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

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
CatsAreFineArt
New MemberPosts: 7
Like?
Re: size/weight is what counts with m4/3
In reply to Sergey Borachev, 8 months ago

Sergey Borachev wrote:

CatsAreFineArt wrote:

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.

Your first post!

What are you talking about???

Fuji does not seem to have any 50mm or 90mm macro lens. The Fuji 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 is not weatherproof, not a constant f/2.8 lens, and does not have the same zoom range as the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. It is slower in AF, bigger and, more significantly, a lot heavier at 580g vs 360g for the Panasonic lens. If you stick to a few primes with the most common focal lengths and speeds, and do not need weatherproofing, then the Fuji system will not be much bigger or heavier.

Yes first post. Thanks

I think we are saying the same thing. By 50mm and 90mm, I was speaking in equivalency terms (i.e. 35mm = 52mm fl, and 60mm macro = 90mm). I also think I addressed the differences between the 55-200mm and 35-100mm. It's not THAT much bigger. I've used both. weather sealing, sure, but I shoot in light rain and snow, not hurricanes, so in over a decade I have never found weather sealing to be a big deal. Different people may have different needs, and that's fine.

But fundamentally, we said the same thing: "If you stick to a few primes with the most common focal lengths and speeds, and do not need weatherproofing, then the Fuji system will not be much bigger or heavier."

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