two camera systems is cheaper than one?

Started Feb 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,571
Re: two camera systems is cheaper than one?

Alex Notpro wrote:

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,

Why?  There's no way to answer your question without knowing the reason for it.

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!

I wouldn't try.  You bought each item (I hope) for a specific combination of factors - essentially suitability for a particular purpose, size and cost.  You've already incurred the cost so as long as your purposes are still the same it comes back to my question above - why does a single system matter?

Notice I left size out of that last question.  If your reason for simplifying is because FF is too big, your only option is to get the nearest M43 equivalents and accept the trade of size v versatility.

-- hide signature --

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow