cathal gantly wrote:
I switched from Nikon apsc to four thirds, then micro four thirds. When I switched I needed cash, so almost all my Nikon gear went, and I bought a twin lens Olympus E510 just to have something. The plan at the time was to eventually return to Nikon. Guess what? I never did!
I was satisfied with the results from the E510, and really loved the compact size. So happy in fact, that I switched to micro four thirds when that came along, and have remained. I’m shooting with 4/3 sensors now since 2008.
In terms of apsc, with the sole exception of Fuji, every other marque appears to view apsc as the “budget” consumer system (okay, the Nikon D500 is another exception) and don’t produce decent lens options for the format. My other issue would be that in most cases (again Fuji and the 40mp models being an exception) there isn’t enough difference between apsc an four thirds to merit the change. For the difference to be noticeable, the higher megapixel full frame models would be required.
I fully agree with that.
All FF brands make APSC bodies but don't make better APSC lenses. When something like a 70-200/2.8 is needed, or a longer zoom for wildlife, they want us to buy the FF version. Most of them have decent wider zooms in the 10-20mm range and 18-85mm range but that wasn't enough for me.
People often compare body sizes but forget about the whole system size. Here, micro four thirds hasn’t yet been beaten, and also on price… the cost of high quality fast glass is much more affordable (and smaller) than full frame. A high quality micro four thirds system will cost less to purchase and be smaller and lighter to carry.
Everyone has there own pinch points, so as always, your mileage may vary.
-- hide signature --
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy.