Not a flame war. A legitimate lens comparison

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses.  but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar.  Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

Oly 9-18

Pana 7-14

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

20mm f1.7

17mm f1.8

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Oly 25mm f1.8

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (When it arrives)

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

The nice thing about M4/3s is choice. Let me add to your list.

b0k3h wrote:

whats the point?

The point is that people say this manufacturer has cheaper smaller glass or this one but depending on the exact lenses a purchaser wants things start to look similar regarding the different manufacturers

are you asking a question or making a statement?

Asking a question about whether I am missing any obvious lens choices

if so, about image quality, handling, overall system flexibility, or what?

Between 5 different make this is absolutely impossible. My point was only similar lenses. If someone is buying into a system they will have to do the exact comparisons because some lenses are stronger than others

or self-justification of what you've bought or want to buy?

Not at all. I am fine with what I purchased. I hope everone else is too. This has more to do with people coming on here looking for advice.

Martin.au wrote:

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

Oly 9-18 new 500

Pana 7-14 new 900

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

20mm f1.7 new 300

17mm f1.8 new 400

17mm f2.8 new 300

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Oly 25mm f1.8 new 300

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (When it arrives)

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

The nice thing about M4/3s is choice. Let me add to your list.

I added the prices and a couple more selections. There were cheaper equivalents now listed, so the total cost for M34 would be $1100 new.  Cost aside, M34 is obviously the best choice of all the systems < not biased>.

This is an interesting comparison, anyone thinking of getting into a new system would want to do this, I think.  On top of this comparison, look at the total lense selection that the system offers.  I'm happy with my m34 choice.

Steve

Martin.au wrote:

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

Oly 9-18

Pana 7-14

I left off the 9-18 f 4.0-5.6 because it is not apples to apples. I was trying to get the five systems as close to each other as I could.

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

20mm f1.7

17mm f1.8

Both these lenses are much cheaper than the competition and it looks like I cherry picked here. I wanted to put the Voigtlander Nokton because I thought it would be closer but I did not think that was fair either

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Oly 25mm f1.8

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (When it arrives)

I could not find the panasonic. You would have to help me with info on this lens. I picked the 1.4 because it was the fastest available without throwing manual focus in. I was trying to get apples to apples. The 1.4 panasonic is equivalent 50 2.8?

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

The nice thing about M4/3s is choice. Let me add to your list.

Thank you. Choice is always nice. If someone knows they do not want to purchase fast glass it is good to know that there are smaller cheaper options available. The same can be said for the apsc e mount and the fuji. My point was just that it seems equivelant lenses across the board are very close in size and price between systems.

lowpine wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

Oly 9-18 new 500

Pana 7-14 new 900

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

20mm f1.7 new 300

17mm f1.8 new 400

17mm f2.8 new 300

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Oly 25mm f1.8 new 300

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (When it arrives)

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

The nice thing about M4/3s is choice. Let me add to your list.

I added the prices and a couple more selections. There were cheaper equivalents now listed, so the total cost for M34 would be $1100 new. Cost aside, M34 is obviously the best choice of all the systems < not biased>.

ha! The reason I picked those lenses is because they were as close to equivelant as I could find. The lenses you picked are smaller and less expensive they are also much slower.

This is an interesting comparison, anyone thinking of getting into a new system would want to do this, I think. On top of this comparison, look at the total lense selection that the system offers. I'm happy with my m34 choice.

More than looking at available lenses they should focus on lenses they are likely to purchase and that they can afford. Glad you like m4/3 there is nothing wrong with it. My point was just about people that say the lenses are cheap and small. For selection of these slower smaller lenses I guess it is M 4/3 > APSC> FF . Small cheap slow lenses are nonexistent in native ff. Stupid physics

b0k3h wrote:

whats the point? are you asking a question or making a statement?

if so, about image quality, handling, overall system flexibility, or what?

or self-justification of what youve bought or want to buy?

Obviously only important to the OP, not very useful for anyone else.  To be useful it would obviously have to include cameras with similar characteristics and all the available lenses, which of course would make the list so large that it would be impossible to use.  I suspect that anyone actually interested in this would check the cameras and lenses they wanted and compare them as to size, price and quality.

drj3 wrote:

b0k3h wrote:

whats the point? are you asking a question or making a statement?

if so, about image quality, handling, overall system flexibility, or what?

or self-justification of what youve bought or want to buy?

Obviously only important to the OP, not very useful for anyone else.

Only trying to clear up the "small format has cheap small lenses myth" or hell prove it right if it is. I know this is the internet so it really does not matter this "fact" will exist for a long time regardless of evidence.

To be useful it would obviously have to include cameras with similar characteristics and all the available lenses, which of course would make the list so large that it would be impossible to use.

I did not want to tread down the "superior sytem" path. It is a dumb discussion. Way too many intangibles. There was a fun one with the Em1 and A7ii with 24-70 f4 and whatever the equivalent oly lens was. It was interesting because they were almost the same size and price. Very close in feautures with the three big differences being weathersealing, touchscreen, and sensor size. Honestly it really does not matter if one of them won every single category. A purchaser might decide they just like the look or feel of one over the other and good for them. It is their money

I suspect that anyone actually interested in this would check the cameras and lenses they wanted and compare them as to size, price and quality.

Absolutely. A purchaser has to have an idea and trim down the playing feild to direclty compare. ALso hopefully get some hands on experience too

-- hide signature --

drj3

No, the 25 1.4 does not equal 50 2.8. It is a 1.4 lens. Comparing the Olympus 2.8 in the wide angles to f4 lenses is also unrealistic. Fast glass is always heavier and more expensive. It doesn't take as much light to properly expose an m43 sensor as an APS-C one. So the apertures values are comparable on a one to one basis while the focal length is not. A 25 1.4 lens is a 25 1.4 lens, period. Put on a smaller sensor it will have a visually greater focal length and depth of field but exposure won't change.

For a given aperture and equivalent focal length, assuming such a lens exists will result in the m43 being lighter. Price will be all over the place. Martin actually gave you realistic equivalents.

Regards,

Kurt

golfhov wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

golfhov wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it. I am not trying to talk bad about any format. Just a somewhat objective comparison. It seems that most of the different mirrorless cameras have similarly priced lenses when trying to do direct comparisons. This is the body of text from another forum. There are outliers here and there. There is also the fact that not all lenses are created equal. The sony 55 1.8 vs the canon 50 1.8 is two very different lenses. but overall it seems that for the most part that across the formats the lenses are largely similar in size and price. I posted in this forum here because you will be more familiar with m43 lenses. This is also a sampling of three lenses. You could do any myriad of comparisions but overall the results seem similar. Agree or disagree?

ChuckTa wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I am still camp Sony, but I was pricing out building a system to fit my needs with Fuji glass and the results were eye opening. I need 3 lenses- an ultrawide, a 35mm equivalent prime and a 50-55mm equivalent prime.

Ultra wide:

• Fuji- 10-24/4- $1000 new/$850 used
• Sony E- 10-18/4- $850 new/$550 used (not as tele/versatile)
• Sony FE- 16-35/4- $1350 new/$1150 used (1 stop faster)
• samsung 12-24 f4=5.6 $516 new
• Oly 7-14 2.8 new 1300

Oly 9-18

Pana 7-14

I left off the 9-18 f 4.0-5.6 because it is not apples to apples. I was trying to get the five systems as close to each other as I could.

It's pretty comparable to the Samsung. The Sony FE is halfway between the 7-14 and 9-18 in UWA focal length (the most important thing for a UWA).

35mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 23 1.4- $900 new/$650 used
• Sony E- 24Z- $1100 new/$650 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 35/2.8- $800 new/$575 used (~1 stop slower than Fuji, ~.3 stop slower than 24Z)
• samsung 20 2.8 $330 new
• Panasonic 15 1/7 $600 new

20mm f1.7

17mm f1.8

Both these lenses are much cheaper than the competition and it looks like I cherry picked here. I wanted to put the Voigtlander Nokton because I thought it would be closer but I did not think that was fair either.

I don't think cherrypicked is right. It's just that there's a lot of lenses in M4/3s and unless you're used to the options, it's likely you'll miss some.

50-55mm equivalent:

• Fuji- 35 1.4- $600 new/$400 used
• Sony E- 35/1.8- $450 new/$400 used (~1/2 stop slower than Fuji)
• Sony FE- 55/1.8- $1000 new/$750 used (~1/3 stop faster than Fuji)
• samsung 30 f2 $200 new
• Panasonic 25 f 1.4 new 600

Oly 25mm f1.8

Panasonic 25mm f1.7 (When it arrives)

I could not find the panasonic. You would have to help me with info on this lens. I picked the 1.4 because it was the fastest available without throwing manual focus in. I was trying to get apples to apples. The 1.4 panasonic is equivalent 50 2.8?

See DPR's news.

Also, your stops are off a bit. APS-C is 2/3s of a stop from M4/3s. FF is 1 & 1/3 stops from APS-C.

These end up at about: Fuji ~f2.1, Sony, ~f2.7, Sony FE f1.8, Samsung ~f3.0 & M4/3s f2.8. in 35mm equivalent.

Grand totals:

• Fuji- $2500 new/$1900 used
• Sony E- $2400 new/$1600 used
• Sony FE- $3150 new/$2475 used
• Samsung $1,046 new
• Olympus m4/3 $2500 new

So for this setup only $100-300 saved depending on how you go, at least for glass. I still think Fujis offer worse value for the money overall due to their body pricing. But even still, there are some gems there too. An X-E1 costs about the same as a NEX-6. Adding in Samsung samsung is the least eaxpensive and smallest. It is also not apples to apples. Every single lens in that scenario is slower. There is no native lenses that match up well for samsung. Adding M 4/3 is interesting. They in the same ball park as the first three and almost all the lenses are slower and just as large.

I believe you can also put together a Samsung NX lens set cheaper.

The price in Amazon for the trio Samsung NX 12-24mm, 30mm f2, 45mm f1.8 is pretty good. It is also the smallest size among the apsc cameras, its my default travelling lens.

I tried to throw samsung and M4/3 in the mix for fun. They are a lot harder to match up exact apples to apples. In almost every case these two lag behind the first three. In samsung case you do get smaller less expnsive lenses. M4/3 You are paying the same money and getting large lenses without the benefits. Anyone that reads this can feel free to edit it but now that there are five columns this can get messed up quickly.

The nice thing about M4/3s is choice. Let me add to your list.

Thank you. Choice is always nice. If someone knows they do not want to purchase fast glass it is good to know that there are smaller cheaper options available. The same can be said for the apsc e mount and the fuji. My point was just that it seems equivelant lenses across the board are very close in size and price between systems.

As expected. You'll also find size and weight will end up being fairly comparable.

Basically, if your criteria for choosing a camera is whether it takes exactly equivalent pictures to a FF camera, then buy a FF camera. "Equivalence" has shown that the same "light gathering" lenses are much the same size on every system because they are, um, equivalent.

But anyone buying a smaller sensor camera knows they are trading off some IQ in exchange for a smaller overall package. So we can use our tiny 1.8 primes that don't have equivalents on larger systems. And no they don't give the same DOF as a 1.8 of an "equivalent" focal length on a larger system, but so what?

Trying to build an MFT system that exactly matches a FF system in every respect is just silly.

Oh, and people need to stop using "fast" when talking about DOF equivalence. A 1.8 is a 1.8 when it comes to "speed" (like looking through a viewfinder on a DSLR) but obviously they all vary with focal length when it comes to DOF, and smaller focal lengths give more DOF, and smaller sensor systems tend to involve using smaller focal lengths. That's all the difference is.

I think you got what you wanted.

TheManWhoWas wrote:

Basically, if your criteria for choosing a camera is whether it takes exactly equivalent pictures to a FF camera, then buy a FF camera. "Equivalence" has shown that the same "light gathering" lenses are much the same size on every system because they are, um, equivalent.

But anyone buying a smaller sensor camera knows they are trading off some IQ in exchange for a smaller overall package. So we can use our tiny 1.8 primes that don't have equivalents on larger systems. And no they don't give the same DOF as a 1.8 of an "equivalent" focal length on a larger system, but so what?

Trying to build an MFT system that exactly matches a FF system in every respect is just silly.

Oh, and people need to stop using "fast" when talking about DOF equivalence. A 1.8 is a 1.8 when it comes to "speed" (like looking through a viewfinder on a DSLR) but obviously they all vary with focal length when it comes to DOF, and smaller focal lengths give more DOF, and smaller sensor systems tend to involve using smaller focal lengths. That's all the difference is.

Not my criteria. Just trying to make sure that I 100% understand things. I do not know a lot about M4/3. I had one camera with two lenses 8 think three years ago.

Yes equivelancy and fast are some terms that 8 should be careful with. 1.8 is 1.8. Regardless of size. I think where new people to this conversation get confused is that depth of feild is completely different. Focal length is focal length. A 20mm lens on m4/3 is not a 40mm. It looks like a 40mm because of the format change. Most people do not make the same change when regards aperture. New people that get into this conversation get confused. They think that 1.8 is 1.8. Well of course I am going to get the less expensive system it is the same thing. That is where I am going with this conversation. Not that one is "better" than the other. There are strenths and weaknesses when you compare cameras and le ses that go way beyond this part of the conversation.fast is a lot easier to type than shallow depth of feild. You say everyone looking to buy a camera knows this. They obviously do not if you look through the forums

Glen Barrington wrote:

I think you got what you wanted.

Yes and no. I wanted to be sure I was right about one simple thing. Lenses and lenses only. Equivelant lenses. I did get the nice point that m43 and apsc both open up smaller less expensive lenses as long as someone is willong to forgo equivelant depth of feild. Instead opened up an ever persistent flame war.

Sigh

golfhov wrote:

drj3 wrote:

b0k3h wrote:

whats the point? are you asking a question or making a statement?

if so, about image quality, handling, overall system flexibility, or what?

or self-justification of what youve bought or want to buy?

Obviously only important to the OP, not very useful for anyone else.

Only trying to clear up the "small format has cheap small lenses myth" or hell prove it right if it is. I know this is the internet so it really does not matter this "fact" will exist for a long time regardless of evidence.

To be useful it would obviously have to include cameras with similar characteristics and all the available lenses, which of course would make the list so large that it would be impossible to use.

I did not want to tread down the "superior sytem" path. It is a dumb discussion. Way too many intangibles. There was a fun one with the Em1 and A7ii with 24-70 f4 and whatever the equivalent oly lens was. It was interesting because they were almost the same size and price. Very close in feautures with the three big differences being weathersealing, touchscreen, and sensor size. Honestly it really does not matter if one of them won every single category. A purchaser might decide they just like the look or feel of one over the other and good for them. It is their money

I suspect that anyone actually interested in this would check the cameras and lenses they wanted and compare them as to size, price and quality.

Absolutely. A purchaser has to have an idea and trim down the playing feild to direclty compare. ALso hopefully get some hands on experience too

The problem is that you list specific lenses that you think others want. I have two Olympus DSLRs and two Olympus mirror less and have none of those lenses and don't have any interest in purchasing any of them, so your post is of importance to you.  I have taken over 300,000 images with my Olympus cameras with no need for any on your list.  Without cameras of similar characteristics and comparison of image quality produced by the camera/lens along with size and price, it is simply a troll post of no real importance.

golfhov wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

I think you got what you wanted.

Yes and no. I wanted to be sure I was right about one simple thing. Lenses and lenses only. Equivelant lenses. I did get the nice point that m43 and apsc both open up smaller less expensive lenses as long as someone is willong to forgo equivelant depth of feild. Instead opened up an ever persistent flame war.

Sigh

In my mind, your comparison misses the essential reasons for choosing an M43 system.

The reasons I chose, and stay, with M43 are

1) Smaller and larger camera bodies available that share the same lens system. Smaller camera does not necessarily imply lower quality sensor.

2) Camera bodies from different vendors with different feature set/evolution available that share the same lens system

3) High quality lenses available for smaller sensor size

4) High degree of compatibility with lenses from other systems, including 4/3 and Canon EF with full AF and AE

5)  Really good stabilization on most lenses

6) Possible to put together a reasonably high quality reasonably small system for affordable cost

golfhov wrote:

Thank you. Choice is always nice. If someone knows they do not want to purchase fast glass it is good to know that there are smaller cheaper options available. The same can be said for the apsc e mount and the fuji. My point was just that it seems equivelant lenses across the board are very close in size and price between systems.

You've shown price, but not size, as you didn't list weight/volume for the lenses. Note that reviewers are always remarking on the size of the Fuji lenses. Another point of interest is that Sony is quickly orphaning APS-C, just as Canikon have done. If I were moving to APS-C, I would only consider Fuji and Samsung, as its their main focus.

Last time I did the math (and it was a long time ago :-), µ4/3 made for a significantly lighter kit with the same focal lengths than any APS-C system.

golfhov wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

I think you got what you wanted.

Yes and no. I wanted to be sure I was right about one simple thing. Lenses and lenses only. Equivelant lenses. I did get the nice point that m43 and apsc both open up smaller less expensive lenses as long as someone is willong to forgo equivelant depth of feild. Instead opened up an ever persistent flame war.

Sigh

Keep in mind that "equivalent DoF" is mostly a canard. If you go look at museum photo collections you will find very few photos which rely on thin DoF to achieve their artistic aim.