Well, I guess it is possible to pick a couple of combos that will rival Micro 43 for size and price.
exactly. Already your "by far" argument has holes
I didn't mean to say I was right in
every single instance, and I apologize if my wording implied that.
But I remain confident that in the great majority of cases, my claims were correct.
Micro 43 is overall smaller and definitely more affordable.
But overall, there is no doubt that Micro 43 (because it combines Olympus and Panasonic) has much more choice,
yes. Makes sense. One of the oldest mounts and has two manufacturers. OF course some of that figure is misleading. They have something like five 14-42 cheap kit lenses listed and four cheap kit zooms listed. How much does that really help
I think that probably every lens mount, mirrorless or DSLR, has too many versions of the standard kit lens! But with the Olympus and Panasonic combo of around 80 odd native mount lenses,
Micro 43 has the most comprehensive lens eco system to choose from in all of mirrorless.
And this
is a significant advantage. Very often, M43 has
three types of lens to choose from at key focal lengths. For example, with portrait lenses, you have a couple of cheap (but highly competent) options starting at £200 (f1.8), a medium level option at £400 (f1.4), and a few high end options at around £750 and up (f0.95). More choice is always good!
Meh...."value" is in the eye of the beholder. Are those 1.2 pro primes a "value". I think it all depends on what one is after. Do they have some of the cheapest lenses in an ILC system? Yes. Are they "bargains" meh........
Many of the affordable Micro 43 lenses really are fantastic lenses as well as great bargains! Like the Oly 30mm macro and 45mm f1.8 portrait lenses for around £200. The Panny 20mm f1.7 for just a little bit more, the 12-32mm as a kit lens, the Oly 40-150mm for about £100, etc etc.
And you haven't got to buy the pro f1.2 expensive lenses. Not when you have very competent lenses affordable to the beginning photographer. As I say, choice is good.
It may not be an issue if you just want a lens or two.
or three or four. Fuji x and Sony APSC* both have a pretty wide selection of lenses available. One just needs to look at the lineups and see what is important to them.
I dunno. Price wise, I really doubt it. I will try and compare like for like in a future post. I maintain that a Micro 43 system will overall be smaller and more affordable than other mirrorless alternatives. Often by quite a way. There may be the odd exception to this rule, but I'm confident that overall I am correct in this claim.
But if you want a system, then Micro 43 will be the smallest
yup
meh.......it all depends on what you are after. IF you just want the smallest and cheapest then you are dead on.
That's the main thrust of my argument here! Micro 43 is the best mirrorless system for those on a budget who value lightweight portability. And it has a few other very useful tricks up its sleeve (IBIS, Live Composite, etc).
But then again you get into a longer conversation. Do you even want an ILC system? You can grab point and shoots that cover 24-200(or even 600) all day long that make 4/3 look large. So now is 4/3 a "value" . Maybe you want a single prime? there are several compacts that do this well. Heck cellphones do a good job too
No, you are wandering off topic here. We are discussing mirrorless interchangable lens camera systems. The fact is that if you are on a budget, Micro 43 allows you to get the most for your money. And (as I evidenced above), many of these bargain lenses are of high quality.
And M43 is the only one with the game changing feature of IBIS in this price range.
yes 4/3 has the cheapest bodies with IBIS generally speaking. If that is ones highest priority then that could be the deciding factor. Then again some of those cheapest bodies have IBIS BUT lag in other areas. Models like the a7ii and xh1 are also heavily dissounted so if IBIS is your only priority it isn't like it is completely out of reach
In Micro 43, you can get powerful IBIS in the very affordable and competent Panasonic GX85/80 camera. To get IBIS in the Fuji XH1 or the Sony A7ii, in the UK you pay almost
quadruple the price of the GX80! Now, I'm not saying IBIS is a deciding factor, but it is a significant one.
You have to move up to more expensive Sony models to get that, and even then, it still lags behind the M43 version.
and everything lags behind something. The em5ii probably has much better IBIS than the a7ii BUT the sensor of the a7ii is much better. Particularly if you pull shadows. We could do this round cyclical conversation of every lens, every body, how one defines value, etc until the end of time. It would never change the fact that everyone has to lay out their own priorities. Everyone has to price their own lenses. Generalizing in the way you do is very short sighted of the massive maze of choices out there that are not universal wins and losses on ANY platform
Of course there are reasons to favour Sony or Fuji over Micro 43. But small size, IBIS, comprehensive lens eco system and (especially) value for money are not among those reasons.
Listen, I never fancied Sony's APS-C mirrorless system (I just don't like the industrial design look and feel of them) but I really fancied Fujifilm's X system. I liked a lot about the system, in some ways I preferred it to Micro 43.
But overall, I was on a budget, and the fact was I simply couldn't afford the full system I wanted with Fujifilm. With Micro 43, I got a brand new Oly EM10-II and my first FIVE lenses (by shopping for used, mint condition copies) all for under £1,000.
I just couldn't have gotten anywhere near that with Fujifilm.
--
'Photography is not art. It's pressing buttons. People take it up because they can't draw.' Lord Snowdon
