>>4383922>oh how your opinion changes about literally the same thing when olympussy’s faux retro styling is removed from the equationLol true.
>>4383933>ITS A FALSE FLAG LOOK AWAY MFT ISNT THAT BAD! MY $1000 F2.8 FF SIZED NOCTITRON IS VERY SHARP!OP is just yet another victim of micro four thirds shilling. He probably got told it was a serious alternative to his fuji, "even mft is better than xtrans", the usual bullshit /p/ believes because dpreview's scene is processed with a program thats notoriously finnicky with xtrans files. Anon is right. There has been a lot of dishonest micro four thirds shilling as of late and this rash of people posting "my camera sucks" threads is what you're getting in return. Surprise surprise, micro four thirds is dogshit for most people.
>muh equivalence (false, photography doesnt actually work like that, equivalent settings rarely happen IRL and there's a lot more nerdy nonsense to rendering than ISO to SNR and crop factor DOF shit. inb4 charts.)>muh xtrans is worse than om5 (absolutely false, actual lie, thats a lightroom/ACR bug not a sensor problem, xtrans does not have resolution issues, use capture one or darktable+3 pass demosaicing)>its smaller and lighter (not with any decent glass or an ergonomic and full featured body)>the video is better (false, video is best on canon/fuji)Vs the actual micro four thirds use case
>You can't spend a lot of money>You are not taking photography seriously and treat it as a secondary or tertiary activity ('snapshitting')>The snapshits you are taking are mostly very long telephoto or macro, or just small aperture zoomy tourist shitHere, micro four thirds is like a solid alternative to a bridge camera because it has a wealth of very cheap slow aperture zoom lenses and macro primes.
Find me a full frame 24-85 f7-11. No one would buy that. No one would make that. Quality would be horrible. But it exists on micro four thirds. That's what it's for. Not being a high quality camera.
