BobM43

Yet the lenses are still huge compared to similar m43 optics. I have no interest in using old, big FF lenses on my m43 bodies. Defeats the whole point of m43. It's the size of an entire kit, not ...

This is simply false. Today's M43 sensors and lenses produce results that 35mm film shooters could only dream about 50 years ago. APS-C is a dead-end. Quality isn't really any better than m43, but ...

I had a GX8, but felt it was really too bulky to qualify as a "small" camera. I have a GX9 now, and am pretty happy with the size and the ergonomics (given the limitations of the size). I don't ...

True, but you could just as well say "can you imagine what a game changer it would been to get COLOR action shots of motorsports?" If the point of shooting B&W is to try to capture the era, then ...

A lot of small newspapers are just having their reporters capture images with iPhones, after having eliminated their photographers. The right tool is the one that does the job needed. The photog ...

In terms of exposure, absolutely.

Sorry, but you completely don't understand "equivalence." At f2.8 on FF, you're going to need a slower shutter speed than at f1.8 on m43. Simple fact.

None of the rumors I've seen, even the less credible ones, point to a new small body.  If Panny would introduce a "GX10" with the G9II sensor, PDAF, and a few of the other goodies from the G9II ...

Great line! I'm going to borrow it in the future.

Nah. Real photographers:

Those are f2.8 lenses, not f2 or 1.8. Hardly comparable in light gathering.

I was thinking the same thing. I'd add some grain in post to make the images fit the vintage of the cars. Nice shots, though.

So when you say you used the 1.4x teleconverter, you mean the in-camera crop?  I thought you were referring to the physical 1.4x TC that mounts between the lens and body.

No image is "real." Every camera renders the scene differently. So does every lens. Which combination reflects "reality." They are all interpretations of what our eyes saw. And we don't all see ...

By that definition, every single digital image uses computational photography. There's no such thing as recording a digital image that doesn't involve "digital image capture and processing ...

And I'm just the opposite. I guess it's all in what you got used to first. Oly's (dis)organization makes no sense to me.

If I have to zoom in to 100% to see a "flaw" it's not really a flaw. No one looks at photographs at 100%. That's looking at pixels, not photographs, and has little to do with creating photographs .

That has to be an issue with DPR's process or facilities.

And, surprisingly, a lot of protein. Insects make up a big part of their diet.

Now that's something I might be interested in. I'm not looking to replace, or duplicate, all my m43 lenses, for both cost and size/weight reasons. But a more compact body with as many of the G9II ...