>>3559988I didn't ask for the opinion of some YouTube talking head. I asked for a mft portrait that is as sharp and detailed as the link I provided. We both know they do not exist.
BTW, 16x24 isn't even "big". Try 30", 36", 40", and 48". Now try some of those sizes at ISO 3200.
There's a reason why some people don't settle for "good enough."
>>3560147That picture lacks subtle color and structural details in the Milky Way. It's also only 900px wide yet is already noisy as fuck. A 16x20 of that file would look like shit. I couldn't get clean, detailed 16x20 night landscape shots with APS-C, but I can with FF.
>That's why if you're serious about astrophotography you get an equatorial mount. That's astrophotography, not landscape night photography.
>Olympus has live composite mode that is basically purpose designed for shit like astrophotography A) Nobody needs an Olympus gimmick to shoot AP. DeepSkyStacker is free software that will do a better job stacking exposures than any built in camera feature. There are plenty of others. Anyone serious is shooting RAW subs and processing them with dedicated software on their PC or Mac.
B) Nobody is doing 3 hour exposures without spending the price of a small car on their EQ mount. And anyone who has spent that kind of money is shooting FF if they're using fast camera lenses (2x the light for the exposure time), or a dedicated cooled AP camera if they're using a telescope or astrograph. In no scenario is mft "the best AP setup."
A lot of "legit" AP is done using camera lenses, not scopes. When you look into the setups being used they are typically astro modified FF DSLRs and very fast teles like a 200mm f/2 or 300mm f/2.8.
tl;dr - mft has a few advantages (namely light tele lenses) and Olympus makes good cameras. But the format is ultimately limiting. The best that can be claimed is it's "good enough" as long as you don't print too big.
