>>3555584>These are just lies. Comparing equivalent focal lengths and apertures, Olympus glass is nearly half as large, 3/4 the weight, and typically 30% to 50% less expensive.>50% less expensiveHi Olympanon! Where's your trip? Then how come every lens suggested by a mftard is expensive as fuck?
>>An XT30 outclasses the EM5 iii and even the EM1 ii in regards to imaging quality. >Post even a single example of real world photography that illustrates this to any noticeable degree whatsoever. OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
>All you can do is post completely disanalagous shots from the DP review scene that don't even normalize the base gamma profile >it's not noise, it's contrast!Confirmed Olympanon.
>>You keep on spouting IBIS when it is negligible.>You give yourself away so easily Ken, it's hilarious. IBIS is the most significant feature developed for digital cameras, ever. MUH EYE-BUS!!! Nobody could take a picture before MUH EYE-BUS!!!
>The keeper rate for camera with hefty IBIS is vastly higher than that for camera without. WTF are you talking about? IS of any form lets you shoot in lower light, but if you're not shooting in lower light it doesn't matter. And if you compensate with a faster lens or higher ISO your keeper rate is going to be the same.
>>Nikon has tons of cheap FF lenses on the used market>Yeah! And guess what retard, we can adapt all of them to MFT, get better performance out of them (*literally* increasing their resolving power and relative aperture size). You mean decrease their resolving power. Smaller sensors are less sharp and have a lower max resolution, not higher.
>But typically, native MFT class is far superior in both IQ and AF performance to even FF glass on FF bodies. >being this delusionalShow me the mftard lens that can match a Sigma Art or Zeiss Otus, or Canon's new RF 50 f/1.2.
>protip: you can't 