, fuck off, kys.

Sage.

I just went to an electronics store to look at a few cameras.
No matter how great the images on Sony might look, I'd rather kill myself than use one.
Even the cheap Olympus em10 was handling magnitudes better, as well as the Canon M5 and the Fuji X-T2 they had there.

I'm pretty sure these Sony shills are simply trying to justify their purchase because they secretely hate these cameras, although they do have great specs for the price.

Also, I don't care how sharp it might be, but having a Sigma 90mm equivalent as one of the only viable good lenses available is relatively useless compared to the nice fast and small standard lenses on m43.

>>3114245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22vxY3fzjM

>>3114245
Because the only advantage they have over bridge cameras is you can change lenses and they're priced like larger formats with no real advantages over those larger formats.

This wouldn't be the worst thing in the world because one of the huge complaints about bridge cameras is that you can't change the lenses on them, but the m4/3 fanbois shill the things like they're the second coming of Christ. The toxic userbase, much like sony's, is a lot of the reason many of us just don't like them on principle.

>>3116252
>m4/3 fanbois shill the things like they're the second coming of Chris
no they don't, at least not on /p/ since I've been coming here the past six months. I don't think I've come across one m43 shill, but tons of troll threads shitting on the format.

>>3116417
>m4/3 user justifying their purchase

No one wants that small turd sensor plus overpriced plastic lenses.
m4/3 will die in 2 years time

>>3116744
Impossible.
Video capabilities of m4/3 arent to be overlooked especially when talking about drone videography.
U need huge drones to carry full frame cameras with full frame lenses.
And full frame cameras for drone can be optimized, but lenses cannot.

>>3116750
>Video
>talking about video on a Photography board

seriously if m4/3 is just for video you might as well get a video camera

>U need huge drones to carry full frame cameras with full frame lenses.

Sony already has small body for their full frame. Also full frame lenses will go smaller soon. No one needs your shitty tiny sensor like your dick.

>>3116252
As far as I can tell the m43 users are just posting photos in the rpt threads. What do the gearfag Sony shills do outside of post in threads like this?

>>3116744
>overpriced
says the Sony fag who needs to pay a grand for a good lens on his equally shitty apsc sensor

massive kek. full frame or bust, faggot

>>3116762
>pay a grand for a good lens on his equally shitty apsc sensor
nigga what?

>>3116755
>Sony already has small body for their full frame. Also full frame lenses will go smaller soon. No one needs your shitty tiny sensor like your dick.
lol I'm a Sony shill, retard..
And mirrorless FF lenses can't go smaller that what they already are but maybe you are so dumb that you were referring to SLR FF lenses...
btw M4/3 drone cameras are dedicated devices that don't even resemble a camera anymore.
https://www.dji.com/zenmuse-x5s

>>3116744
>m4/3 will die soon
how many years has /p/ been saying this now, and how many years have they been wrong now?

It's the only other mirrorless system besides sony with good video, good AF and is far cheaper. It's lighter and muh speedbooster

>>3114245
I'm honestly shocked at the current state of this website. Yeah, we made bokeh jokes sometimes, but it was all fun, right? At the end of the day, we all shoot in full auto, we all supported Ken Rockwell, and we all opposed pedo Terry Richardson. But now? Our entire fucking site is subverted because of fucking mirrorfags.

The internet is OUR platform. the SONY platform. Racism, sexism, misogyny, were all confirmed to be left in the past because millenials are the most pro-Sony generation of all time. So why in the FUCK, do we still have to deal with mirrorfags IN TWENTY-FUCKING-SEVENTEEN? Despite how much you wanna cry about how it's just a conspiracy and a boogeyman, weight specs ARE real, and this site is proof. We went from one of the most Sony sites in the world to supporting muh legacy glass? Nah, that's not normal progression because people only get more mirrorless with age, just like how you get smarter with age.

Threads like these just show that we need MUCH more strict moderation around here. I'm sick of all of this shit. Fuck Canon, Fuck Nikon, Fuck Panasonic, Fuck Olympus, Fuck Pentax, and LEICA. Just fucking nuke this site already.

>>3116755
They literally cannot. You can't have a fast lens without it being big. Aperture is focal length/iris size. If you want a small lens you need to have a very slow lens and if the lens is slow at that point there is no benefit over m43

>>3116911
>They literally cannot. You can't have a fast lens without it being big.

>implying you cannot use small m42, m39, Nikkor, OM and other small legacy glass on your Sony making it smaller than all those ugly plastic m43 glass

>>3117198
you will need an adapter that is big enough to get to the minimum flange distance anyways.