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

Started Jan 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 4,649
Re: size/weight is what counts with m4/3

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:


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.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow