>>4441474>bro, if I use a lens that's ten times better!Yes, this is the peak of gearfaggotry. What if each camera used reasonably priced effectively identical lenses? Is this cramped ergonomic shitshow somehow worth the worse everything of the m43 body, just to save less than 1/4lb?
there are far better lenses to compare than this to. this shitty website just doesn't have them.
>>4441476They are correct, what matters is size... and usefulness. those extra two stops of ISO and aperture matter a lot for quality, the lenses are way better, and the minor difference in background blur is far from shot ruining or improving - it's a pretty neutral change, actually.
That's why sony is #1 in FF market share. Panasonic is less than 5%. Olympus went out of business. That is because almost no one bought that garbage.
The people shilling micro four thirds are camera nerds. They are pursuing them because they look more like classic film cameras. That's all there is to it. Then buy these, then buy $1500 f2.8 prime lenses because they say leica on them and have aperture rings like classic film lenses. Micro four thirds is leica faggotry for the working man. the working man that can't even afford fuji.
And you need to believe me about this, because I shoot micro four thirds. I just can't afford full frame. I've rented FFs for gigs before and it's just a straight upgrade except for a small handful of edge cases.
