X-T1 looks mighty interesting, what do you think?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
CatsAreFineArt
New MemberPosts: 7
Like?
Re: size/weight is what counts with m4/3
In reply to Henry Richardson, 11 months ago

Henry Richardson wrote:

I am always rather surprised that there are people who can't see what is the main, defining quality of m4/3: size/weight of the system (bodies & lenses). The Fuji (or Sony A7 or whatever) seems to be really cool and I can certainly see the attraction. If you don't care about size/weight then why even consider m4/3? Get a FF or APS-C system with larger lenses and don't feel bad that you didn't get m4/3. With m4/3 you get smaller size, lighter weight, quite a good selection of lenses and bodies, and results that are quite good. No one said m4/3 is going to save you money or be better than something else. I repeat:

IF YOU DON'T VALUE SIZE/WEIGHT THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY BE HAPPIER WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Well, that's just the thing. I shoot primarily 50mm and 90mm macro. For those lens options Fuji's size and weight compares favorably. Sometimes I shoot tele zoom. The 55-200mm is bigger than the Panasonic 35-100mm, but not by a lot, and it's not much slower either, especially when you take the dof equivalency and superior ISO performance into account. Wide angle is a different story, but I don't go wider than 28mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow