OMG!! Just EIGHT lenses! How can one take a decent picture?
Well, one can't take a portrait at the classic portrait focal length if the lens doesn't exist. One can't use fast f2.8 zoom lenses to gather lots of light with zoom flexibility if these fast zoom lenses do not exist. One can't easily take close ups of bugs if longer macro lenses don't exist. Many can't afford to own a fast standard 50mm prime if a cheap version doesn't exist, etc etc.
That's right, if eight lenses not enough, one can use the vast collection of Canon lenses with an adapter. And even with an adapter, the size will be, in many cases, smaller than an equivalent MFT setup, so what's your point?
Please prove this to me by listing the "many cases" where old Canon lenses adapted to M format are smaller than the Micro 43 native options. Ideally, use camerasize.com top view to provide visual evidence. Thank you.
But this time, try not to cheat by putting a small Canon M camera against one of the biggest Micro 43 cameras. Try and keep it even handed and fair, OK?
And we are focusing the argument on
small size here. Ignore equivalence of DOF because sometimes more DOF is an advantage, just as other times shallow DOF is preferable.
Also, I notice you had no answer to my listed evidence that Micro 43 offers at least FIVE TIMES more consumer choice at a given focal length (50mm equivalent) allowing users to select the attributes they need at several different price points, from beginner to professional vs Canon M's
"Cough up £500 or you can't get a native nifty fifty" approach.
There is no doubt at all, that M43 has an excellent set of lenses, with many many choices. If you want to have a lot of freedom, don't know what you'll need etc., then M43 is hard to beat. Same is true for body features.
I am an M43 fan, shoot it myself.
But, if you DO know which lenses you need, and they have them, the EOS M50 is a nice camera. And don't forget, a lot of people have only a couple of lenses. I bought into the Canon system, because I wanted a relatively small body (smaller than G85), wanted a mic-input and an increase IQ if I would buy a new body. Panasonic didn't have it. Gx9: no mic-input. G9 excellent camera, but too big and too expensive.
- M has several nice lenses, like the 11-22 UWA Zoom, 22mm F2 prime (35 mm eq), 32mm F1.4 (51mm eq), and enough consumer zooms (15-45. 18-55, 18-150, 55-200).
- The VERY cheap EF 50/1.8 is a good portrait lens, costs about 129$. Even with adapter, it is not big. So the cheap portrait option is there, and with shallower DOF than M43 too.
- I can add e.g. the 85/1.8 for even shallower DOF, or buy the 50/1.4. All of which are very reasonably priced.
A set of 11-22, 22mm, 32mm and 18-150 comes at a very, very good price. Try that in Fuji or Sony. And, provides a pretty good travel setup, which I think most people will agree with.
- IQ, even from the cheap M50 body, is better than M43. No, it is not very significant, but it is higher resolution (compared to shooting in 3:2 on my GX80 quite a big difference) and high iso's are slightly better too.
- video tracking is outstanding.
If they have the lenses you want, it is a fine system, although in many ways my M43 camera is better. But cameras are always, always a compromise.
If you want fast zooms, 2.8 or faster, then it gets large quickly. EF-S 17-55/F2.8, or the Sigma 18-35/1.8 or 50-100/1.8 are all excellent, but heavy. There, I think M43 wins, although DOF will not be as shallow for those who like that.
