'>>4293459
None of them

Get a sony a6700';

'>>4293459
the only olympus digital worth getting is the Pen-F. It holds sentimental value as the digital successor to the original penf and will retain its resale value well. May even appreciate as it did recent years.
>but performance
you wouldn't be getting a m43 if you cared about performance';

'>>4293465
I got an Olympus because I wanted a macro lens for hiking in the rainy season. 60mm macro is great, just wish they had a weatherproof ‘pro’ version.';

'>>4293473
The 60mm macro has sealing, I've taken it out in PNW drizzle for hours hiking without issue. There's a 90mm with the pro metal build too. Also consider the 12-45/4 which lets you get to 0.25x, with equivalence 0.5x. My Raynox 250 vignettes a little on it but with cropping is fine. Weather sealed flashes are expensive... I have an FL-LM3 coming which has sealing, is small and runs off the camera battery, and swivels. Seems perfect if it's strong enough for macro. I've had godoxes die from being mildly moist.';

'>>4293483
I have the same flash too. I forgot the 60mm is sealed too, why isn’t it a ‘pro’ model exactly? Overall I love my kit, but want to upgrade from my E-M5 II to an E-M1 III for reasons I often forget and probably aren’t important.

The 90mm is just so much bigger and pricier.';

'>>4293503
>why isn’t it a ‘pro’ model exactly?
Metal construction, I assume? Also 2.8 for a prime would make it the slowest non-super telephoto prime, though I'm not sure that really matters.
>E-M1.3
For macro the extra resolution might be nice. It may also have better focus stacking capabilities? Tbh I really like AF with macro, and the E-M5.2 is CDAF which performs a lot worse than PDAF on the E-M1.3.';

'>>4293459
pretty much none of those things are what they're good at but you can make it work, the answer is 'whichever older model is in your budget that's still new enough for phase detect af/handheld high res/etc'
the prices for modern setups and especially OM SYSTEMS(tm) stuff is ridiculous and it's not even >full frame like penisonic's "we wanna be leika" L mounts';

'>>4293503
Not OP, but how do you like your E-M5? I've been looking at the II and III a lot lately as a nice combo of size, price, and fun since I've seen a few good deals as of late. Performance isn't too important for me since I'm coming from a 15 year old entry level DSLR with basic glass so even stuff like 'slow/shitty/missed' autofocus on these is a neck above '9 fixed AF points, 1 cross type, carry a flashlight if you want to shoot at night.' I'd ask in the actual M43 thread but those threads are less than useful, apparently.';

'>>4293462
okay keep saying that to yourself';

'>>4293459
none. they all suck. get a nikon z

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4293657
I don't have any fucking money, I got a em10 as a gift and it's all I've got.';

'>>4293465
the insides are outdated shit. it's not worth getting because it's like $900 used still. you can get a good full frame cam for that nowadays';

'>>4293659
why u make this thread then? be glad you have a cam and go out and take pictures. negro children in africa can't even afford food and you cry because you're not happy with your camera. get some grip, man';

'>>4293541
NTA but I got one cheap recently to use on a capture clip/for rougher trips in addition to my OM-5. Autofocus, especially in low light, is noticeably bad, but in good light/with high contrast subjects it's fine. I don't use any of the computational photography features of my OM-5 and I don't crop much anyway, so the lower MP count doesn't matter; to me IQ looks comparable. Menu ergos are slightly worse than the OM-5 but no deal breakers. I've heard the battery door on these can have issues; I don't think OM will service this camera anymore but you can replace it yourself, or just tape it shut while in use.';

'>>4293541
Just get a full frame camera. The IQ of micro four thirds is just awful unless you compare old vs new sensors at equivalent ISOs doing 5 stop exposure pushes like a youtube gear expert. Them a g9ii might look slightly nicer than a d850!';

'>>4293711
>Them a g9ii might look slightly nicer than a d850!
yeah nah. in no world would the superb sensor of the d850 be surpassed by some cropshit';

'>>4293657
the problem with this photo is not the image quality, its the loose nut behind the viewfinder';

'>>4293681
I don't crop much if at all myself but some of the computational stuff for light painting, storms, etc. sound pretty neat and easier than wrangling repeated screen-off long exposures, I know the mark iii apparently has more of that stuff and a newer sensor but honestly the obvious seam where the plastic and metal meet just kind of annoys me. Autistic, I know. Taping shut a battery door is nothing new to me, heh.

>>4293711
Full frame is big (manlet hands) and expensive (will have to buy into a new lens family regardless). I know the objective quality would be better but I'm poor and not too much into pixel peeping. Mostly poor. IQ isn't a huge deal here, I started with an ancient 1/2.3" point and shoot aeons ago and had plenty fun.';

'>>4293744
Only MILC FF is, DLSRs are cheap as shit as are screw AF lenses.';

'>>4293744
>I dont pixel peep or crop
Well, here's the secret to sensor size wars, and why they still happen with such passion, when you reach "equivalence" (meaning you need/have the same DOF and won't change the shutter speed, just the ISO)
Micro four thirds looks BETTER when you pixel peep. Full frame looks worse when you pixel peep, and better when you print or view the whole image some other way.

There are a number of reasons like how lenses work and how cropping increases one kind of noise while ISO amplifies several. Mostly, this applies to:
Pixel peeping wide aperture deep focus shots
Pixel peeping small aperture low light shots with a non-negotiable shutter speed between the cameras

However, bigger pixels on bigger sensors have subjectively better (more vibrant) color in low light, and in most shooting conditions (outdoors/studio) "equivalence" ceases to be achievable for the average photo, so a non-pixel peeper will not only enjoy more vibrant snapshits, but because they go outside instead of pixel peeping, they will never experience the micro four thirds quality advantage at all.';

'>>4293744
If you're genuinely poor so you can't even afford $1k and genuinely a manlet you are who micro four thirds was originally made for (japanese wagies). Get an e-m1 though, the build quality is better and lolympus doesn't artificially withold features. It is FF sized, but compact FF mirrorless sized so its for girl hands. Even the big FF mirrorless are too small for man hands.';

'>>4293751
>If you're genuinely poor so you can't even afford $1k
Nta but I can barely afford $500';

'>>4293749
>reach "equivalence"
Trip on, cANON';

'>>4293758
Crop your cropped crop equivalently for maximum reach';

'>>4293749
What if the real equivalence was the friends we made along the way?';

'>>4293751
I guess i'm an industrious little salaryman after all. Damn. MFT sounds about right for me then.';

'>>4293465
>the only Olympus digital worth getting is the Pen-F.
right okay thank you will keep that in mind';

'>>4293473
and that's the thing here micro lenses aren't all that bad or are all as bad as people make them out to be';

'>>4293483
oh right okay will take this into consideration';

'Reject modernity. Get an OG 4/3 DSLR like an E-5 or E-3 because they'll still work after being hit with a nuclear bomb';

'>>4293880
Nothing with an IBIS unit will last that long.';

'Torn between an EM1-III or S5 or ZF
Want a durable weather sealed every day camera for wandering around and low light';

'>>4293902
If you want to take photos of stuff moving in low light you want the Nikon full frame. Otherwise any of those are fine. Full frame is literally only good for action, otherwise it's a toss up and depends much more on technique and lighting than sensor size. There are a plethora of great 0.95 to 1.2 lenses that let you toneh on MFT now for cheap.';

'>>4293903
Full frame is better for everything kiddo (except making poor third worlders and manlets happy)';

'>>4293906
Literally only useful for action or photographers who do not understand technique lol. Let's take a wild guess which one you are...';

'>>4293910
A larger sensor is always better. Cope.';

'up';

'>>4293902
Z6II or ZF if you need the improved autofocus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4293465
The em5 mark iii is technicall the same cam with a different shell that has better ergonomics. There are some minute differences but generally its the same, but like half the price. If someone is paying for a PenF they might as well update to something newer like the em5 iv or om-5.';

'>>4295508
Correction. Its the mark ii that is equivalent to the penf. Mark iii would be an update to it.';

'>>4293902
I got a Zf recently. The camera and whatnot is fine, the handling is only ok. It's gorgeous but retro designs simply aren't as functional. You put anything other than the 40mm or 28mm on here and it's a chore to hold even with the grip. The shutter being on the top instead of on the grip is weird too. If a Z6III or something with the exact internals existed I'd trade mine for it.';

'>>4297188
>get a fuji
Lol';

'You need full frame for the best image quality. Olympus uses a smaller sensor size which compromises image quality.';

'>>4297224
Are you implying that a larger sensor than FF does not exist, hence why you claim it is the "best" by comparing sensor size?';

'>>4297224
This, no good photos have ever been taken on anything less than full format';

'>>4293459
up';

'>>4293459
interesting thread have a bump';

'hello';

'Full frame is absolutely superior to micro four thirds and anyone spending more than $599 on fool turds should man up and work for more money to buy a FF MILC or REALLY man up and buy a FF DSLR';

'even as a pathologically contrarian hipster I can't convince myself mft has any reason to exist anymore. it made sense back when your only other option was a giant 5lbs 12mp dslr but times have changed.';

'>>4303803
It's still economical but the gains are less meaningful now. People balk at the price tag on the OM-1 but it's a fraction of the cost of larger stacked sensors with no blackout shooting. For wildlife (where on FF major cropping is done in post anyway) and macro the smaller sensor's not a hindrance, and if you can get used to f/5.6 (equivalent) being as fast as your telephotos get, then lenses aren't too expensive (save for a couple exotics). I honestly could do almost all of my shooting on MFT with no complaints.
That said I just don't think the (largely) shrinking market has room for cheap stuff anymore, as much as I'd like an OM Pen. Both mft brands are trying to cater to higher end, where the money is, but it hasn't been very successful. I doubt OM has a future (idk about Panasonic), unless they start releasing some true mft design lenses and make their budget options sturdier.';

'>>4303803
It's basically been brutally mogged by fuji and harder by used FF mirrorless. Extremely brutally. If you're not spending sub-$1k on a body and 3-4 lenses you have no reason to touch it.';

'>>4303811
In what way is fuji better? Worse weather resistance, video, more expensive, worse lenses and fewer options. Can't share lenses with FF like Nikon either.';

'>>4303818
>Worse WR
Pretty average. Better than panasonic.
>Video
Some codec shit no one cares about because if your work is that quality critical you aren't gonna use a sensor so small the 4k looks like 1080p scaled up
>more expensive
Ooooh noooo! A newer camera is more expensive!
>Worse lenses
Lol no. Average mft lens is junk. Average fuji lens is ok.
>Fewer options
Same amount.
>Cant share lenses with FF
Neither can foolturds.';

'>>4303823
>Same amount.
MFT has a lot more lenses than Fuji, and can adapt Fuji anyway.
>Average mft lens is junk. Average fuji lens is ok.
Both Panasonic and Olympus have made excellent lenses recently. Fuji is generally equal (or in the case of telephoto much worse; Fuji can't compete for action and wildlife) than MFT.';

'>>4303844
>and can adapt Fuji anyway.
Actually I got the flange distance backwards so there's no compatibility, my mistake. Natively though there are still more MFT lenses.';

'>>4293459
I suggest you to buy an OM-1 mark I. The mark II just got in the market and I think you can find good deals on new or used ones.';

'>>4303847
This one?:
https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/om-system-om-1-body-mirrorless-camera-14759-p.asp?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqZ-Fmp3AhQMVV5VQBh2G_gt7EAYYAiABEgIh4_D_BwE';

'>>4304031
Ahahaha hell no, that's literally a rebranded e-m1 iii.';

'>>4304031
>>4304031
Yes, exactly. There are improvements compared to the EM1 mark III, like the autofocus and the sensor.';

'>>4304034
ah right okay then specifically which one did you mean?';

'>>4304035
ah right cool thank you for letting me know about this and that of the improvements, also does it come in the sliver version model?';

'>>4304153
Yes, there is a silver model, as usual.';

'yo';

'>>4304160
Ah, sorry, I was thinking about the EM1-III, not the OM-1.';

'>>4305167
oh right okay, can you not get this one in sliver also??';

'what up';

'>>4293459';

'bump bump';

'Whomst is the retard bumping gear threads? Heres what you came here for:
FF digital and sheet film are the only excusable formats anything else is cope have a nice day.';