>>4266297Panasonic makes good enthusiast level video-focused cameras, especially if you intend to use budget cine lens sets made for crop sensors, but their color science, without a lot of creative color grading, leaves a lot to be desired and there are a lot of people on photo forums who buy them just for the hype surrounding the video specs and turn out to be irritating gearfags who think their first camera is the best camera on earth and better than full frame.
People don't like panasonic users.
For the travel stills focused camera with lots of zoom niche, olympus makes a better machine that still does good video for vlogs and work that isn't super heavy in color grading and special effects. Panasonic didn't even match their autofocus, IBIS, and FPS until the $2000 camcorder they just released and olympus still has better colors and glass. I think this is part of why panasonic has so many salty users on /p/, like the one who calls every so-so G9II review an "OM system funded hit piece".
>it's not too noisyMicro four thirds becomes hard to tolerate without a lot of post processing above ISO 1600. That's around the point where you notice detail loss and noise. If you stay under that or just don't mind noise, you're fine. You also can't botch exposure/framing and fix/crop it in post, because then you see a photo with this quality
>>4265752>or softMicro four thirds requires sharper lenses. Sharper lenses for it do exist, but larger sensors can look as great with vintage glass.
Then there's the lack of fast lenses, and the diffraction limit issue, so it's about the photos your camera isn't as good at taking.
Regardless, I recommend people purchase MFT for their first camera because it makes an excellent companion to the full frame they'll buy later.
Here's that kind of pana user now:
>>4266307Notice how unintelligent and delusional he is. That he doesn't post a single photo. That he uses botched logic to argue about a topic he has no IRL experience with.
