I used both my Fuji X-T1 and my E-M1 in a shoot

MrPhotoBob

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
261
Isn't that the same flash that is available for MFT by nissin?
Yes, the very same flash. I spoke to a Fuji rep a few weeks ago, and she stated that Fuji is aware of there problems when it comes to their flash options. She also stated tat Fuji was working on that problem, I hope that is not what she meant by working on their problem.
 

MrPhotoBob

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
261
I've been using Yongnuo flashes but I'm probably going to add a Godox Wistro and V850s since the remote is tiny and you can adjust the flashes remotely. Otherwise I use available light so find the lack of TTL flash no problem for my style.

As far as weight, I think my E-M1 weighs more than the equivalent setup on X-T1.
When I am speaking of weight, I am speaking mainly of adding their lenses, there is no comparison of Olympus lenses when compared to the weight of the Fuji lenses.
 

AlanU

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
488
Hey Jon,

did you post a photo sooc ?? or did you post process? Just curious how the RAW reacts to pushing and pulling ?? is it flexible?
 

jonbrisbincreative

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
76
Hey Jon,

did you post a photo sooc ?? or did you post process? Just curious how the RAW reacts to pushing and pulling ?? is it flexible?
I did some minor adjustments of the RAF file in Lightroom but otherwise that photo is SOOC.

The RAF files have a lot of latitude. They seem to be on par with my E-M1 and better than my Canon 7D files.
 

jonbrisbincreative

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
76
When I am speaking of weight, I am speaking mainly of adding their lenses, there is no comparison of Olympus lenses when compared to the weight of the Fuji lenses.
I'm not sure what lenses you're referring to (maybe the 14mm f2.5 which is in fact a featherweight being plastic and having very, very small glass elements in it) but the all-metal Fuji 35mm f1.4 weighs 7.0 oz while the all-plastic Panasonic/Leica 25mm f1.4 weighs 8.4. The all-metal 75mm f1.8 weighs 11.1 oz. The E-M1 itself weighs 1 lb 2 oz while the X-T1 weighs 15.5 oz.

I've found the weight difference between my Oly and my X-T1 to be minor but noticeable in favor of the X-T1. It's not a huge difference--just a couple of ounces--but I can tell the difference when handling them. Those few ounces aren't going to break my back like the 6 pounds of Canon gear I also have. After a couple hours of lugging that thing around my back starts really hurting. I'm getting old, I guess! :)
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
A bit off-topic, but I don't understand why people sometimes suggest that a digital image is 'film like'. Which film, in what way, why is 'film like' better? I've shot film since the early 70s and looking back at many photos done from decades back, I really can't see anything photographed using film that's better than using digital.

I have two approx 30cm x 40cm prints on my study wall, one taken in 1995 and the other in 2002 of my previous vehicles in the bush. The 1995 one was taken on 35mm film and the 2002 one was taken with a 2MP Canon P&S. The 2002 photo is significantly better in all respects.

I really do wonder if some of this remembrance of film is more nostalgia and a degree of romanticism, laced with slightly skewed memories, that brings out these analogies.
 

jonbrisbincreative

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
76
I really do wonder if some of this remembrance of film is more nostalgia and a degree of romanticism, laced with slightly skewed memories, that brings out these analogies.
I think that's a completely fair criticism. I've tried to nail it down myself and I can't quite put my finger on it. By way of example, though, here are two portraits of the same young lady. The first is the senior cheerleader portrait I did the other day. I used the X-T1 and 35/1.4 @ f2.0. The second was taken a few months ago using the E-M1 and 75/1.8 @ 1.8. Keep in mind that the bokeh from the Olympus is from a lens with 3 times the focal length of the Fujinon. I would argue that the first portrait is more "film-like" probably because it's a little softer (no one can argue with the sharpness of the 75--it's a stunningly sharp optic) and the colors are a little "sweeter" (don't ask me to define that ;). Both of these were only slightly adjusted in Lightroom--WB adjust mainly. Fuji shot is using Pro Neg Std color profile and the Oly is using Camera Portrait.

Fuji X-T1 + Fujinon 35/1.4 @ f2.0:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Olympus E-M1 + 75/1.8 @ f1.8:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I suspect most on this forum would argue in favor of the second shot because it's:

A) Shot with the 75/1.8 which everyone knows is a very competent portrait lens.
B) Displays the Olympus colors which many on this forum seem to prefer over the alternatives.
C) Is so sharp I had to use negative Clarity in LR a little because you can see every freckle and hair on her face.

Film would NEVER record the amount of information in the second shot. Ever. My Mamiya RB67 is a capable camera but even a 6x7 negative is not as sharp as the E-M1 + 75/1.8 combo at it's sweet spot range (bust portraits IMO). Taylor here is a really beautiful young lady (inside and out!) and her freckles are adorable but there is IMO no mistaking the E-M1 shot with film. Even using a VSCO preset on this image results in an eye-wateringly sharp image with "film-like" colors.

I would argue that the second shot "works" as a portrait not because it is sharp and very "digital-like" but because:

A) Her expression was completely genuine in the moments after being crowned Homecoming Queen. You can't reproduce that real-life emotion.
B) She is a beautiful young lady and that makes it very easy to connect with the portrait.
C) There are bits of color in the roses and in the blurred background (the red on the left is actually the "25" of the football field play clock but the 75's bokeh renders it as a blob) and the flashy sequins make the portrait very dynamic and lively.

It might seem like I'm somehow criticizing the Oly but I'm actually not. Other than the always frustrating presence of chroma noise at this low ISO of 400, this particular image works. But what works for this one image is in no way guaranteed to be replicated in other cases and that's mainly where I have issue with the m43 sensor and lenses. The sun was setting and the light was perfect for about 15 minutes right as I took this portrait. Outside that sweet spot, the m43 sensor will have to work harder to make up for variance from the optimal conditions. This is not something I've had to worry about before so I suppose that's another reason I feel like the more "film-like" renderings are better in many respects: film always fails gracefully. Digital blown highlights (especially those on the m43 sensor) are just plain awful. I haven't noticed that as much on the X-T1. The Pana/Leica exhibits similar characteristics I've found. It's so sharp and the Olympus colors so accurate that it just can't be mistaken for film. Whether that's good or bad is up to interpretation.

I'm a huge fan of traditional painting and Art History. My aesthetic values are largely informed by Caravaggio and Monet rather than optical engineers and DxoMark. I'm not looking for reproduction of minute details from life but emotion, form, tone, and representation. My goal is to capture the emotion and dynamism of a painting in a photograph. It's very elusive and I seem to fail at it far, far more than I succeed.
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
In terms of color and pop, the first shot just has much better light. The expression is great in the second, but the light is better in the first. At least I prefer the warmth in that shot.

Most of my processing is done with DxO Optics Pro, so I don't really care about 'Oly colors' and whatnot.
 

spatulaboy

I'm not really here
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,450
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Vin
I enjoy portraiture myself, and I can confidently say what makes a good portrait rarely has anything to do with which camera you are using. There will be differences of course, but they tend to be minor in the grand scheme of things. The Fuji system is great, but so is m4/3, it's just a matter of what the differences mean to you.

As for that 'film look' people love so much. Well it's all subjective of course and I think it's more about the aesthetics than technical merits (like sharpness, detail, etc.).
 

AlanU

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
488
Jon,

You should incorporate xrite passport color checker as a part of your workflow in LR. This may change your color profile a bit but this is something you can do in post processing for more accurate colours.

I have a suggestion to look into a spider holster. I lug my canon 5dmk2 on my hip and use my OP/TECH pro loop (cps) neck strap on my 5dmk3. I can lug that all day long with no complaints of weight. I can walk / shoot for hours on end with the spider holster.

I actually put my spider holster on my GH3 and wear that on my hip while I have my Oly em-5 around my neck. Oly factory strap is a great way of cutting your neck LOL!!! Oddly I can wear my CPS pro loop neck strap on my heavier 5dmk3 with no pain or aggravation. .

I wont deny the Canon 7D has one of the worst rigid RAW files I've ever had to deal with. Even my old canon XTI, 50d, 5d has more push/pulling abilities. My 5dmk2 and mk3 I can tweak a raw in a massive way that I have a backup if I mess up the exposure for weddings/events.

I can relate to a "film like" statement but for me this is how the rendition of a lens reacts with the body used. My old 5d full frame with 85Lmk2 had a smoother look unlike the digital extreme micro contrast found in many lenses like the zuiko 45 f/1.8 or 75mm. The Sharpness is razor sharp while older film had slightly smoother transitions while appearing sharp to my eyes.... I call it more "organic" rather then micro contrast digital.

Not fuji or Oly. Here's my old Canon 5d digital full frame with 85Lmk2 shot at f/1.2. This is what I feel more organic and smoother. Many older canon lenses seems less contrasty but now the new fresh canon Mark2 lenses seem to have an abundance of micro contrast vs the old. My Oly zuiko 25mm is razor silly sharp. Hard to describe but a "different" type of sharp.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I'm a huge fan of traditional painting and Art History. My aesthetic values are largely informed by Caravaggio and Monet rather than optical engineers and DxoMark. I'm not looking for reproduction of minute details from life but emotion, form, tone, and representation. My goal is to capture the emotion and dynamism of a painting in a photograph. It's very elusive and I seem to fail at it far, far more than I succeed.
Rather than quoting all of your post, I've truncated it to your most germane point. With the two examples that you gave, there are many issues that lead to 'your' visual impression of each photo. Even in your own mind, you see these images differently for many reasons, including what camera you used, which influences your appreciation of the images; little things like the use of a different focal length, the context and perspective portrayed by each shot, the lighting, the pose etc, all of these contribute to your perception of the individual images.

But what you perceive, will most certainly be different to what others perceive. There's nothing wrong with that and it certainly can't be calibrated so that everyone else sees it in the same way. I think referring back to film, in a way, disparages all the great benefits that digital has provided. It's almost suggesting that digital isn't good enough, never will be, and all it's trying to do is emulate film, when in fact it's a medium all unto its own. It's kind of like comparing a horse and cart to a motor car, and suggesting that the latter is trying to emulate the former and failing.
 

jonbrisbincreative

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
76
Rather than quoting all of your post, I've truncated it to your most germane point. With the two examples that you gave, there are many issues that lead to 'your' visual impression of each photo. Even in your own mind, you see these images differently for many reasons, including what camera you used, which influences your appreciation of the images; little things like the use of a different focal length, the context and perspective portrayed by each shot, the lighting, the pose etc, all of these contribute to your perception of the individual images.
Anyone who can use the word "germane" in a sentence correctly deserves to be taken seriously! :)

I think you're right on the money with the focus on "perception" of the relative importance of the various qualities that make up a digital image. Describing something as "film-like" does maybe do all of the stunning capabilities of modern digital cameras a disservice.

But what you perceive, will most certainly be different to what others perceive. There's nothing wrong with that and it certainly can't be calibrated so that everyone else sees it in the same way. I think referring back to film, in a way, disparages all the great benefits that digital has provided. It's almost suggesting that digital isn't good enough, never will be, and all it's trying to do is emulate film, when in fact it's a medium all unto its own. It's kind of like comparing a horse and cart to a motor car, and suggesting that the latter is trying to emulate the former and failing.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that digital cameras are in some way "inferior" to film. By no objective measure is that the case. Dynamic range, sharpness, the E-M1's 5-axis stabilization, the ease of tweaking exposures in post-production: these are all hugely important to image-making in the 21st century and beyond. Film is (and film cameras are), in every subjective measure, an "inferior" medium with which to capture an image.

But maybe that's the point? I'm also drawn to large-format photography, sad to say. :) I've got some saved searches on eBay on "Wista 45". I see a huge resurgence in wet plate photography. Wet plate! :) Just as a frame of reference, wet plate collodion was invented in 1851. That's 163 years ago. I just watched a YouTube video the other day of a guy out on the street with a portable wet plate darkroom that was on a little cart and it opened up into a small darkroom. I know the APUG forum is a much better place for this kind of discussion as there are very few people here that are interested in these historic processes. But I'm just thinking out loud if this term "film-like" simply means: "not looking like it was captured on film necessarily but something that looks more like a painting and less like an accurate reproduction of facts".

I think when I use the term I mean "more expression and interpretation and less reproduction". Film, by necessity, focused more on expression rather than reproduction because the medium was not capable of capturing enough detail to do real reproduction. I'm thinking of Brassai here.

I don't want to add to the endless debate on this topic. I just wanted to clarify that I don't attach a relative merit to the values of digital versus the values of film. When I use the term "film-like" I'm not actually suggesting that digital images are inferior to film images. I just mean I'm searching for a more expressive image than is often found when focusing on the technical superiority of modern cameras which produce life-like colors and detailed reproduction from life due to extreme micro contrast and optical sharpness.
 

jonbrisbincreative

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
76
I prefer the first shot, because it has more warmth, glow, and life to it, and I think what contributes significantly to that feeling is that it's far better lit than the second. Even the fill is pretty much perfect, casting a catchlight into her eyes. Did you use a reflector camera left or is that from the bleachers? Anyway, the only thing I would have changed is probably the pom-pom (if that's what that is on the lower left) as the shiny red strips are throwing slightly distracting reflections onto her neck and chest (same problem as in your original pic in post #1, and that shot is also quite a bit cooler/greener on my screen). But otherwise, well done.

Not as much of a fan of the second one, as her face there just isn't bright enough to compete with the huge red blobs in the background, so for me her expression, great as it is, is sort of lost in there. The film vs digital thing, or that one picture was shot with the 75 or has "Olympus colors," to me is irrelevant, at least as far as these examples are concerned.
Thanks for the feedback!

On the first image, I did have my assistant (okay, my daughter...but assistant she is, even though she's related to me! ;) hold a round reflector at 45 degrees just off-camera left. The X-T1's metering underexposed the image by about a 1/2 stop, so I pushed that a little bit and turned down the highlights from the sun.

I noticed those red reflections afterward. Wished I'd have seen that at the time and I would have arranged some shadow for that so it wasn't reflecting the sun directly. I was focused on the eyes and face and had tunnel vision I guess.

The first example in this thread was a previous edit where I went with a much cooler tone. After looking at it a while I decided I didn't like that as much so I warmed it back up to what was there SOOC.

On the second image, I agree about the business of the background. There was a lot going on. I'll play with trying to separate her face a little more and maybe vignette it a little bit.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
I don't want to add to the endless debate on this topic. I just wanted to clarify that I don't attach a relative merit to the values of digital versus the values of film. When I use the term "film-like" I'm not actually suggesting that digital images are inferior to film images. I just mean I'm searching for a more expressive image than is often found when focusing on the technical superiority of modern cameras which produce life-like colors and detailed reproduction from life due to extreme micro contrast and optical sharpness.
I'm not suggesting that you are trying to do digital a disservice, that wasn't my intent but, sadly, there are many who don't think that digital is a 'good' as film is/was. Film is/was simply different, as different as lithography was to photo printing. I remember comparisons being made over 30 years ago with some lithography pundits decrying film. The fact that we have cameras with different sensors means that there will be variations on how an image is represented, just like CCD sensors produce different images to CMOS sensors. I wonder when the day will come where we have a brain-computer interface where we can record anything that we see and hear directly into a portable computer etc. Then we'll have debates about what's correct colour etc and what's not. ;)
 

tomO2013

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
862
Ray, I think you're making a great point. I need to hold my hand up and say I'm regularly guilty of describing some output as 'film like' without explaining what that is or why. I don't hold film up as being the be-all and end-all of IQ. It just provides for a different look as you so well put it.
I'm a big fan of post processing packages such as VSCO for the same reason.
Describing what I interpret as 'film like' has probably more to do with the character of the post processed 'look' or the look SOOC than anything else. By character I mean the technical flaws that I subjectively find more appealing than the more sterile perfection of some more clinical output.

I still shoot film. I also shoot digital. I prefer digital these days due to the creative versatility. When people talk about DOF advantages etc...of larger formats, medium format etc... they should go out shooting with a film camera loaded with a particular speed and brand of film. All of a sudden the DOF and creative control advantages of the larger formats go out the window in natural light and the very tight shooting envelop probably means that you are shooting with a tripod at 1/4 second and F8 to expose for EV14 on 100 speed film to get a good exposure.
I was up the side of a mountain in -22 celcius a few weeks back. I had a Hassleblad 501cm + 80mm T* loaded with TMax 100. Sticking with a single film type limited my exposure versatility massively as light started to drop. Either use a slow shutter and small aperture or wide aperture and fast shutter. Unfortunately the freezing cold cause the slow shutter speed shots that I took not to expose correctly (think the lubrication froze on the lens shutter from condensation getting into and out of a 4X4). The EM1 just blasted along, no bother, if I wanted more creative control, DOF/shallow DOF, I dialed in a higher ISO and continued.

So why do I shoot film? - I love the look of a wet print on photographic archival quality paper to be honest. It's not better or worse, it's just different. Although you can get an equally beautiful prints with a good pigment ink on Baryta photo rag or even digital gellatenous prints :) Without getting into a full on film vs digital debate - I personally see them complimentary. There are some benefits to film still (forgiveness for over exposure, under exposure in the darkroom), the roll offs to highlights and shadows tend to be smoother. If you print a medium format negative larger, you don't get that 'pixelly' look that you can get when up-sizing many digital images in the past - although today's megapixel monsters probably make that last point moot.
The biggest difference that I can see in large print (particularly portraits) is in the tonality (as much dependent on the film used and how it was developed as anything else). Software tries to replicate this somewhat and some do a better job than others e.g. Exposure, VSCO, DXO Filmpack etc... Generally speaking I find that B&W film has a much nicer tonality than digital in large prints.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
So why do I shoot film? - I love the look of a wet print on photographic archival quality paper to be honest. It's not better or worse, it's just different. Although you can get an equally beautiful prints with a good pigment ink on Baryta photo rag or even digital gellatenous prints :) Without getting into a full on film vs digital debate - I personally see them complimentary. There are some benefits to film still (forgiveness for over exposure, under exposure in the darkroom), the roll offs to highlights and shadows tend to be smoother. If you print a medium format negative larger, you don't get that 'pixelly' look that you can get when up-sizing many digital images in the past - although today's megapixel monsters probably make that last point moot.

The biggest difference that I can see in large print (particularly portraits) is in the tonality (as much dependent on the film used and how it was developed as anything else). Software tries to replicate this somewhat and some do a better job than others e.g. Exposure, VSCO, DXO Filmpack etc... Generally speaking I find that B&W film has a much nicer tonality than digital in large prints.
Nail hit on head! So many of today's photographers eschew printing in all of its forms. In my view, as a general proposition, a photograph is not fully complete until it's printed. Unfortunately, many have never printed a photograph and explored all the additional joys (and tribulations) that printing brings; they are wholly limited by what they see on their screen. That's why so many believe that more pixels and bigger sensors are all important, as they've never printed from smaller, less pixel dense, sensors and so to them, 4K, 5K or 8K monitors is where the Holy Grail of photography can be found.
 

MrPhotoBob

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
261
I'm not sure what lenses you're referring to (maybe the 14mm f2.5 which is in fact a featherweight being plastic and having very, very small glass elements in it) but the all-metal Fuji 35mm f1.4 weighs 7.0 oz while the all-plastic Panasonic/Leica 25mm f1.4 weighs 8.4. The all-metal 75mm f1.8 weighs 11.1 oz. The E-M1 itself weighs 1 lb 2 oz while the X-T1 weighs 15.5 oz.

I've found the weight difference between my Oly and my X-T1 to be minor but noticeable in favor of the X-T1. It's not a huge difference--just a couple of ounces--but I can tell the difference when handling them. Those few ounces aren't going to break my back like the 6 pounds of Canon gear I also have. After a couple hours of lugging that thing around my back starts really hurting. I'm getting old, I guess! :)
I carry two XT-1s with grips, the 10-24, 18-55, 35, 56, 55-200 with two flashes and I do not like carrying all of that. I have two EM-1s with grips, 9-18, 12-40, 14-150, 75-300, 25, 45, 60 and 2 FL-600r flashes and I do feel the difference in the weight. To me the Fuji is much heavier. I can carry the Olympus system with one hand and not feel al of that weight, but that Fuji is something else. The Olympus lenses that I have are so much lighter compared to the Fuji lenses that I have.
 

val

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
548
Location
Australia
Real Name
William
I've seen some great 75mm F1.8 shots (mostly from LivingLoud) and I know post-processing fixes things but the default rendering just doesn't connect with me.

It's too clinical and clean.

not to put down the 75mm shot in the previous page, just from my own findings when I've used the lens, it's why I'm interested in how the 90mm F2 Fujion performs...
 

AlanU

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
488
I've seen some great 75mm F1.8 shots (mostly from LivingLoud) and I know post-processing fixes things but the default rendering just doesn't connect with me.

It's too clinical and clean.

not to put down the 75mm shot in the previous page, just from my own findings when I've used the lens, it's why I'm interested in how the 90mm F2 Fujion performs...
The lighting appears to be more of reason for looking extremely clean with a cooler Kelvin. I think post processing can transform this photo to "feel" different with warmer tones.

The price tag of $1600 for a 50-140 f/2.8 zoom is so spendy if you were to use it as a secondary body with telephoto capabilities as you run/gun or convenience of not swapping lenses. That'd be a $2800 USD combo of body/lens. My only concern is that the body is a small form factor unit with a very front heavy long lens creating imbalance. The handgrip size would appear to be more prone to hand cramping using it handheld for an extended portrait session.

Purchasing a fuji 50-140, M4/3 Oly 40-150 or panny 35-100 is without a doubt putting alot of investment into a certain platform. Hanging a small body with long lens on the neck is equally as disturbing as a full size dlsr with long lens. My concern is where the strap secures to the camera body.

I know if I had a large lens like that on my gh3 w/ spider holster bracket I can lug gear on my hip all day long (my old setup was 1dmk3 with 100-400L) and it was a great way of preventing fatigue. The gh3/gh4 mini dslr package is very comfortable for a smaller grip M43 body.

Almost appears for the small form factor bodies the mirrorless bodies is more suitable for native primes rather than larger zoom lenses.

Since your a semi professional shooter would it make sense to own two bodies that are same platform?

I guess you can analyze the type of "sharpness" a platform gives. Seems some have more subtle micro contrast. The first image you provided looks very contrasty as if you hit the image with alot of clarity in LR as well as recovering highlights on the subjects face. This is probably due to the lighting more than the gear's rendition.

I would imagine having a similar characteristic workflow is something to be desired as a client looks at the files you provide them. The discrepancy from picture to picture from post processing is one thing but using 2 systems might change the dynamics even more due to fuji color rendition vs Oly colors.

just my views on workflow.....
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Strange, I can work all day with my E-M1 and 14-35mm f2 lens, which is heavier and partly bigger than the 40-150mm f2.8, as well as my 35-100mm f2 which is much bigger and heavier. Larger lenses are used by holding the lens, not camera, and often provide better balance overall than a light lens. But then everyone is different and suggesting that your choice is the only right one is showing a bit of hubris.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom