>>3554858>Why would I do that? I'm actual photographer that steals actual pictures, FIFY
>Pic related is ISO 6400, Noisy with no fine detail. At 8x10 the foliage looks mushy.
>There isn't a single person on this board that can produce equivalent results on full frame Of course not. FF doesn't churn out shit like that unless you dial it up to 25,600 or higher.
You mftards bring this shit on yourselves. You're always comparing your peni...I mean...sensor size to the big boys, then going on and on about how you're really just as good because SNR and EYE-BUS. It would be fine if you stated the strengths (smaller lenses for equiv focal length; Olympus and Panny bodies are well spec'd) and admitted the weaknesses (can't match larger sensors for big enlargements, high ISO, or DoF). But noooo...you have to preach to everyone how mft is really the best. You're worse then a fucking door-to-door missionary trying to earn his way to heaven.
>Excuse me...do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Olympus?How many people have told you that the examples you post just aren't that good? Even the ones shot on another format that you steal and change the EXIF! But you never quit. You just keep heaping shame and scorn upon yourself for your brand faggotry.
OP wants to shoot landscapes and portraits. This
>>3552606 is the best recommendation because anon chose lenses to meet those needs and stayed in budget. (Though I'm sure similar suggestions could be made for Nikon or Sony APS-C. Fuji might break the budget because it's relatively new.) You can't match a 50 f/1.8 on crop for portraits with mft and stay in budget because you need at least a f/1.2 lens. DoF is everything in portraiture. Otherwise shoot with your fucking phone.
But you don't care what's best for OP's needs and budget. You just want to pitch OH-LIMP-US with a shitty consumer tire zoom and EYE-BUS.
tl;dr - small sensor syndrome.
