Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP papillon_65 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,030
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Thorgrem wrote:

Vlad S wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Anybody else getting tempted? (I'm not really interested if you think it's big and heavy and you've "been there done that",I get the point, I'm more interested if you are tempted over to the dark side by these kind of prices and value.)

I think it's quite unfair if you handicap one side by taking away all of its advantages, or at least it's raison d'être. If a user were not interested in the size and weight savings, then there's no reason to switch from APS-C either, and that format can be had even cheaper.

If you just want to point out that FF can be had for a lot less than in the past, and can be a great value then yes, of course. There has not been a better time to buy FF. And it will probably only get even better in the future.


indeed. I bought into m4/3 because I wanted something different. Don't know why, but I did not like the idea of lugging big and heavy things with me all day. If Olympus made a FF camera for a nice price in a compact body with compact lenses than maybe. I like Olympus as a brand, don't know why but I was always attracted to Olympus. Don't think I will buy another brand unless Olympus stops.

FF has some advantages but for a hobby, no way.

Actually the size/weight difference between a 5DII and prime lens versus the OMD or GH3 and similar isn't huge, none will go in a pocket and all will go in a fairly small bag.

Hmm. Here's an example I borrow from another thread where I discussed Jim Stirling's FF walk-around kit versus its MFT weight-equivalent. Which one would you say packs more versatility?


D800 including battery: 1000 g

28/1.8G: 330 g

50/1.4G: 280 g

85/1.8G: 350 g

Total: 1960 g


E-M5 including battery: 425 g

Samyang 7.5/3.5 FE: 195 g

Panasonic 7-14/4: 300 g

Panasonic 14-45/3.5-5.6: 195 g

Olympus 40-150/4-5.6 R: 190 g

Olympus 12/2: 130 g

Panasonic 20/1.7: 100 g

Olympus 45/1.8: 115 g

Olympus 75/1.8: 305 g

Total: 1955 g

Well there are many ways to cut that cake depending on what you want, you missed out the cost as an example and there are much cheaper FF cameras than the D800. This isn't about which is "best" as I said, I'm more interested if anyone is tempted to go FF at the current prices. Either system can make claims to something the other can't.

I didn't cut anything out. I only commented on your specific claim about the size/weight difference.

Well to me a 1lb or two isn't a big difference but then I'm a fit and healthy 6' 2" 220lb man and not a wheezing pensioner, if I was it might be. It's all relative and I don't see a big difference between a Canon 5DII with a couple of primes and GH3/OMD and similar, neither are going to break my back or slow me down.

My point was not that I would carry less in terms of weight with MFT. I don't. My point is that irrespective of which weight limit you care to apply, you get (by my standards) more versatility/performance per kilo with MFT than with FF. The example I gave for a weight limit of about two kg shows that very clearly wouldn't you say? The FF user can pack three fast primes in the standard range. I can pack eight lenses that includes three similarly fast primes but also the following:

A fisheye

An UWA zoom

A standard zoom that provides continous as opposed to discrete FL coverage and allows quick change of FL without lens swaps

A tele zoom

A fast intermediate tele prime

Feel free to calculate where you end up if you try to include the same for FF. If, when you are finished, you find that it would be no trouble carrying it all, or that you'd prefer the three primes to the alternative MFT setup I propose, then I think you should get yourself an FF camera.

Well that's a pretty pointless exercise really because I don't know anyone, including myself, who would carry all those lenses and actually use them in a session. Most people carry a couple of lenses for a specific purpose, not a swiss army bag containing every lens they own. You're also going to have better low light performance for moving subjects and better dof control with your full frame choices. Don't forget that a lens like the 24-105mm F4 is akin to shooting a 12-55mmish F2 on m4/3's (It also has IS) and thus there is no need to carry around most of those prime lens for the purposes of dof control (which is why most m4/3's users like fast primes). So as I said, it depends on how you want to cut your cloth. There is no "better", just what's better for the individuals needs.

-- hide signature --

For the person who is good with a hammer, everything in life tends to look like a nail.....

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow