- With smaller mount, you can gear up to more versatile lenses.
? with smaller mount and relatively large flange-back distance as on m43, you can NEVER add lenses that need a big mount (like certain WA or very bright design) or short distance to the sensor (e.g. retrofocus designs like some Leica lenses). With a big mount with short flange-back you can use basically any lens. The NEX mount is FAR more flexible than m43!
This not my point, to carrying other manufacturers on 4/3 mount. Even in that case, there are more adapters to m4/3 than any other camera-lens system. You can have Nikon, Canon, Leica, bigger 4/3, Pentax any available mount. They wont be good on Wide angle end, due to bigger crop factor 2x vs 1.5/1.6/1.7 x at different mounts, but they will work. And even in that sense, it will give the far tele end advantage. My only complain is auto-focusing is not available in such system, but it wont be available via any adapter to any system at all.
My actual point was, the lenses are carrying better focal length range. I have yet to see a true 7-14mm lens like pany made in any other system with this much range. Compacts have even better range like 26 mm - 676 mm on Pentax X90. The compact sensor allows them to make 26x lens. Can you point on any SLR lens upto 20x range? 14-140 pany is another extreme example, the lens does so well on so many fronts, such a low distortion and well controlled, can you expact it from Canon or Nikon super zoom or even from Sigma/Tamron bank?
Yes 4/3 has fewer lenses but still much more than newly E-mount, so we are comparing here about these two E or 4/3. and all the lenses are very good in their camps.
This different lenses preferences for different sensors is the reason Ricoh GR got different sensors with different lenses. Because you can sometime make better lens (focal length versatality) with smaller sensors.
The only disadvantage is that for some NEX lenses additional tubing may be necessary, which increases the weight of the lens (might be an issue if you carry several tele/zoom lenses, not the typical NEX user). In theory m43 could have lightweight/compact lenses, but IMHO this is a big disappointment until now; most of the really good lenses are not much smaller than similar APS-C lenses. We will have to see in practice, probably m43 and NEX lenses will overlap significantly in size/weight.
The only disappointment to me on 4/3 is there tele lenses, very limited. Sigma for four third is good option but I had to buy a lens adapter but still not very satisfied because they don't auto-focus, which is pain for live subjects. One day when pany or oly will release some 70-200 f2.8 lens, all my needs will be fulfilled.
Now which other area in lens disappoints you? 1.7f 20mm? 7-14mm f4? 14-140mm? to me they are excellent in their camps and no other reaches close to them. I have used Canikon before and I know what am saying here.
And they are extremely light weight as compare to full-frame or APSc lenses, there should be no debate on that.
Have you seen Sony E-lens mount on NEX? these are bigger than their bodies?
14-140 still balanced so well on GH1, can you imagine the sony slimmest and lightest camera carrying its future coming 11x ?? look how odd it looks with the standard kit.
- 20mm prime is much better with wider 1.7 apperture than 16mm with 2.8mm.
the Panny is better yes, but this is the wrong comparison ... the panny is a standard lens instead of the Sony that is an (ultra)wide; totally different lenses. The Sony 16mm does look similar in quality to the Oly 2.8/17 which still is only moderate WA.
sony is 16mm on APSc and Pany is 20mm on 4/3?
20 x 2 = 40
16 x 1.5 = 28 [updated]
yes sony is moderately wide but that means sony won't see any true portrait lens? thats shame ... for how long? well the camera is not released yet .. but I doubt the sweep panaroma will work well with distorted wide angles ... it didn't on compacts in that wide angle range...
