>>3720637>This anon is laying it on a bit thickhow visible noise at iso 200 is not a "bit thick"? you literally can't work in 39 cases out of 40 with such gear capabilities. good luck shooting wedding, make industrial reportage or else with vivible noise at iso200. try to print industrial quality prints being able to sell and gain profit from it with visible noise at iso200. it's literally useless for 178 out of 179 professional photographers. it's capable for instashooters, maybe some travel bloggers who hiking a lot and need compact size and weight more than quality of the image. but in every other cases. HOW YOU LITERALLY GONNA USE A CAMERA FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSE WHICH HAVE
VISIBLE NOISE AT ISO200
??????????????????
JUST LIKE FOR REAL
JUST HOW????????
imaging 7 years old boy who trying to arguing to f1 pilots that his go-kart much better than mclaren 2020 car. okay maybe for this boy it's complete true cause it's his favotite go-kart but in terms of real wold go-kart is 80x slower and 10000x worse as high-speed racing car. it's literally of course from the other side worse than go-kart in terms of
>size and weight>fun and easy to useand all other stuff which m43 users use as an argument but still how is this anyhow related to reality? m43 is still niche product which is incapable in most cases for any serious work
m43 user in this thread just proved that himself by posting his great shot which compete defective in industry quality terms in 9 cases out of 10 AT ISO200
AT ISO200
just read this again. m43 can't produce noiseless image AT ISO200
M43 CAN'T PRODUCE NOISELESS IMAGE AT ISO200
M43 CAN'T PRODUCE NOISELESS IMAGE AT ISO200
M43 CAN'T PRODUCE NOISELESS IMAGE AT ISO200
M43 CAN'T PRODUCE NOISELESS IMAGE AT ISO200
just re-read it and re-think. i told this here on /p/ for years that m43 is toy-camera which is incapable for any serious work in most cases (rare exceptions proves the rule) for simple reason - i worked with m43 RAWs A LOT
