MFT vs Fujifilm lens weight/size comparison

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
thxbb12 Senior Member • Posts: 1,855
MFT vs Fujifilm lens weight/size comparison
3

I wanted to quantify the weight and size comparison between equivalent (more or less) lenses in both line ups.

Some lenses are a bit different (MFT 12 and Fuji 14), but this is more to get a rough estimate of whether one would gain much by going the MFT route. Furthermore, the speeds are also a bit different at times.

I only included primes, from the widest available to the classic portrait focal length (~85mm equivalent).

Note that I included results for two 85mm equivalent focal lengths: one with the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and the other with the new Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 (numbered "MFT (2)").

As we can see there are significant gains both in term of size and weight by going the MFT route. Also, the gain is much less if one choose the Panasonic instead of the Olympus, at the cost of speed/DOF of course. Also, overall the Fuji offers more speed and DOF control (obviously). So, as everything in life, it's all a matter of trade-offs.

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +2 more
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,593
I'm not certain your equiv calc is right

thxbb12 wrote:

Interesting chart. But I don't think you calculated the apertures correctly. For instance, a single stop from f2.0 is f2.8 but you have calculated f3.0.

4/3rds is easy: simply double the aperture. But I think you've shortchanged all of Fuji's lenses on this chart.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 10,317
Re: I'm not certain your equiv calc is right

rovingtim wrote:

thxbb12 wrote:

Interesting chart. But I don't think you calculated the apertures correctly. For instance, a single stop from f2.0 is f2.8 but you have calculated f3.0.

4/3rds is easy: simply double the aperture. But I think you've shortchanged all of Fuji's lenses on this chart.

That's because APS-C is not 1 stop from FF, but 1 and 1/3. There's only 2/3 stop difference between M4/3s and APS-C.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +6 more
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,593
correct equiv apertures

rovingtim wrote:

Just to amend this chart:

aperture

2.0, 2.8 - 2.5, 2.0 - 1.7, 2.8 - 1.8, 1.4 - 1.4, 1.4 - 1.8, 1.2, 1.2

Equiv aperture

4.0, 4.0 - 5.0, 2.8 - 3.4, 4.0 - 3.6, 2.0 - 2.8, 2.0 - 3.6, 2.4, 1.7

rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,593
Maybe I'm wrong

Martin.au wrote:

That's because APS-C is not 1 stop from FF, but 1 and 1/3. There's only 2/3 stop difference between M4/3s and APS-C.

But I thought Canon's was 2/3rds of a stop difference while APS-c (such as Nikon uses) was 1 stop difference.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 10,317
Re: MFT vs Fujifilm lens weight/size comparison

I did something vaguely similar a little while back, looking at the f2.8 24-200 lenses (as they're fairly common) across the formats. As you can see from the graph, there's a pretty tidy ramp up in size and weight as you move up each stop in the shooting envelope.

We don't know the data on Fuji's f2.8 lenses yet, but I'm pretty confident that they're going to end up in that blue ellipse.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +6 more
rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,593
the actual numbers

rovingtim wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

That's because APS-C is not 1 stop from FF, but 1 and 1/3. There's only 2/3 stop difference between M4/3s and APS-C.

But I thought Canon's was 2/3rds of a stop difference while APS-c (such as Nikon uses) was 1 stop difference.

Here are the actual area ratios:

FF / 4/3rds = 3.8

FF / APSc = 2.3

APSc / 4/3rds = 1.6

or

4/3rds / FF = 0.26

APSc / FF = 0.43

4/3rds / APSc = 0.61

I concede the apertures were probably closer in the first chart than my amended chart.

thxbb12 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,855
About aperture equivalence

Interesting chart. But I don't think you calculated the apertures correctly. For instance, a single stop from f2.0 is f2.8 but you have calculated f3.0.

4/3rds is easy: simply double the aperture. But I think you've shortchanged all of Fuji's lenses on this chart.

It's very simple: crop factor for MFT is 2 and 1.52 for Fuji.

Therefore, to obtain the FF aperture equivalence I simply multiplied by 2 for MFT and 1.52 for fuji.

I applied the same for focal lengths.

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +2 more
Thorgrem Regular Member • Posts: 470
Re: About aperture equivalence

thxbb12 wrote:

It's very simple: crop factor for MFT is 2 and 1.52 for Fuji.

Therefore, to obtain the FF aperture equivalence I simply multiplied by 2 for MFT and 1.52 for fuji.

I applied the same for focal lengths.

I think the crop factor for m4/3 is 1.94

 Thorgrem's gear list:Thorgrem's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 HTC One +1 more
kenw
kenw Veteran Member • Posts: 4,951
Matches my comparison
1

Thanks for the nice table. Matches the conclusion I came to a few weeks ago as I got the itch for something new and seriously considered giving Fuji a try.  I really like a lot of things about their system and have been very impressed with their lens lineup.  But right now smaller an lighter collection of primes fits my needs the best and as much as I was interested in the controls on the Fujis and especially that 23 it didn't look as appealing once I though about it more. Size and weight was part of it but there were other reasons too.

-- hide signature --

Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 kenw's gear list:kenw's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +29 more
thxbb12 OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,855
Re: About aperture equivalence

I think the crop factor for m4/3 is 1.94

Can you point me to a reference backing it up?

Thanks.

 thxbb12's gear list:thxbb12's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +2 more
Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
DOF control won't matter much longer.

Even smartphones now have good DoF control:

Depth of Field effect created using the Selective Focus mode.

The Galaxy S5 already has an impressively quick focus time, just a fraction of a second, which can also be used to have the camera quickly take multiple images at different focus levels. Using the Selective Focus feature, you can create images with a very cool looking depth of field effect, after a short period of processing time. Once you’ve taken a snap, you can go back to the picture and swap between different focus levels.

It is only a matter of time before all cameras have an option to take a few pictures in a spit second with varying focal points, and then let you pick the spot you want in focus for the final image and let you apply a very shallow DoF.   For some but not situations, no more need for large sensors.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Sergey_Green
Sergey_Green Veteran Member • Posts: 8,906
Gasp!

Lab D wrote:

Even smartphones now have good DoF control:

It is only a matter of time before all cameras have an option to take a few pictures in a spit second with varying focal points, and then let you pick the spot you want in focus for the final image and let you apply a very shallow DoF. For some but not situations, no more need for large sensors.

But help me to understand this. If someone is willing to come up with such technology, which would not be free by any stretch, then the idea of shallow DoF is not that unimportant after all. BUT on this very same forum we often read the contrary, that people are struggling (however ridiculous it sounds) to get more DoF, and they do not need anything shallower than what they already have. So why would somebody, somewhere, invest into technology that no-one needs. Puzzling! Shall we wait to celebrate when they come up with the ways to use the current Olympus lenses on a full frame format? Even though those larger sensors will be nothing but junk by that time, I think in concept it would not be a small news either, don't you agree .

-- hide signature --

- sergey

 Sergey_Green's gear list:Sergey_Green's gear list
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads