> repost to make the call center ESL meet seethe:

Micro four thirds is unusable for serious photography. I bought an OM-5 to take cute pictures of my husky and every photo came out muddy with a horrible green tint when I opened the raws in capture one. I have never used a worse camera. Even sony cameras feel luxurious after using an OM-5, with less of a green tint and better build quality. No wonder olympus went out of business. If you want photos with sharp details and good colors, you should buy an old Nikon DSLR or a CCD medium format SLR like a mamiya ZD.

Then I took the OM-5 out in the rain just one time and it completely died. I got my d40x out of the car and it did fine after 3 hours in heavy seattle rains despite its seals being almost 20 years old. Olympus does not know how to build a camera at all. All the reviews on the internet are faked, or their weather sealing only lasts for a few years before drying up and falling apart.

The superior tonality and color science of early CCD sensors with big pixels absolutely BTFOs micro four thirds. Despite 20 years of technological advancement, the OM-5 takes less pleasing photographs than the Nikon D40x, with flat rendering, no fine detail, nervous bokeh, and horrible washed out colors from the extreme green tint and inferior color differentiation. I think the pixels are so small the CFA has to be almost completely transparent for them to get any light, which is why every olympus photo has an extreme green tint. Maybe sony also has transparent color filters, to make up for how half their pixels are PDAF sensors that don't add anything to the image, and green tints are a cope for high ISO performance.

Mirrorless is a scam. I think canon FF mirrorless should be decent, but I hear so many horror stories about ERR 20s and bugs I would never buy one as long as quality DSLRs exist.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/p/

Thread:

Does early digital have a certain look?