two camera systems is cheaper than one?

Started Feb 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Alex Notpro
Alex Notpro Contributing Member • Posts: 982
two camera systems is cheaper than one?

I've been "stuck" with two camera systems (Full Frame & Micro Four Thirds) now for almost a year... I really want to get down to one system, but it seems there is no way out:

1. If I sell the Micro Four Thirds system, the replacements for my (equivalent) 28-300, 200-600, 14-28, and image-stabilized 120mm macro would cost close to $4,500 - way more than the whole MFT system cost me. And that's substituting a Sigma 500mm for my 600mm-equiv MFT lens. Aperture equivalence is not a factor here because of the way I use these lenses, e.g. the macro is always shot at f/11 or smaller.

2. If I sell the Full Frame system, the replacement for the 85/1.8 alone would cost $1,600, plus there would be NO equivalent replacements for my 50/1.4 and 80-200 f/2.8 (there are no f/0.7 primes or f/1.4 zooms in MFT) or even the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 kit lens (no MFT f/2.0 zoom that wide). The 35-100 f/2 (70-200 f/4 equivalent in FF) is $2,500.

How would you optimize this down to a single system cost-effectively? Looking for suggestions!

 Alex Notpro's gear list:Alex Notpro's gear list
Leica Nocticron 42.5mm Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a5100 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +17 more
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow