Looks normal. Any actual raw? Or at least 100% zoom at the eye?

Isn't there like HDR mode in your camera something or a pop-up flash (with bounce card if you have one on you)? Or you could have use your phone LED light if desperate enough.

You have to either post process the picture (reduce highlight, increase shadow), pop up flash or use in built hdr/multi bracketing. No way around the overexpose background if you want to do it traditional way.

How to shoot portrait wide open? Just focus on the eye (whichever is nearer) .

Not really. Depends on lens quality as well. FF lens can be cheaper than m43 cause it doesn't need to be sharper due to bigger pixel on FF if both have same mpixel. M43 lens can be more expensive cause the sharpness has to be very good on a smaller sensor with higher megapixel density.

Also u cannot compare f2.8 FF lens to f2.8 m43 lens. On equivalent bokehness, the f2.8 will look like f5.6 on FF. Yes, there will be less light but since it has much bigger sensor, it also collect more light than m43 so really it balance out.

Not larger aperture, but amount of light. Short answer yes, lower f stop means more light (approximate but not actual measurement) so more light data collected so higher dynamic. ISO signal only boost the signal collected on the sensor just like how u move the exposure up in lightroom (except it boost exposure before being processed incamera).

But again it also depends on sensor tech in how efficient it can collect light data. Sony and nikon boast impressive sensor that have very high dynamic range on their FF even with very low light. Even Panasonic m43 sometime ago boast high dynamic range using new organic sensor.....but never heard from again.

U can collect more light aka more dynamic range if u use longer shutter speed. But if u want freeze subject, no way around physics but with bigger sensor and larger aperture and maybe one day impressive sensor.

F2. 8 is F2. 8. But the lens is much bigger on FF cause the focus circle needs to be larger on FF sensor, thus more expensive if sharpness the same. That's why I said if u can't really just compare pricing on aperture alone when taking crop into account. Btw, I did do some research on m43 lens sometime ago before purchasing and found m43 is generally not any less cheaper than FF lens when u want equivalent FF result. Only cheaper when u compare camera bodies.

And ISO (theoretically if following actual standards) is the same too. BUT the sensor is x2 bigger than m43. So when u downscale the image to m43 level, "it looks" cleaner. Look I would love to get nitty gritty detail why ISO is not standard or what not but thats not the actual argument.

90% bokeh shot not exactly a good composition.

Ummmm why compare FF equivalent? To get similar light performance u need f2 lens on m43 which actually brings the weight on par with FF f4 lens.

Adui. F4 lens on m43 is like F8 on FF (if exist) of which the physical size of both lens will be almost the same. If u don't compare apple to apple images I.E. factoring Light and physical performance to make similar images, u might as well claim mobile phone camera is the king. There is a reason why when apple shoot commercial, they often have to attach giant a$$ lens in front of ipon.

Yes m43 overall do have smaller components overall especially the body but when u factor in equivalent light performance, bokeh, field of view, etc. then u will see "physical lens" won't be that much different than those of FF. There is a reason why some uses speedboosters with FF lens.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Nov 1 2019, 05:59 PM

That was the point. I don't see any FF manufacturer will market "f8 lens" to FF users. And I'm not arguing m43 quality lens line up. I'm critisizing people making wrong equivalent to FF like comparing f4 600m FF to f4 600mm m43 lens.

Again don't get me wrong. Between 600mm f4 m43 and 600mm f4 FF, I would choose m43 one 10 out of 10 times just cause its light weight and portable. But I'm not stupid enough to make comparison to FF since the light output wouldn't be the same since it be f8 equivalent performance on FF.

Of course not if you close it down to f8. And the sensor advantage IS part of the light performance if you trying to make comparison like that, walau eh.

But read your original argument first when u try to compare weight based on their supposedly "equivalent f4".

Somehow this beginning to stray into FF vs m43 war when I'm not even hinting at that. m43 lens has their own advantage which is lightweight and portable and got some good sharp lenses but really no need to compare to FF, APSC or whatever medium format lah. I always cringe when people try to compare lenses meant for different system like comparing expensive cine lens to cheaper photo lens.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Nov 1 2019, 11:57 PM

Trying to correct a little bit of misconception on lens sizes between different system, kena called troller pula.

Also (say sensor between FF and m43 is the same but m43 is just a 2xcrop of FF sensor) because m43 tend to have lower iso performance than FF so shutter speed between m43 with f2.8 lens and ff with f4 lens would be almost the same, unless m43 sensor iso performance is much better than FF depending on technology.

Again not dissing m43, calm down. Cameras like GH4 and GH5 wouldn't be popular for a reason.

Cause if u compare the light performance the weight will make sense. U need bigger lense to collect more light, more lenses inside to correct distortion, and corner sharpness thus heavier weight.

I thought u guys knew that already. Its physics.

M43 advantage is because the light circle on sensor is smaller, thus they can have smaller lens. BUT because the sensor is smaller ISO performance will be worse than eqv. FF sensor, so need to compensate with larger aperture. Therfore "theoretical" to get equivalent to say FF f4.0 lens light performance, u need m43 f2.0 lens which makes the both lens similar in size and weight.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Nov 2 2019, 01:18 PM

Adui.....I gave up.....I thought quite clear that Im comparing physical lenses but need proper context in terms of FF and m43 system to understand but man....... Just out of curiosity I searched through the utube to see if better explanation and found this, even time stamped for you:

https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw?t=612

Take it or leave it.

Also explained in the video link if you rewind from the start. This is getting too lengthy of explanation if you don't know much technical stuff. Btw, technically because FF light circle is bigger than m43 at same exposure, I was right that the "total amount of light" on FF is more than m43. What you suppose to say is "exposure" (amount of light per unit area) is the same.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Nov 2 2019, 06:53 PM

Well whatever, they r right. This thread full of fanboysim. Already said this is just to correct misconception about lens sizes, weight whatever between systems. Not boasting about any systems being superior than others, sharing wat I learn when I decide to purchase my first dedicated camera and I get called trolls pula..... Probably last time discussing anything here.

Yeah sure FF lens weight > than m43 lens if that is how simple some mind can take.

This post has been edited by TrialGone: Nov 3 2019, 01:35 AM

For the last freaking time, I'm not dissing m43.