>>3587239Lmfao, that's just some frothing at the mouth retard.
>muh speedboostersLmfao, well done on outing yourself as a cringey, teenage moron with a strong case of dunning kruger.
He complained that Tony said sony was better, then spent the rest of the article comparing it to the gh5... What a cuck.
>>3587248Did the mean man say your camera wasn't perfect, awwwww
>>3587269Lmfao, mft baby is upset that his 600mm f8 sucks dick. And do you REALLY think olympus glass magically resolves 4 times as much detail as every ff brand? How fucking stupid are you. Mtf is per mm, I.e bigger sensor = sharper final photo.
And please, tell me how aperture equivalence isn't real. Compared to ff, what f stop gives the most similar dof? Compared to ff, how many stops lower do you need to give the same snr?
What's that, it's 2 stops in both cases? Making aperture equivalence perfectly valid for the exposure triangle, what a crazy coinkydink you stupid fuck.
>>3587276Where has Tony ever implied not learning how to take photos? Look how disingenuous you're being, just because an expert on YouTube made you feel stupid. Lol.
>>3587289>wahhh muh sample variation and bad testing methodsLol, no, the olympus just shit.
>>3587297Don't you know pal, any (all) objective based review sites that put sony first are paid shills that are morons and wrong.
My favourite was when pdnonline did objective based colour science tests, and Tony did subjective colour science tests, and sony came out top in both. Or when sony proved to have the best battery life of any mirrorless by a country fucking mile. The retards around here lost their shit.
I'm just amazed people are still surprised the #1 consumer electronics brand, that produces the sensors for nearly every camera on sale, are quite good at it.
