APSC crop is similar to using an MC14 in effect, but with 26Mpix.
Once I use a shoulder strap screwed into the foot, weight comes down to how long I can point the lens in the right direction which is fine with the GM. I need the Sony grip extension on the A7CR but the body is still some gm lighter than an OM1. The big difference is the stacked sensor.
I like internal zooms, but that’s a lot extra to pay to get one.
In the end, it all depends on specifics. In this case, my point was that MFT can be a lot more expensive. The same is true for primes that gather a lot of light - the 17/1.2 is currently £999 and the Viltrox 35/1.2 in FE £869, although I paid £770 launch price for mine.
The LAB is a whopper because it gathers so much more light and provides more subject isolation than the OM lens. It is optically excellent, with very little LoCA and only just enough SA to give decent background bokeh. You can get a Sigma 35/2 for £579, although I paid less on discount before Sigma realised how competitive the i-series are. Despite the heavy use of metal and all the controls, the Sigma is lighter than the MFT lens and performs really well at f2.2.
Now the 40-150/2.8 happened to be discounted the day I picked up the GM. I was planning on buying a used 35-100/2.8 but the 40-150mm swayed me. I’ve never regretted it, and it goes head-to-head with the GM at 150/300mm until sensor resolution starts to matter. Internal zoom and focus is great.
Resolution and DR matter more to me, but I guess I’d get an A9iii and A1ii if money and storage space were irrelevant. Pretty happy with OM5, OM1 and A7CR.
I’m more likely to buy an OM1 ii as a mk i upgrade or add an OM3, whichever is cheaper used in a year or so.
That all makes sense.
Landscape is my thing.
A
Yongnuo have in m4/3 autofocus 12-35/2.8-4 AF, 25mm f/1.7 AF and 42.5mm f/1.7 AF are in m4/3.
