>>4435101Basically, ignore this guy
>>4435144He's a MFT fanboy who wastes money on expensive lenses purpose to "prove MFT is worth it and can be just as good!"
(it's not, and it cant)
He also recommends really bad, user unfriendly, and technically/optically dated full frame and APS-C kits on purpose to make you try MFT later and go "wow this is better and way sharper!".
If you truly insist on poorfagging it, the poorfag gold standard is an E-M1 II and a panasonic 100-300 mk2 with the OIS switched off (it doesnt work on olympus bodies, but autofocus is shit on panasonic bodies, and sharpness is shit on olympus lenses)
If you want to be normal and take higher quality photos buy an A7III and a sigma 100-400 or tamron 150-500 and get deal hunting, it's going to be a little more expensive because more people want it.
Be warned, micro four thirds fanboys have a lot of FUD built up to spam whenever sony is mentioned. Pretty much all of it is untrue, misrepresented, or cherry picked user errors/abused cameras. They shill against sony ("snoy") because it's the lightest and cheapest full frame system and they feel they can't recruit people into the MFT cult if they think they have options other than the two largest and most expensive systems (nikon and canon) or DSLRs (inaccurate autofocus, worse lenses, less AF coverage, stronger blurrier AA filters).
>>4435146He recommends an unusually expensive crop sensor DSLR and a soft nikon lens because he wants you to have a bad experience and come running to MFT.
It's a cult. They all do this.
