>>3907207>Man boasts about how he doesn't understand how to use a light meter, and has no idea how digital signals are stored or measuredLmao
>>3907213>DxoWe're looking at a photons to photos measurement.
And if every measurement on dxo is wrong by the same amount, isn't it a bit of a moot point to bring up? All the results are still just as relevant, except now the ratio between small sensors and full frame is even larger.
>>3907225Why do baby sensor boys always get so upset?
>>3907386>>3907363>>3907392You're making these claims like anyone in the world uses a GH5 for actual film making, they don't, they use it for vlogging, where ibis and a gimbal is perfectly adequate. Also, why do you think the gh5 doesn't have ibis you stupid fuck.
>>3907394>All this copeYes, full frame cameras have this feature, called having a sensor 4 times larger, so they can use shutter speeds 1\4 the length of mft, and still get the same noise performance (plus the resolution and composition advantage)
>>3907436>FF with ibis costs 3-4 times as much as mftA Sony a7ii with ibis is $1100 on b&h
Em1 iii - $1499
Em1 ii - $948
Em5 iii - $949
Em1x - $1799
Em5 ii - $899
GH5 - $1297
G9 - $997
Gh5ii - $1697
Gh5s - $1798
Even if we take the cheapest there, and multiply it by just 3, we get $2700, which is enough for an a7iii and a backup a7ii.
And let's look at how much money mft loses...
If you bought a mk 1 em5 in 2013, it would have cost you around $1000, eBay price for a good condition used model is around $100 - a drop of 90%
If you bought an a7 in 2013, it would have cost around $1600, eBay price for a good condition used model is $400-$500 - a drop of 75%, and yes, it costs 3-4 times as much as your mft
If your argument is "mft is so undesirable, it's rate of depreciation is more than double that of FF", then ok.
And if I accept that mft has slightly better ibis becaus rthe sensor is smaller, are you gonna accept FF has 4 times better performance because larger sensor?
