Going back to APSC?

[Keithpictures]

I like how you're thinking specific to your needs here. I'm right there with you.

Fuji is winning me over. I could fully switch to them if just a couple things go certain ways in the next year. I love their philosophy and design sensibilities. They're catching up in the video and stabilization departments, and advancing with their sensor tech more than m43.

they don't make a small lens equivalent to 75mm F1.8 Olympus. When they do I may go back.

Not sure what you mean here. Pictured is the 75 Oly flanked by the XF 50 f2 and the XF 56 1.2. Both are brighter than the Oly, and similar in size +/-

But the focal length of tha lenses is completely different compared to the Oly 75mm. You need a 100mm lens to match the field of view of the 75mm on m43

Oh right, my mistake. I was thinking of the 42/45 portrait lenses. That 150mm equivalent FoV is something I never think about!

Well, the 90mm f2 (135 f2.8) Fuji is highly regarded. Definitely bigger tho.







--
https://www.instagram.com/keithpictures/

 

[jalywol]

Mirrorless APS-C seems like terrible value for money to me.

Why? The EF-M system is very close to having everything it needs for a value oriented APS-C system. It's got an excellent body in the EOS M6 II; a great set of f/1.4, affordable primes now that Sigma is on board; a compact, affordable and sharp wide angle lens for landscape (EF-M 11-22); an affordable macro lens with a built in macro light; and access to the EF/EF-S legacy glass for the long focal lengths (check the size, the EF 100-400 is more compact than the Fuji XF lenses). The only thing they are truly missing is a good standard zoom and/or a fast, constant aperture standard zoom.

And no native long zoom at all. Once you start carrying the FF long zooms, the M loses its appeal, to be honest with you. An almost 4lb (incl adapter) lens on a small body is kind of pointless... WIth M43 you can get a native 100-400mm lens that weighs 2lb, requires no adapter, costs $500 less, and is significantly smaller.
Plus, once you decide to go up from basic level glass, there is.....nothing. Unless you want to go back to adapting, but then you lose all the size advantage....

I actually went over to the M series this past year; went full in. After using it for close to a year, I got so frustrated with their lens options, that I decided that M43 was a much better choice for me, as the native glass options for this system is unmatchable by any other smaller than FF system. Sure, there are neat lenses there; the little macro is fun, the 11-22mm is an excellent lens, the 22mm prime is a good value, and the 18-150mm, while not a great lens by any means, is quite competent for a superzoom option. But anything else is simply....not there. I wanted a higher quality normal zoom...no option for that (I used the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 on M43). I wanted a native long zoom...nope. And, Canon, because of how they compartmentalize their systems to keep them from cannibalizing each other, will never do more with the M than they are now.

M43 has a robust lens ecosystem which the M, as a result, will never match, and if that matters to a user, then the M series, which has a LOT of good things going for it other than that, will never be a good option for that user.

Yeah, they have no WR lenses or bodies, but that was never the space Canon was going to let them play in and it's really an Olympus niche.

In case you haven't noticed, most Panasonic lenses released in the past few years have all been WR....

As for Fuji, their lenses are definitely on the expensive side, but they have something m4/3 does not: a full line-up of f/1.4 primes and affordable WR primes. Plus, it's not like Olympus Pro or PL lenses are exactly cheap by comparison. The f/1.2 m4/3 primes are more than double the price of Fujinon f/1.4 primes (though the f/1.2s are optically superior) .

Nikon has a barren APS-C line-up, so it's probably not worth mentioning, but what they do have is excellent value. The Z50 + two lens kit + FTZ is pretty much unbeatable right now at $1,600 CAD if you are willing to adapt legacy FX/DX lenses.

Again, the adapting thing. I've been there and done that on Sony and on Canon, and even when it's done well (as Canon has) it's a royal PITA. Native glass is the way to go, both for functionality and for size.

-J

 

[Jacques Cornell]

No, but 7 years after switching from 35mm format to MFT, I’ve once again added 35mm format to my kit. In my estimation, the two systems are more complementary than APS & 35mm.

I would second that FF and m43 makes for a very complimentary set up. The only significant advantage of APS is if you use a FF camera that shares the same mount you can share lenses . A big downside for APS is that as FF MP count grows the higher mp models such as my Z7 , Sony A7r series are throwing in an APS camera in DX mode

Yeah, I keep thinking I should add an a6xxx alongside my a7[x] bodies, but once I mount the 35mm-format lenses, it’s still a bigger & heavier kit than my GX9. If I’m willing to carry the bigger lenses, I’m also willing to carry the a7[x] body. My use-case configs are as follows:

1. No-compromise travel/walkabout: a7R3 & 24-105/4, maybe primes, too
2. Lightweight walkabout for poster-size prints: GX9 & 14-140, maybe a prime or two.
3. Lightweight casual snaps, especially social stuff indoors: LX100
4. Ultralight: iPhone XS
5. Do-everything disposable just-in-case knockabout: FZ1000 bought for $300.

That pretty much covers it. The notion that there’s one “best” camera seems silly.

 

[Albert Valentino]

12 years of APS 2004-2016) with Nikon then Fuji. Moved to m43 in late 2016 and never looked back.



To me it is not just the camera or sensor size, it is the combo of the camera and lens and how it mates with your intended use. One of the key reasons I moved over m43 was that many lenses had close focus ability. My Fuji lenses at the time were terrible for close focus, 0.1x mag, while my Olympus lenses are 0.2x or even 0.3x mag. I had the Oly 12-40, 40-150 Pro and then sold those after getting the 12-100 Pro. No other system has a lens like the 12-100 for both range and IQ. The competitor lenses in that range go soft.



As for noise, I shoot mostly RAW with PhotoLab 3 and shoot mostly in good light at base ISO, and often prefer more vs less DOF. IQ is perfectly fine and leaves me wanting nothing. If I was needing high ISO or shoot in the dark, I would be using a different system. Right tool for the job, right!

The only thing I miss from APS (or FF) is the sensor aspect ratio. 43 is okay for portraits or street. Wider aspect works better for me for landscape to make more dynamic compositions. Yes, I can crop to get what I want. But I strongly prefer to compose in the viewfinder, that is part of the fun

 

[unhappymeal]

Mirrorless APS-C seems like terrible value for money to me.

Snip

-J

1. They have Sigma primes "above basic glass". They also have the EF-M 22 f/2, EF-M 32 f/1.4 and EF-M 11-22, all of which are excellent.

2. I already pointed out they are missing a good, workhorse standard zoom.

3. Wake me when we have compact, affordable m4/3 f/1.4 or f/1.7 WR primes. It's a huge miss.

 

[JakeJY]

Has anyone gone back to APSC from M4/3s and if you have are you happy with your decision?

I'm shooting both now. I haven't shot any of the more modern 20MP M43 cameras.

Ok, stop right there.....there's a big difference between the 20MP and 16MP in exactly the areas you are mentioning below....

Big difference? Smaller or bigger than the difference between 4/3 sensor and APS-C?

? Actually, when I was doing some comparisons when I first got the GX8, I took afternoon photos of a local river/bridge scene with the GM5, GX8, and Sony A7. using appropriately comparable lenses (12-35mm f2.8 on the Panasonics, and the 24-70mm f4 on the Sony). The amount of difference in noise, DR, and shadow recovery ability of the images between the GM5 and GX8 was approximately equal to the amount of difference in these characteristics between the GX8 and the A7. Make of that what you will, but I was actually pretty impressed with the GX8 sensor after that round of test shots.

Yes, I have heard that in the real world the 20Mp sensor is a big improvement, but I don't know what to think about this, because like I wrote, I have not seen any comparison photos or test results showing this.

I think there is a noticeable difference in resolving power between 16Mp sensor with AA filter and 20Mp sensor without AA filter. Otherwise I have not seen anything but subjective opinions that the 20Mp is significantly better than the 16Mp sensors.

The DXOmark analysis shows better color and tonal gradation performance, as well as DR and shadow recovery. It's not the resolving power that's that different, although it does help when you are cropping; it's the ability to render complex colors independently when they are together in a larger field of a similar color, and the dimensionality of the image, which is a direct result of the tonal gradation capabilities of the sensor and processors.

"While it’s fair to say the increase in resolution to 20.3Mp, compared to 16Mp on previous Panasonic models, doesn’t offer a significant advantage in terms of DxOMark sensor scores, results for the GX8 are marginally better in both the Portrait and Sports sub-categories."

"In the Landscape sub-category, however, the new GX8 is actually a little behind the older competition, with a score of 12.6EVs compared to 12.8EVs for the GH4 and 12.7EVs for the OM-D E-M1. But the difference between the sensor performance of these Micro-Four-Thirds cameras is so negligible that we can essentially say they offer the same image quality in terms of Color, Dynamic Range and ISO, despite the fact the GX8 benefits from greater resolution."

"Despite the extra pixels, however, sensor scores for Panasonic’s latest Four-Thirds chip remain a little behind the APS-C hybrid competition from Sony and Samsung, and don’t offer a significant improvement over previous sensors such as that in the 16Mp GH4."

https://www.dxomark.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx8-review-top-ranking-four-thirds-sensor/

I actually recommend OP to read the the whole article (it is not long). It basically says that the difference between 16Mp and 20Mp sensors is negligible compared to the difference between 20Mp 4/3 sensor and APS-C sensors.

Some people in this forum say the exact opposite, and I find it strange.

If you do not shoot complex color subjects (flowers, for instance) you may never notice the difference. But if you do, it jumps right out at you.

Should not APS-C be a totally different world, then (I don't believe this myself)?

The GX8 used an older slower 20MP sensor (likely the IMX269) with a fairly strong AA filter. That's why it wasn't really much of an improvement over the 16MP (without AA filters).

 

[Yannis1976]

No, but 7 years after switching from 35mm format to MFT, I’ve once again added 35mm format to my kit. In my estimation, the two systems are more complementary than APS & 35mm.

I would second that FF and m43 makes for a very complimentary set up. The only significant advantage of APS is if you use a FF camera that shares the same mount you can share lenses . A big downside for APS is that as FF MP count grows the higher mp models such as my Z7 , Sony A7r series are throwing in an APS camera in DX mode

Yeah, I keep thinking I should add an a6xxx alongside my a7[x] bodies, but once I mount the 35mm-format lenses, it’s still a bigger & heavier kit than my GX9. If I’m willing to carry the bigger lenses, I’m also willing to carry the a7[x] body. My use-case configs are as follows:

1. No-compromise travel/walkabout: a7R3 & 24-105/4, maybe primes, too

or Z5/6+24-200 or in my case XT3+16-80 (a great all around lens not getting the praise it should)

1. Lightweight walkabout for poster-size prints: GX9 & 14-140, maybe a prime or two.

For me that would be a really portable 1" camera. The G5X II with the 24-120 lens is really good..

1. Lightweight casual snaps, especially social stuff indoors: LX100

G5X II with the flash

1. Ultralight: iPhone XS

Yes

1. Do-everything disposable just-in-case knockabout: FZ1000 bought for $300.

G5X II

That pretty much covers it. The notion that there’s one “best” camera seems silly.

 

[Raist3d]

I like how you're thinking specific to your needs here. I'm right there with you.

Fuji is winning me over. I could fully switch to them if just a couple things go certain ways in the next year. I love their philosophy and design sensibilities. They're catching up in the video and stabilization departments, and advancing with their sensor tech more than m43.

they don't make a small lens equivalent to 75mm F1.8 Olympus. When they do I may go back.

Not sure what you mean here. Pictured is the 75 Oly flanked by the XF 50 f2 and the XF 56 1.2. Both are brighter than the Oly, and similar in size +/-

The XF 50 F2 is a great lens, but it's a 75mm equivalent. The Oly 75mm is a 150mm equivalent. The closest native Fuji lens is the XF90 F2.0 which would focal length be in the ballpark of what I want (135mm effective), but it's too big. They need to make an F2.8/F3.5 smaller version of that.

Also waiting to see what an "X-E4" or "X-T40" would look like. The XT30 has a size overlap with the m43rds Olympus OMD's at several focals.

Sadly the X-E4 has been killed off, according to the reputable fuji rumors site :/

Actually the X-E4 according to that very site was revived apparently. Though I can't blame Fuji for killing it having the XTxx line. I am ok with the XTxx since since it has a tilt LCD< but an X-E4 with a tilt LCD like the Xpro3 would be nice.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[Raist3d]

I like how you're thinking specific to your needs here. I'm right there with you.

Fuji is winning me over. I could fully switch to them if just a couple things go certain ways in the next year. I love their philosophy and design sensibilities. They're catching up in the video and stabilization departments, and advancing with their sensor tech more than m43.

they don't make a small lens equivalent to 75mm F1.8 Olympus. When they do I may go back.

Not sure what you mean here. Pictured is the 75 Oly flanked by the XF 50 f2 and the XF 56 1.2. Both are brighter than the Oly, and similar in size +/-

But the focal length of tha lenses is completely different compared to the Oly 75mm. You need a 100mm lens to match the field of view of the 75mm on m43

Oh right, my mistake. I was thinking of the 42/45 portrait lenses. That 150mm equivalent FoV is something I never think about!

Well, the 90mm f2 (135 f2.8) Fuji is highly regarded. Definitely bigger tho.

Yup, there you go. IT is the right focal length equivalent I want but too big. Not carrying that around.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[James Stirling]

Mirrorless APS-C seems like terrible value for money to me.

Snip

-J

1. They have Sigma primes "above basic glass". They also have the EF-M 22 f/2, EF-M 32 f/1.4 and EF-M 11-22, all of which are excellent.

2. I already pointed out they are missing a good, workhorse standard zoom.

Though they need to be adapted I believe from reading the reviews that the Canon EF adapter is excellent. It does open up the EF-S zooms such as the 17-55mm F/2.8 or cheaper Sigma / Tamron variants all cheaper than the m43 F/2.8 options. Adapters are only a faff when the don't work well. I use the Nikon FTZ adapter with various F-mount lenses and the performance is plenty good enough for me.

As the focal lengths and lens size grows the adapter makes up a lesser percentage of the volume. Adding an adapter to the 40mm pancake doubles the size , if you adapt something like the 100-400mm L IS the adapter adds relatively little to the overall bulk.

It is unfortunate that unlike Nikon and Sony that Canon gave their APS mirrorless a different mount. While UWA/wide lenses lose out due to the crop factor the tele lenses gain the RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 L IS would have been interesting on an APS

3. Wake me when we have compact, affordable m4/3 f/1.4 or f/1.7 WR primes. It's a huge miss.

--
Jim Stirling:
Wittgenstein : Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Feel free to tinker with any images I post

 

[James Stirling]

No, but 7 years after switching from 35mm format to MFT, I’ve once again added 35mm format to my kit. In my estimation, the two systems are more complementary than APS & 35mm.

I would second that FF and m43 makes for a very complimentary set up. The only significant advantage of APS is if you use a FF camera that shares the same mount you can share lenses . A big downside for APS is that as FF MP count grows the higher mp models such as my Z7 , Sony A7r series are throwing in an APS camera in DX mode

Yeah, I keep thinking I should add an a6xxx alongside my a7[x] bodies, but once I mount the 35mm-format lenses, it’s still a bigger & heavier kit than my GX9. If I’m willing to carry the bigger lenses, I’m also willing to carry the a7[x] body. My use-case configs are as follows:

1. No-compromise travel/walkabout: a7R3 & 24-105/4, maybe primes, too
2. Lightweight walkabout for poster-size prints: GX9 & 14-140, maybe a prime or two.
3. Lightweight casual snaps, especially social stuff indoors: LX100
4. Ultralight: iPhone XS
5. Do-everything disposable just-in-case knockabout: FZ1000 bought for $300.

That pretty much covers it. The notion that there’s one “best” camera seems silly.

I am in the same boat though I am on the Nikon Z camp now. While clearly plenty of folk love them I could not take to the Sony ergonomics. Luckily the TZE-01 adapter allowed me to carry on using my favourite Sony lenses. I just joined the ranks of reasonable phone camera after my daughter gave me here "outdated" Samsung S9+

My wife uses a Sony rx100v and while , it really does not work ergonomically for my gorilla hands. It offers very decent image quality in a truly tiny package. The FZ1000 I have since it came out is a great travel camera and especially good for video [ if you like that kind of thing } . The only small fly in the ointment of the 1" cameras is that most of them have somewhat poor lenses other than the RX10IV. I guess when you cram so much into such a tiny package that something has to give. They do pack in a huge feature set

 

[Keithpictures]

I like how you're thinking specific to your needs here. I'm right there with you.

Fuji is winning me over. I could fully switch to them if just a couple things go certain ways in the next year. I love their philosophy and design sensibilities. They're catching up in the video and stabilization departments, and advancing with their sensor tech more than m43.

they don't make a small lens equivalent to 75mm F1.8 Olympus. When they do I may go back.

Not sure what you mean here. Pictured is the 75 Oly flanked by the XF 50 f2 and the XF 56 1.2. Both are brighter than the Oly, and similar in size +/-

But the focal length of tha lenses is completely different compared to the Oly 75mm. You need a 100mm lens to match the field of view of the 75mm on m43

Oh right, my mistake. I was thinking of the 42/45 portrait lenses. That 150mm equivalent FoV is something I never think about!

Well, the 90mm f2 (135 f2.8) Fuji is highly regarded. Definitely bigger tho.

Yup, there you go. IT is the right focal length equivalent I want but too big. Not carrying that around.

Understandable. Have a great day!

--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Keithpictures]

I like how you're thinking specific to your needs here. I'm right there with you.

Fuji is winning me over. I could fully switch to them if just a couple things go certain ways in the next year. I love their philosophy and design sensibilities. They're catching up in the video and stabilization departments, and advancing with their sensor tech more than m43.

they don't make a small lens equivalent to 75mm F1.8 Olympus. When they do I may go back.

Not sure what you mean here. Pictured is the 75 Oly flanked by the XF 50 f2 and the XF 56 1.2. Both are brighter than the Oly, and similar in size +/-

Sadly the X-E4 has been killed off, according to the reputable fuji rumors site :/

Actually the X-E4 according to that very site was revived apparently. Though I can't blame Fuji for killing it having the XTxx line. I am ok with the XTxx since since it has a tilt LCD< but an X-E4 with a tilt LCD like the Xpro3 would be nice.

Agreed. I'd be very curious to see what's included/excluded from a possible new X-E. The X-Txx doesn't handle well for me

--
https://www.instagram.com/keithpictures/

 

[Henry Richardson]

I will say that at my age I don`t do large prints ( the walls are full up anyway) so can`t compare how APC would stack up against M4/3rds on large prints but I am amazed at the crop ability of the images.

I have a 20mp body and 16mp bodies. Personally, I do not care much which ones I use based on megapixel count. See this thread from 2018:

National Geographic photo gallery big prints

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138

Yesterday I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. It is very similar to the Peter Lik galleries with dim lighting, black walls, and big, beautiful, glossy, very well lit photos. Of course, they are trying to sell them so the presentation is very nice. The info for each photo was a short caption, location, year, name of photographer, and the size in meters (longest dimension) of the print. The smallest prints were 1 meter and the largest prints were 3 meters, but most were 1.5 and 2 meters. Most of the photos were taken 2004-2015, but I saw one that was in 1999 and another in 2002. A few of the photos were landscapes, but mostly animals in Africa and elsewhere. A few photos included people, but not many. I guess it is harder to sell people photos. Of course, they all looked wonderful and I think the prices are pretty high.

No mention of the camera gear used, but I suspect most of them were taken with DSLRs since the bulk of the photos were 2004-2015 of animals, often in Africa. National Geographic galleries believe they have enough megapixels to print 2 and 3 meter prints from DSLRs made even 14-15 years ago.

https://www.natgeofineart.com/

I think all the worry by some about whether a 20mp or 16mp (or even 12mp) m4/3 file is sufficient for fairly large prints is rather ridiculous.

Actually, most of the worry I see sometimes here about print size is asking about making something like 24x30 or 30x40 inch prints -- that is 0.762 meter or 1.016 meter prints. Just a very small number of the National Geographic prints were 1 meter. Almost all were 1.5 and 2 meters, but several were 3 meters. So, above where I say 'fairly large' that is not really correct. Most people asking and worrying about print sizes here are talking about the smallest or even smaller prints than what they have at the National Geographic photo gallery.

If you don't remember what were the common, high end Nikon and Canon DSLRs back in 2003, 2004, 2005 era that were probably used for many of the photos from 2004, 2005, and 2006 then look back and see. Nikon was selling only APS-C models, but Canon had FF, APS-H, and APS-C. And the megapixel counts would seem modest compared to current m4/3.

Later I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. In it there was a mention that their prints start at $4600. This 2010 one is $4900:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63169520

This 2007 one is $6750:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64219750

I think you missed my main point really Henry , I was saying basically use what you feel more comfortable with and has the feature set you like.

I was agreeing with you. Some people don't like to be agreed with though.

 

[VMorrissey]

Has anyone gone back to APSC from M4/3s and if you have are you happy with your decision?

Never left. They (formats) all serve their purpose

 

[VMorrissey]

Mirrorless APS-C seems like terrible value for money to me.

Take-away food seems like terrible value for money to me.

 

[Landscapephoto99]

Even Fuji which is touted to give the best IQ only seems to give a marginal improvement in IQ. FF will give a real improvement of a stop or two, but only in some circumstances and at a heavy cost in terms of weight and money.

 

[Raist3d]

Even Fuji which is touted to give the best IQ only seems to give a marginal improvement in IQ.

fuji Govea about 1 stop improvement from what I have seen at least 2/3 And then you also get more resution whether that’s important to you or not it’s a different question also fuji has better b/w for having more green photo sensors ratio than Bayer

This idea that m43 to apsc fuji is a negligible difference it’s a myth it’s there not as much as a jump to FF but it’s there and the system still keeps a smaller size for several radicals

plus you get other fuji perks like Jpegs and if you like their handling their approach to that

FF will give a real improvement of a stop or two, but only in some circumstances and at a heavy cost in terms of weight and money.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

 

[robgendreau]

Has anyone gone back to APSC from M4/3s and if you have are you happy with your decision?

I shoot with full-frame, APS-C and m43, and to be honest I think the IQ difference is overblown. This is of course highly subjective, but when I hear the term "blown away" and then see the evidence, it just seems like hyperbole to me. In the end, the Quality of Image (QI) will always be more important than Image Quality (IQ). For example, I'm not a bird photographer, but IMO the best bird photography I've seen has been in this forum. Whereas a 60 megapixel cat photo is still just a cat photo, regardless of IQ (disclaimer: there are and have been excellent cat photos, my favorite of which is quite blurry).

I recently sold an APS-C, but I use full frame and M43 now. And I agree. When I'm sorting through old images unless I'm doing certain prints for certain spaces (pretty rare now) I never even notice when I'm moving around through 50k images or so. And in any case, the density of pixels among the different sized sensors might matter more in that case, or whether it's pixel shift, stacked images, panos, etc too.

The vaunted dynamic range? meh. Other factors usually made more of a difference.

I'd still prefer the FF over the M43 for certain tasks and vice versa, just as I choose different lenses.

So for some of us, the question is about as relevant as optical vs EVF, IBIS or OIS, flash or none, 4k or 1080P, 25mm or 40mm, zoom or prime, morning or evening, shutter or aperture, etc etc etc.

I do realize some have to sell a body to get the Body of the Day, and not keep stuff and use different systems. But jeez, I just got finished using an E-P5 for a bunch of shots with a Pentax-M 200mm F4 and was amazed at the results. Together they might cost as much as the new cards and a battery for the latest and greatest bodies out there.

 

[plantdoc]

Also, used the M system and collection of M lenses. Not bad for my non action pics but the lens limitations were clear. No really excellent and reliable standard zoom or telephoto. Used several higher quality apsc lenses and adapter. Worked fine but awkward. M 4/3 Is just a more complete system and IQ differences were small for me. If you already invested in Canon lenses, the M system can be fine. But, if starting from scratch and want compact , light then M 4/3 . Note, I rarely use primes, so not a consideration. Even selling my collection of 4/3 primes for lack of use

Greg