If you bought a GH4 and one lens to accompany it, which one would it be?

Dheorl wrote:

tt321 wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

If you can only have one lens, why have an interchangeable lens camera? And why pay twice as much just for the body?

There's plenty of things that a ILC + lens combo can do that no fixed lens camera can do. Still plenty of reasons to get one without changing lenses.

Such as? If you plan to have one lens only, you remove the number 1 thing that the former can do and the latter cannot. I wonder what the other plenty of things from number 2 onwards are.

Proper manual zoom (ok, some fuji cameras have this, but they're as big and expensive as a ILC with one lens) is something I'd sure wish was on fixed lens cameras.

If you pick certain combinations though then there's plenty of specialised things that fixed lens cameras just aren't made for. I'd argue that one of the most versatile portrait tools is a FF DSLR with a 70-200mm f2.8. Make a living shooting portraits and your going to struggle to find a fixed lens camera that will match it.

Yes, as an all around general purpose tool a fixed lens camera will often be as good as an ILC with a single kit lens. If however you enjoy a certain area of photography good luck finding a fixed lens camera designed for that specific area.

I'm currently looking at taking just an A7S with nothing but a legacy 35mm f1.4 lens when I go travelling. If you can find a fixed lens camera which will have that video quality, control over DoF and silky manual focus that I'll get then please, let me know.

The OP question was about a GH4. How much of your scenario is A7S specific and not general ILC?

I agree that you can always think of some combination that a fixed lens camera cannot give you, but does the process then become some kind of listing game for unusual and exotic interests?