Fuji X still can't work as my travel camera

[g7_chord]

My preferred camera is my X-T4 with about 8 or 9 lenses, zooms and primes. But I recently got an OM System OM-5 as a travel camera that usually has a pancake zoom on it (14-42 EX, equivalent to full-frame 28-84). It makes a very small package. (A phone isn't suitable as a travel camera for me.)

It turns out that the X-T50 body is about the same size as the OM-5 (even smaller, I think), and the X-M5 much smaller yet. But, neither can be my travel camera, because the Fuji lenses are way too big, except for a few primes the longest of which is 27mm. No pancake zooms at all. I realize that APS-C lenses generally have to be bigger than MFT lenses, because the sensors are bigger. (If a prime would suit me for travel, I would have kept my X100F.)

I'm somewhat perplexed by all the talk about the new compact Fuji cameras, which considers only the body. You need a lens, too! I'd get an X-T50, but I can't think of how I could actually use it. (If I needed a sensor with more resolution, I'd get an X-T5. Cost isn't a factor.)

If only Fuji would make a pancake zoom! What I'd really like to see is the 18-55 kit lens being replaced by an 18-55 pancake. Seems to me that it would be a perfect match for the X-T50.

I realize that others don't care if the lens protrudes, but such a lens prevents the camera from fitting in a large pocket or a very small shoulder bag. My OM-5 with that pancake zoom fits easily.

--Marc

 

[grangler]

I totally hear you. There is the XC 15-45, which I'm curious about trying, but haven't, and a lot of people hate the electronic zoom. https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/products/lenses/xc15-45mmf35-56-ois-pz/

I usually bring 2 bodies - an X-T1 or X-T2 with the 27mm WR pancake, and the X-T3 with the 16-80 f4. It works for me, but, of course, smaller would be nice.

Are you unhappy with the image quality of the OM-5?

 

[g7_chord]

Are you unhappy with the image quality of the OM-5?

Very happy. I like the camera a lot, and sometimes I put on the lens cap fisheye. Great for crowded street scenes.

But I would prefer only one system instead of two. And, if my travel camera were a Fuji X, then I would have two bodies available when weight and size aren't issues (e.g., with my car nearby).

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

You seem to be after small size. But if you just want light weight in APSC, a Canon R10, 18-150, and 11-22 is only about 850 grams.

 

[DJF55]

You seem to be after small size. But if you just want light weight in APSC, a Canon R10, 18-150, and 11-22 is only about 850 grams.

I understand the OP to mean size (bulk), and not weight.

--
DJF

 

[musicshootr]

It would also be nice if Fuji would get their act together and make more than a handful of 27mm f2.8s a year.

 

[g7_chord]

You seem to be after small size. But if you just want light weight in APSC, a Canon R10, 18-150, and 11-22 is only about 850 grams.

Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I said that I did already have a perfect travel camera. What I would also like to have is one system and not two.

 

[g7_chord]

I understand the OP to mean size (bulk), and not weight.

Right.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Each person make their own choices but the difference in size looks to me too modest for the inconvenience of two systems.

 

[g7_chord]

Each person make their own choices but the difference in size looks to me too modest for the inconvenience of two systems.

Are you looking at bodies? Instead, compare the size of the collapsed Olympus 14-42 EZ to any Fuji X zoom. The 14-42 EZ protrudes 7/8" and, for example, the 18-55 zoom (kit lens) protrudes 2 3/4". This difference is significant to me.

As I said, the OM-5 and X-T50 bodies are about the same size. With a pancake 27mm, the X-T50 would be about the same size as the OM-5, but, as I said, a prime doesn't work for me as a traveling lens.

 

[NikonBiologist]

Each person make their own choices but the difference in size looks to me too modest for the inconvenience of two systems.

Are you looking at bodies? Instead, compare the size of the collapsed Olympus 14-42 EZ to any Fuji X zoom. The 14-42 EZ protrudes 7/8" and, for example, the 18-55 zoom (kit lens) protrudes 2 3/4". This difference is significant to me.

As I said, the OM-5 and X-T50 bodies are about the same size. With a pancake 27mm, the X-T50 would be about the same size as the OM-5, but, as I said, a prime doesn't work for me as a traveling lens.

--
Marc

this is funny in a coincidental way I am going to sell my e-m5 iii and lenses for a Fuji setup (likely x-s10). But the lenses I will use are marginally smaller on Fuji, so it really depends what you want to use. I am trading the Olympus 17 1.8 and 12-45 pro lens for the Fuji 27 f2.8 and 16-50 2.8-4.8 lens. The Fuji weight is a little heavier but size is a little smaller. Once you get into Olympus pro lenses, size comparisons are a bit different. It just depends what you need. Enjoy!

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

You seem to be after small size. But if you just want light weight in APSC, a Canon R10, 18-150, and 11-22 is only about 850 grams.

Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I said that I did already have a perfect travel camera. What I would also like to have is one system and not two.

Well, in the X system, the smallest you will get with a zoom is the XE, XTxx, or now XM series body, paired with the 15-45, 18-55 or 16-50. If you're willing to go larger, the new 16-55, 16-80, or 18-135.

I have been traveling with the Tamron 18-300, which is a fantastic all-in-one, but it weighs 620 grams. I've even been thinking about going back to OM with an OM5. I have owned the EM5II and PEN-F, so I know what I'm getting into.

But I've shelved that for now, and will travel on our trip coming up this week with the XE4 and 18-135. Plus the Rokinon 12 for UWA.

I have small hands and was most impressed holding the Sony EV-10II in the store. It felt good in hand, and Sony's 18-135 only weighs in at 325 grams. But I have huge reservations about trying to get stills out of that camera without getting frustrated with the video-centric purpose, design and controls.

I was equally impressed with how lightweight the Canon R10 can be. Feels bulky and plasticky in my hands, though. But I also owned the M6 II for a while and loved everything about it except the difference in image quality between it and Fujifilm.

I mostly shoot nature when we travel, so what most consider travel cameras (fixed lens compacts or zooms like the Sony RX-100 series) won't work for me. I need some reach and I prefer the IQ of larger sensors.

On paper, the OM5 really does tick all of the boxes. I'll see how I feel after returning from this trip.

 

[g7_chord]

Once you get into Olympus pro lenses, size comparisons are a bit different.

Right. The only MFT lenses I'm interested in for traveling are the pancakes. For anything else, my system is Fuji X. In fact, I just pre-ordered the new Fuji 16-55 f2.8.

--
Marc

 

[RWN Photo]

After way over a decade with Olympus and OM gear, I would agree that the E-M5 with the 14-42 EZ is WAY smaller of a travel kit than your X-T4 and 8 or 9 lenses...

 

[JC_123]

You should check out that new XF 16-50mm. It's 2.8". Hardly telescopes at all, so I'm sure it stays below 3".

If that's really too big for you yes I would recommend M4/3 or a point & shoot like the RX100.

 

[g7_chord]

You should check out that new XF 16-50mm. It's 2.8". Hardly telescopes at all, so I'm sure it stays below 3".
If that's really too big for you yes I would recommend M4/3 or a point & shoot like the RX100.

Yes, that would be too big. My limit for lens protrusion would be about an inch.

I had an RX100 a few years ago. I'm certainly not about to replace my MFT travel system!

(In my OP, I wasn't looking for recommendations. I was explaining why Fuji X still can't work as my travel camera even though there are now excellent small bodies.)

--
Marc

 

[g7_chord]

NOW I'VE RECONSIDERED!

Everything I said in my OP is still true, except that I started to think: What if I didn't have a pancake zoom, but only the pancake 27mm prime?

A zoom of some sort could stay in my hotel room if I really needed a camera/lens as small as my MFT, and the prime would be OK for most shooting. If I really needed something longer (or wider), it might not be too bad to have a larger setup from time-to-time.

Then I noticed the new collapsible XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6, which seems to be only about 1 3/4 inches when collapsed, only double the Olympus 14-42EZ. That might even fit in my small shoulder bag, maybe even in a large pocket. I'll have to see. (I ordered that 27mm pancake, too, and it should arrive in a few weeks.)

And, it turns out that an X-T50 with that 15-45 is available now, no waiting. So, I've ordered it, and maybe it would actually work as my travel camera. If so, all the MFT gear can be sold, and I have my one system!

Thanks for all of you who went back-and-forth with me in this thread. That really caused me to rethink things.

--
Marc

 

[NikonBiologist]

You should check out that new XF 16-50mm. It's 2.8". Hardly telescopes at all, so I'm sure it stays below 3".
If that's really too big for you yes I would recommend M4/3 or a point & shoot like the RX100.

Reports say it's internal zooming, so yah should stay the same size.

 

[musicshootr]

I'm shocked you could find the 27. I've looked unsuccessfully for years for one.

 

[g7_chord]

I'm shocked you could find the 27. I've looked unsuccessfully for years for one.

Adorama says expected availability is Nov. 16, and they accepted my order. I think one could look in vain for one in stock.