Micro 4/3 no good for Landscape and Long Exposure Photography?

[System13]

Got nothin... worked for me

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

2016 Italy Rome Pantheon
by System 13, on Flickr

 

[KBeezie]

I don't know bout 'landscapes' specifically, but I been using my E-M5 (currently dead) for a bit of long exposure before.

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

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

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

As well as some Infrared

This one is actually infrared + HDR with about 12 frames spanning from 1/60th of a second to 60 seconds.

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

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

 

[Phocal]

They blocked me on FB because one of their ads showed up in my feed and I linked the old thread about them as a comment to the ad

edit - what sucks is that their stupid ad has showed up in my feed several times since then.

 

[KBeezie]

PS: You 'sort' of have ISO 100 in some of the models (ie: LOW), but it still counts as an 'extension' range. Not that it really matters when it comes to long exposure since different sensors have their optimal sensitivity for the best signal-to-noise ratio.

 

[moonhawk]

Everyone with Nikon D810 and Canon 5DSR threw them in the trash when the Phase One 100MP came out recently. Those are completely worthless now that there is something technically superior.

No, actually, we didn't. Sorry.

 

[hazwing]

No, actually, we didn't. Sorry.

we should probably have a sarcasm emoji

 

[moonhawk]

we should probably have a sarcasm emoji

oops....

 

[Rambling Sam]

Yes, I've seen them lining up outside Jessops ... £31,000+ just for the back, £4000 for a body, plus another £120+ for a standard prime lens ... But Brett's probably going to order Alpa's XY body, at a measly £60,000.