New to m4/3, little dissapointed

George1958 wrote:

What? A Sony user buying M4/3?

Seriously, have a look at some of the ample good stuff on flicker and then your own stuff if your output is very different it's probably you and not the camera.

Short of action (which is improving in PDAF models), i find MFT pretty good for what i need. It's less about can the camera produce nice, and more about is there something nice to shoot.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I blew up one of my images shot at ISO 12000, Aperture F22 and when blown up to billboard size when looked at with a 15 power loupe, it is not perfectly sharp!

I can't imagine why.  

The camera has a zillion options, and somebody here could probably refer you to one or two of the popular pages that make recommendations for all of them (is Robin Wong the name of those one setting rec authors?). There's sharpness, the size of your JPGs, dynamic range boosting stuff and a gillion others.

WhiteBeard wrote:

AussiePhil wrote:

hindesite wrote:

...what on earth is wrong with people round here?

1. username, check
2. number of posts, check
3. exaggerated claims, check
4. lack of information,check
5. dissing on m4/3, check

Yet, despite all that, almost all the replies in the thread are serious?

Yep, all posters like this should be advised to sell everything and buy Medium Format.

One of my recommendations to the OP. Although maybe not big enough...

though it is amusing to read the serious replies that barely touch on the original question, 800% in any format will look soft......

Actually best just to hire a professional to accompany you. That's what Richard Attenborough does, and his imagery is fantastic.

No text.

Photo Pete wrote:

I wish that people replying to this sort of thread would change the title of their post. I don't know if the OP is a troll or not, but if they are then they have successfully multiplied the chances of a search engine finding hits which indicate disatisfaction with the camera format due to the fact that the title is repeated in each response.

Actually, the mere fact the OP has not responded once to any of the posts in this thread points to a troll, a happy troll at that...

Halina123 wrote:

WhiteBeard wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

I wish that people replying to this sort of thread would change the title of their post. I don't know if the OP is a troll or not, but if they are then they have successfully multiplied the chances of a search engine finding hits which indicate disatisfaction with the camera format due to the fact that the title is repeated in each response.

Actually, the mere fact the OP has not responded once to any of the posts in this thread points to a troll, a happy troll at that...

He may not have responded, but I bet he's reading the thread and laughing.

The reason i reply to these kinds of threads is bc there very well may be other people with similar questions or thoughts who are not trolls. Others may have questions answered in this thread regardless of the OP's intent. Seems the OP was trolling but we can still get something good from the topic.