S
Sqrt2
Guest
Warning: long post ahead!
As a young person (21) who chose MFT as their ILC system of choice, you might be wondering what led me to this decision. After all, even if FF is too bulky for me, surely there is an APS-C system out there that would meet my needs as well as MFT could, right?
I have been researching APS-C systems and comparing them to MFT and to one another for months, and my conclusions always led me back to MFT as the ideal system for my use case.
Before I start, I should mention that I almost exclusively shoot long focal lengths, from 60mm to 1000mm eqiv, and that is why smartphones can't cut it for me: even phones with a dedicated telephoto use a tiny sensor behind that lens (1/2- to 1/4-type), and will never match the IQ and flexibility of a telephoto zoom lens for an ILC.
================================
First, I would like to get this straight: the difference between an MFT sensor's and an APS-C sensor's size is nowhere near that of between the latter's and Full Frame's:
MFT = 225 mm^2
Canon's APS-C = 330 mm^2
Other's APS-C = 370 mm^2
Full Frame = 860 mm^2
If we divide a FF sensor's area by an APS-C sensor's, we get 2.32, or 2.6 for Canon. Meaning a Full Frame sensor is over twice the area of an APS-C sensor.
In contrast, if we do the same for APS-C and MFT, we get 1.64, or 1.46 for Canon. Meaning an APS-C sensor is just about 50% larger than an MFT sensor.
That is why, when comparing FF and APS-C lenses, I will apply a stop's factor to the aperture, but when comparing the latter with MFT lenses, I will apply just half a stop.
In addition, I would like to mention this graph I got from Photons to Photos, and explore its implications:
This graph compares the DR of my Lumix G9, and a contemporary APS-C camera, the Sony A6700
If we take the graph at face value, it means my Lumix G9, which possesses an MFT sensor, has identical dynamic range to one of the most well regarded APS-C cameras, the Sony A6700. The implications of this would be huge: if an MFT camera has the dynamic range of an APS-C camera, there would be no need to apply a crop factor to the apertures at all when comparing their lenses. Despite that, when proceeding, I will apply half a stop of equivalence, just in case the graph is misleading.
================================
Next, I will be comparing each extant mirrorless APS-C system to MFT, and compare them.
Let's begin with the hardest APS-C system to justify buying into (lol), Canon RF-S.
First thing first, I have absolutely nothing against Canon or their users. I actually were one of their users for years.
The Canon APS-C camera lineup consists of the mediocre R100, the brilliant R50, the excellent R10 (which I used to own), and the flagship-grade R7. I have no doubt the R10 and R7 can keep up with any Sony, Fujifilm, or MFT camera out there, and they represent excellent value for money.
However, the situation changes immediatly once we start looking at lens choices. As for dedicated RF-S glass, there are currently only four lenses, among them one of the most badly-designed kit lenses of recent times, the RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 . For some bizarre reason, the lens is perhaps the slowest kit lens out there, while only starting at 18mm, and is still significantly bigger than its primary competitor, the Nikon Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 . Apart from those four zooms, Canon seems fixated on the idea that I should put bulky FF glass on my APS-C camera, and famously banned any AF third-party lenses from its mount.
As for why FF glass on APS-C bodies makes no sense, let me show here three examples:
In this example, we can see the 100-400mm lens that Tony Northrup recommended to mount on the R10 and R7 to get into super-telephoto territory, compared to the Lumix 100-300, with a far faster aperture to boot (remember we are mounting the 100-400mm on an APS-C body). The Canon 100-400 is also the most economical telephoto Canon makes, at about 700$, but still breaks the bank (and the back!) compared to the Panasonic's 300$ price tag.
Here we can see how big (and expensive!) Canon's means of getting the R10 to 800mm eqiv is, compared to the Panasonic equivalent, which again is slightly faster as well.
At the extreme end of this, we see how comically large a telephoto f/2.8 prime for the R10 would be, compared to the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 (which is a slightly shorter focal length, though).
================================
Next, Nikon Z DX currently has three bodies to choose from, the EVF-less Z30, the Z50 with no fully-articulating screen, and the retro-inspired ZFC.
Internally, they are the same camera, but with a decent but outpaced 10fps burst, and 4k30 8-bit video. What I pointed out is the main weakness, of the system: it's bodies can't really compete with like of the R10, the A6700, and the XS20. In contarst, even my 6-year-old Lumix G9 can easily compete with the newer APS-C cameras I just mentioned.
Glass-wise, the situation is far better than Canon, despite the relative lack of Nikon Z DX glass, due to a fair amount of third-party support: Sigma, 7Artisans, and Sirui all have made excellent AF primes for the system. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, I mostly shoot long telephotos, and the third-party support is nearly non-existent at this focal lengths.
Again, the main super-telephoto zoom for the Z50 dwarfs the Lumix 100-300 in size, because it was designed not for the Z50, but for FF bodies.
Nikon has indeed introduced far more telephoto glass than Canon did in recent years, yet none particularly make sense for an APS-C body.
================================
Now, before we dive into Sony's E-mount, I would like to mention that apart from the ZVE10 and A6700, Sony's APS-C bodies were all introduced at least three years ago, and Sony is notorious for not providing firmware updates for its cameras.
Meaning, if I were to make the mistake of buying an A6400 and expecting modern performance, I would instead be greeted with the worst menu system known to humankind, and AF which was class leading when introduced, but lacks the modern subject recognition modes that newer cameras have.
In contrast, not only did the G9 have an actually navigable menu out-of-the-box, but received firmware updates from Panasonic for years, making it practically a new camera.
Sony's APS-C bodies consist of the brand-new A6700, the beginner-friendly ZVE10, the video-oriented FX30, and the bodies released years ago, the A6600 and its predecessors.
Of these, only the A6700 and FX30 are even remotely comparable to even the G9, let alone the OM1 and G9-2, in their capabilities. The A6700 (which does not have dual card slots for some reason, despite the price) comes the closest, with a fully-articulating-screen, an EVF, and 4k60 full-width, as well as 4k120 cropped.
However, if I wanted to capture action with it I would be out of luck as the A6700's fastest burst rate is a mere 11fps, regardless of what shutter mode it uses. In addition, knowing from Sony's FF cameras, it is possible that it would slow down even further if I mounted a third-party lens on it.
As for glass, Sony has one of the best lens ecosystems out there, owing to a large degree on the many third-party lenses. Yet, If I were to desire a long telephoto, the only dedicated APS-C lens from Sony would be the 70-350mm, which is fairly large for an APS-C lens:
As we can see, a slightly-faster Panasonic 45-200 is far smaller than the Sony 70-350 .
Other than that, most lenses are largely competitive size wise.
================================
Finally, let's look at perhaps the best-regarded APS-C system on the market, Fujifilm X-mount.
Fuji's mount is the only APS-C mount that is not shared with FF bodies, giving it the rare advantage of an actual dedicated lens ecosystem, similarly to MFT.
Bodies wise, Fuji's most important for me are the XT-30 II (for its size) and the XS20 (for its performance). Unlike the A6700, the XS20 is capable of shooting at 20fps, or 30fps with a crop, making it (as well as its more expensive relatives) the only APS-C cameras capable of keeping up with the R10 and R7, while also supporting third-party lenses.
However, Fuji's AF, for all the improvements it got over the years, is still somewhat behind the industry's best (Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic), and the IBIS is also somewhat worse in video compared to Panasonic, OM, and Nikon.
There is also the issue that a lot of Fuji gear, as a result of online hype, got more expensive than it should have been, raising the barrier to entry.
Glass wise, Fuji glass is known to be among the best-made for APS-C, but also very expensive. The latter is somewhat mitigated by the wide third-party support, with lenses such as the godly Sigma f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, as well as from 7Artisans, Sirui, and Viltrox.
In addition, Fuji is perhaps the only manufaturer with a fair amount of APS-C telephotos to choose from. Despite that, these telephotos tend to be not only extremely expensive, but also far bigger than any comparable APS-C or MFT lenses, often more similar to FF lenses in size.
Let's look at the following examples:
The Fuji 100-400 is so bulky, that a Full-Frame Sigma 100-400 is similar in size (and half the price). As a result, Sigma actually did port the lens to X-mount, despite it being a FF lens. Here they both are next to the Panasonic 100-300 .
Here we can see Fuji's enourmous equivalent of a 70-200 FF lens, next to Panasonic's equivalent.
Even the "double-kit-lens filler" medium telephoto is this big, next to a Panasonic lens that is an entire stop faster on the long end (which easily makes up for equivalnce).
Same conclusion from the 100-400 FF equiv lenses.
At the most extreme, we get the "Big White Sharp" 200mm f/2, next to the closest MFT equivalents. Notice the 150 would require a FT-MFT adapter, while the 75 would require a teleconverter, assuming it's compatible with one.
Lastly, let's look at what is supposed to be a tiny kit lens. Instead, it's far bigger than the MFT equivalent, as well as many other APS-C kit lenses.
================================
In contrast to all those APS-C systems we looked at, MFT easily checks all boxes for me:
A "crop" sensor system, with lenses much smaller than FF, with many third-party lenses, with many compact telephotos, at easily reache-able prices, and with bodies ranging from the tiny GM1, to the flagship G9-2.
For whoever read through my ramble, I hope you found this useful, and maybe, just maybe, I will stop seeing people compare APS-C to FF, but MFT to smatphones.
As a young person (21) who chose MFT as their ILC system of choice, you might be wondering what led me to this decision. After all, even if FF is too bulky for me, surely there is an APS-C system out there that would meet my needs as well as MFT could, right?
I have been researching APS-C systems and comparing them to MFT and to one another for months, and my conclusions always led me back to MFT as the ideal system for my use case.
Before I start, I should mention that I almost exclusively shoot long focal lengths, from 60mm to 1000mm eqiv, and that is why smartphones can't cut it for me: even phones with a dedicated telephoto use a tiny sensor behind that lens (1/2- to 1/4-type), and will never match the IQ and flexibility of a telephoto zoom lens for an ILC.
================================
First, I would like to get this straight: the difference between an MFT sensor's and an APS-C sensor's size is nowhere near that of between the latter's and Full Frame's:
MFT = 225 mm^2
Canon's APS-C = 330 mm^2
Other's APS-C = 370 mm^2
Full Frame = 860 mm^2
If we divide a FF sensor's area by an APS-C sensor's, we get 2.32, or 2.6 for Canon. Meaning a Full Frame sensor is over twice the area of an APS-C sensor.
In contrast, if we do the same for APS-C and MFT, we get 1.64, or 1.46 for Canon. Meaning an APS-C sensor is just about 50% larger than an MFT sensor.
That is why, when comparing FF and APS-C lenses, I will apply a stop's factor to the aperture, but when comparing the latter with MFT lenses, I will apply just half a stop.
In addition, I would like to mention this graph I got from Photons to Photos, and explore its implications:
This graph compares the DR of my Lumix G9, and a contemporary APS-C camera, the Sony A6700
If we take the graph at face value, it means my Lumix G9, which possesses an MFT sensor, has identical dynamic range to one of the most well regarded APS-C cameras, the Sony A6700. The implications of this would be huge: if an MFT camera has the dynamic range of an APS-C camera, there would be no need to apply a crop factor to the apertures at all when comparing their lenses. Despite that, when proceeding, I will apply half a stop of equivalence, just in case the graph is misleading.
================================
Next, I will be comparing each extant mirrorless APS-C system to MFT, and compare them.
Let's begin with the hardest APS-C system to justify buying into (lol), Canon RF-S.
First thing first, I have absolutely nothing against Canon or their users. I actually were one of their users for years.
The Canon APS-C camera lineup consists of the mediocre R100, the brilliant R50, the excellent R10 (which I used to own), and the flagship-grade R7. I have no doubt the R10 and R7 can keep up with any Sony, Fujifilm, or MFT camera out there, and they represent excellent value for money.
However, the situation changes immediatly once we start looking at lens choices. As for dedicated RF-S glass, there are currently only four lenses, among them one of the most badly-designed kit lenses of recent times, the RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 . For some bizarre reason, the lens is perhaps the slowest kit lens out there, while only starting at 18mm, and is still significantly bigger than its primary competitor, the Nikon Z DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 . Apart from those four zooms, Canon seems fixated on the idea that I should put bulky FF glass on my APS-C camera, and famously banned any AF third-party lenses from its mount.
As for why FF glass on APS-C bodies makes no sense, let me show here three examples:
In this example, we can see the 100-400mm lens that Tony Northrup recommended to mount on the R10 and R7 to get into super-telephoto territory, compared to the Lumix 100-300, with a far faster aperture to boot (remember we are mounting the 100-400mm on an APS-C body). The Canon 100-400 is also the most economical telephoto Canon makes, at about 700$, but still breaks the bank (and the back!) compared to the Panasonic's 300$ price tag.
Here we can see how big (and expensive!) Canon's means of getting the R10 to 800mm eqiv is, compared to the Panasonic equivalent, which again is slightly faster as well.
At the extreme end of this, we see how comically large a telephoto f/2.8 prime for the R10 would be, compared to the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 (which is a slightly shorter focal length, though).
================================
Next, Nikon Z DX currently has three bodies to choose from, the EVF-less Z30, the Z50 with no fully-articulating screen, and the retro-inspired ZFC.
Internally, they are the same camera, but with a decent but outpaced 10fps burst, and 4k30 8-bit video. What I pointed out is the main weakness, of the system: it's bodies can't really compete with like of the R10, the A6700, and the XS20. In contarst, even my 6-year-old Lumix G9 can easily compete with the newer APS-C cameras I just mentioned.
Glass-wise, the situation is far better than Canon, despite the relative lack of Nikon Z DX glass, due to a fair amount of third-party support: Sigma, 7Artisans, and Sirui all have made excellent AF primes for the system. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, I mostly shoot long telephotos, and the third-party support is nearly non-existent at this focal lengths.
Again, the main super-telephoto zoom for the Z50 dwarfs the Lumix 100-300 in size, because it was designed not for the Z50, but for FF bodies.
Nikon has indeed introduced far more telephoto glass than Canon did in recent years, yet none particularly make sense for an APS-C body.
================================
Now, before we dive into Sony's E-mount, I would like to mention that apart from the ZVE10 and A6700, Sony's APS-C bodies were all introduced at least three years ago, and Sony is notorious for not providing firmware updates for its cameras.
Meaning, if I were to make the mistake of buying an A6400 and expecting modern performance, I would instead be greeted with the worst menu system known to humankind, and AF which was class leading when introduced, but lacks the modern subject recognition modes that newer cameras have.
In contrast, not only did the G9 have an actually navigable menu out-of-the-box, but received firmware updates from Panasonic for years, making it practically a new camera.
Sony's APS-C bodies consist of the brand-new A6700, the beginner-friendly ZVE10, the video-oriented FX30, and the bodies released years ago, the A6600 and its predecessors.
Of these, only the A6700 and FX30 are even remotely comparable to even the G9, let alone the OM1 and G9-2, in their capabilities. The A6700 (which does not have dual card slots for some reason, despite the price) comes the closest, with a fully-articulating-screen, an EVF, and 4k60 full-width, as well as 4k120 cropped.
However, if I wanted to capture action with it I would be out of luck as the A6700's fastest burst rate is a mere 11fps, regardless of what shutter mode it uses. In addition, knowing from Sony's FF cameras, it is possible that it would slow down even further if I mounted a third-party lens on it.
As for glass, Sony has one of the best lens ecosystems out there, owing to a large degree on the many third-party lenses. Yet, If I were to desire a long telephoto, the only dedicated APS-C lens from Sony would be the 70-350mm, which is fairly large for an APS-C lens:
As we can see, a slightly-faster Panasonic 45-200 is far smaller than the Sony 70-350 .
Other than that, most lenses are largely competitive size wise.
================================
Finally, let's look at perhaps the best-regarded APS-C system on the market, Fujifilm X-mount.
Fuji's mount is the only APS-C mount that is not shared with FF bodies, giving it the rare advantage of an actual dedicated lens ecosystem, similarly to MFT.
Bodies wise, Fuji's most important for me are the XT-30 II (for its size) and the XS20 (for its performance). Unlike the A6700, the XS20 is capable of shooting at 20fps, or 30fps with a crop, making it (as well as its more expensive relatives) the only APS-C cameras capable of keeping up with the R10 and R7, while also supporting third-party lenses.
However, Fuji's AF, for all the improvements it got over the years, is still somewhat behind the industry's best (Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic), and the IBIS is also somewhat worse in video compared to Panasonic, OM, and Nikon.
There is also the issue that a lot of Fuji gear, as a result of online hype, got more expensive than it should have been, raising the barrier to entry.
Glass wise, Fuji glass is known to be among the best-made for APS-C, but also very expensive. The latter is somewhat mitigated by the wide third-party support, with lenses such as the godly Sigma f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, as well as from 7Artisans, Sirui, and Viltrox.
In addition, Fuji is perhaps the only manufaturer with a fair amount of APS-C telephotos to choose from. Despite that, these telephotos tend to be not only extremely expensive, but also far bigger than any comparable APS-C or MFT lenses, often more similar to FF lenses in size.
Let's look at the following examples:
The Fuji 100-400 is so bulky, that a Full-Frame Sigma 100-400 is similar in size (and half the price). As a result, Sigma actually did port the lens to X-mount, despite it being a FF lens. Here they both are next to the Panasonic 100-300 .
Here we can see Fuji's enourmous equivalent of a 70-200 FF lens, next to Panasonic's equivalent.
Even the "double-kit-lens filler" medium telephoto is this big, next to a Panasonic lens that is an entire stop faster on the long end (which easily makes up for equivalnce).
Same conclusion from the 100-400 FF equiv lenses.
At the most extreme, we get the "Big White Sharp" 200mm f/2, next to the closest MFT equivalents. Notice the 150 would require a FT-MFT adapter, while the 75 would require a teleconverter, assuming it's compatible with one.
Lastly, let's look at what is supposed to be a tiny kit lens. Instead, it's far bigger than the MFT equivalent, as well as many other APS-C kit lenses.
================================
In contrast to all those APS-C systems we looked at, MFT easily checks all boxes for me:
A "crop" sensor system, with lenses much smaller than FF, with many third-party lenses, with many compact telephotos, at easily reache-able prices, and with bodies ranging from the tiny GM1, to the flagship G9-2.
For whoever read through my ramble, I hope you found this useful, and maybe, just maybe, I will stop seeing people compare APS-C to FF, but MFT to smatphones.
Last edited:
