Amazing body, shame about the lens selection

whakapu wrote:

EF lenses are not big.

They are compared to the native lenses (and native lenses on other APS-C & 4/3 mirrorless systems), and when you factor in the adapter. Believe me, none of my EF lenses are L glass and they still feel bulky and strange on the M6. I guess it's different strokes for different folks though, just because a small lens for a small body is important to me doesn't mean I think it should be important for everyone, I'm just stating my feelings in my review (which was otherwise completely positive, if you can't tell I really love this camera). Sorry if it's a topic that's been done to death, I'm new to this system's community and this forum in general. I also didn't realize that posting a user review of the camera started a discussion thread in the forums, I was more trying to add my impressions to DPR as a resource for others rather than spark a debate.

One thing to note is that I came from Micro 4/3, a system I've been using since the original Olympus E-P1. In those days the lens selection for that system was pathetic, in a way the M system never was. Instead of being satisfied with adapting lenses, the community as a whole put intense pressure on Olympus and Panasonic to do better, because they saw the potential in a camera like that. My review was in that spirit, and I am kind of surprised with the replies of "just be happy you can adapt EF glass and stop complaining". I get the impression that a lot of EF-M users are DSLR owners using M cameras as a second body/toy rather than people who really only want/need a small and high quality camera for the style of shooting they do, basically the age old SLR people vs rangefinder people for the 21st century. Before micro 4/3 came around when it came to digital I used high end point and shoots, so that's the perspective I'm coming from.