Not a flame war. A legitimate lens comparison

golfhov wrote:

drj3 wrote:

Okay I will play your little game. I have four FTs cameras, but only one was purchased because of its size. For the other three size was irrelevant.

I wanted a small camera capable of giving good results that I could carry for 4-6 hours outside visiting gardens or hiking even in the summer heat.

Since size was important, only one lens would be carried (no reason to have a small camera and have to carry a lot of lenses), so it had to be a zoom.

Since size was the important issue, then fast lenses were not even considered, again negating the concept of small easy to carry and use.

Price is also relevant so I got it with the kit 14-42 lens (28- 84 FF equivalent field of view) - current cost $599 (with free grip).

Other required features

Stabilization - either IBIS or lens (3.5 stops - CIPA standard) - since the lens decision needed to be small - stabilization is needed for low light interior setting - If a tripod is required - size is not relevant.

Two dials to control Shutter/Aperture and Exposure Compensation.

EVF - I do not like using the LCD in any bright light.

Built in Flash - since size is critical - carrying a flash would defeat the small size requirement.

Total weight of camera, battery & lens - 509 grams.

Since you have researched the other listed cameras, you must know which ones have a zoom equivalent focal length and equivalent camera features with a total weight of 509 grams or less and a total price for camera and lens of $599 or less.

Lemme guess SONY a6000 460g apsc

Just kidding that is 700. How about em10......

Look I already said on here that you could make thousands of different comparisons. I never wanted to go through every single one.

You gave theoretical examples, I could choose others which would make mFTs look better,but I gave you my actual choice made on the basis of size not a selected set to try prove a point.

Of course, if you want equivalent field of view, equivalent depth of field, equivalent light falling on the sensor, there will be little difference in camera/lens size and weight (there will still be difference in cost not necessarily related to size).

I think almost every serious photographer knows that and almost certainly most DPR mFTs users. That is why I said this was a troll post, it has been said many times, there is nothing new in your post.

However, you do give up the ability to go really small with FF or APS sensors, if that is what you want.

I can also go not small with faster lenses with the E-M1 or somewhat small if I put these lenses on my E-M10.

You do have the advantage of getting lenses of equivalent aperture and gaining the extra 2 or 2/3 stop you would get with FF or APS sensors which is important for low light photography, but you will then have the penalty of greater size and weight. You want more light on the sensor, the lenses will be larger and heavier.

I personally don't really care about weight for my wildlife photography, but I do care about pixels on the target, shutter speed and greater depth of field. That is why I use FTs cameras and the E-M10 just gives me a way to go really small when I want.