Even the bigger m43rds are small and light...

Here's compared with the Nikon Z6 and 105mm macro.

The 105mm macro is lighter than it looks

m43rds is also light on the wallet, as you can buy the m43rds kit for about the same price as the Nikon body.

So you'll still have cash left over to get some nice extra kit:

Yes, there is a Raynox 150 sandwiched somewhere in there...

Which will allow you to take well lit, ISO200@f11 shots regardless of how overcast the sky is:

Just remember that by f11 you are deep in the difraction teritory with m43rds, so stick with f8 or larger if the subject allows for maximum crispness of details.

And keep your sensor clean if you don't want to spend the evening cloning dust bunnies :D.

a longer lens that is made for a sensor 4 times as big is larger..... well bugger me!

Yes, and this is

Canon R6 + 14-35mm f4L (1.220g)

vs.

OM-1 + 7-14mm f2.8 PRO (1.133g)

Just today, on our way to a high tea our kids bought us, we walked past a string of designer shops and there among them, was the Sydney Leica Store.  I didn't know there even was such a thing.  Not another camera store in sight.  Decore was pollished wood minimalism with just a few offerrings on the back wall.  Pride of place at eye level in the middle of the huge shopfront was what I took to be a Leica SL.  What an imposing beast that was.  I could never imagine sticking that thing in a backpack for a hiking holidays.  Strictly studio only I expect.

Indeed, there is plenty of overlap and you can build interesting kits that are comparable in size and capability in most fully developed systems these days.

One of the thing that I like about m43 is that for plenty of lenses you have the bright/expensive/bulky/built like a tank option and the slim/affordable/somewhat smaller apperture/light options.

These seem to be lacking in FF and APS-C these days, especially in the fix focal lengths.

A_Mist wrote:

Yes, and this is

Canon R6 + 14-35mm f4L (1.220g)

vs.

OM-1 + 7-14mm f2.8 PRO (1.133g)

People often do this to make a point in a "comparison", they put a lens hood on the m4/3 camera and choose the largest such m4/3 lens. The 8-25 seems very viable. Personally, in UWA I use the 8mm FE, which doubles in several different ways. It is much smaller for hiking, backpacking, etc.

It all depends on what characteristic is more important to the person that does the comparison.

Is it how much focal length does the lens cover? Is it the aperture? Is it the pricetag? There are rarely perfect comparisons...

StefanSC wrote:

It all depends on what characteristic is more important to the person that does the comparison.

Is it how much focal length does the lens cover? Is it the aperture? Is it the pricetag? There are rarely perfect comparisons...

Exactly. It is you who titled this thread ”Even the bigger m43rds are small and light...”. No they are not.

Gary from Seattle wrote:

A_Mist wrote:

Yes, and this is

Canon R6 + 14-35mm f4L (1.220g)

vs.

OM-1 + 7-14mm f2.8 PRO (1.133g)

People often do this to make a point in a "comparison", they put a lens hood on the m4/3 camera and choose the largest such m4/3 lens. The 8-25 seems very viable. Personally, in UWA I use the 8mm FE, which doubles in several different ways. It is much smaller for hiking, backpacking, etc.

MZ 7-14/2.8 has fixed lens hood. There’s nothing I can do about it.

StefanSC wrote:

neither do i, but it is designed for a larger image circle and hence it's size

This is mainly lens dependent, you haven't proved your contention at all.

The ML lens ranges on FF are large, whatever the vendor. But, if you slum it with dslr, you can have a pretty wide range of sizes.

Had you made the contention that SOME m43 lenses that do the same kind-of job as FF ones, are smaller and lighter, then that's defensible. If you choose some of the larger/wider/"pro" m43 lenses, then the body size differences aren't so significant either with FF or with dinky m43 bodies, and I'd run with ergonomics and other functionality in those circumstances.

JohnnyLuddite wrote:

This is mainly lens dependent, you haven't proved your contention at all.

The ML lens ranges on FF are large, whatever the vendor. But, if you slum it with dslr, you can have a pretty wide range of sizes.

Had you made the contention that SOME m43 lenses that do the same kind-of job as FF ones, are smaller and lighter, then that's defensible. If you choose some of the larger/wider/"pro" m43 lenses, then the body size differences aren't so significant either with FF or with dinky m43 bodies, and I'd run with ergonomics and other functionality in those circumstances.

You are right, the ergonomics and vast features of the EM-1X make it a terrific body. But I won't carry it more than about ten miles on any day.