Switching System Analysis

[NowHearThis]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:


First replacing the universal: 12-45/4. Nothing compares really, they all come short 20mm on the long end, and are all much larger. The next move would be to go to 105mm at the long end. Way larger!


The WA prime walk about lens replacement: 17mm/1.8. Here size differences is rather obvious. What other option is there in the slower lenses?


Now replacing my UWA options: 8mm FE, things get difficult. No real option on the Nikon side at all. I could live with the Sony UWA zoom, but no fast FE primes with AF option really.


And my fast short tele: 56mm/1.4. Nothing matches focal length wise. Closest options are much bigger and either shorter or longer.


Last the mid-tele (which I am considering): 40-150mm/2.8. No real option on the Nikon side at all, I'd have to go much bigger. Sony OK, but loose on the speed, which means boosting ISO.

The obvious conclusion is that Sony is the move versatile option and Nikon is just too limiting as a system replacement. That said, there are many other compromises to be made. A quick scroll shows the overall system size compromise. Then the flexibility of the system is also a compromise. Neither Nikon nor Sony offering the computational features of the OM-1 either, so more compromises to be made there. We're really having it good with M43, we often don't realize how much so. So I decided to stick with M43 and sink more money into the system and get that 40-150/2.8 after all. Some of you will say go dual system, but that defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is to determine whether I should sink more money into M43 and go FF or not rather than buying that 40-150mm. IQ wise I can live happily with M43 for ever.

You wont find a match for the 10-18mm,

I prefer the PL8-18/2.8-4 and O8-25/4 to any APS-C ultrawide ever made. I prefer them to many FF ultra wide lenses too. But that's just me.

70-350mm or 135mm in mft either.

right on there. I'd probably use the PL50-200 with a 1.4xTC or Oly 100-400 for the zoom (the later pairing better with my 12-100) and the Oly 75/1.8 or maybe the Sigma 56/1.4 if I needed a prime longer than my 42.5/1.7. But everyone's needs are different. I don't have a single lens the OP listed, although I do have a 15/1.7 arriving Mon/Tues of next week, so I guess that's close enough to the 17/1.8 he listed.

OP appears to reason that the lack of perfect matches for some MFT lenses in other system is a reason to choose MFT. I'm just saying that the opposite is also true, and as I see it that ain't no reason to choose for MFT or against MFT. As long as you can find lenses that fit your need/want.

IMO no system has the perfect lens (in MFT that would be something like a 5-2000mm/f0.75 100 grams TC compatible pancake zoom with Sync IS and Dual IS, with >90 MTF across the frame wide open and zero distortions?) - so we have to live with the compromise of just really great lenses. And these can be found in most systems.

I kind of eluded to the same kind of thing when I said the OP and I pretty much share no common lenses. Even using his lenses, I wouldn't made the comparisons he made. I like my system for what it is and what is gives me, I'm sure the OP has the same view about his. Now I'm guilty of posting some cherry picked images from time time back in the past, but I think many people can find a lot of things in most systems that could work for them. There will be pros and cons either way and people will have to sort that out for themselves.

Let me share an example using my own setup and explain.




I could work with any of these - happily.

This is a massive image, but it will help explain my point and my point. The top kit is mine (I pickup my PL15 on Tuesday, but it's already paid for so I'm adding it to my kit now). The next 3 rows are what I would use from Canon, Nikon, and Sony if I shot of them instead. Generally speaking they do much of what I use my existing lenses for. There are pros and cons for each. Generally the Nikon setup is the most appealing among them although the Sony 20-70/4 can really make for a one-lens-do-most. Although if I had had it tonight when I was out shooting, it might not have been wide enough. My 8-25 was perfect for late evening flowing stream for my particular situation at this particular location for the particular look I was wanting. Long story short (too late), what I like is rather common among most brands/formats - probably why most companies make similar things to what I use now.

So the question becomes, why didn't I buy one of the other FF cameras with [insert list of advantages here]? The answer is because things on paper (or a computer screen) aren't so simple in real life. My kit has taken me 11 years to get to. If I had nothing now and bought everything new it would cost $4000 +/-. And that's assuming I buy the OM1 on it's fire sale from OM System right now over my EM1.3, or the more expensive OM1.2. Now I can't drop $4000 on a system and I certainly can't spend even more for something else.

I had to start like most and get the base model (an EM10, almost 11 years ago) and the kit lenses and then save up for other things. I was fortunate to get some money together to and buy the PEN-F, PL12-60 and P42.5/1.7 in 2017. Six years later, I was able to save up and sell the Pen-F for a good price and pick up a used EM1.2. Another year after that I got lucky and got a great deal on the EM1.3 and was able to not take too much of a loss on the EM1.2. This year I've been extremely fortunate saving and getting money together. All 3 of my new lenses I've been able to purchase on sale for about $700-$800, in total, less than their regular prices - that alone pretty much paid for my 8-25/4. I also was able to sell my PL12-60 for a very good price to help cover some of the expense - I was able to get the 3 lenses for $1900 after all was said and done.

So while it seems like sometimes it's easy to say, well you could or could have bought (brand B instead of A) that's not always the case. Some people stay with what they have because it takes years to acquire it like me. I have no problem admitting that FF could easily work for me - if I won the lottery to be able to buy it all at once. But I could not have done it 11 years ago and what I've used has given me great memories that my family enjoys looking back on. So like the OP, I'm happy with what I have, and that doesn't take away from what is offered in any other system or with what anyone else uses. This was just my journey to get where I'm at. One last purchase remains, I think I might have found the perfect bag for my camera and lenses - or at least the perfect hiking/out and about bag - Tenba Solstice v2 12L. I don't need it now, that can wait until February just before I go on a vacation trip I've got planned.

--
NHT

 

[James Stirling]

As with every other comparison posted in the m43 insecurity complex vein and my goodness there are a lot of them,

Only one comment is needed

So which one is the orange?

The one behind the banana

--
Jim Stirling:
“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” Locke
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[James Stirling]

A few years ago, I thought that I would like a Full Frame System to complement my M43 system, and a full frame body for my collection of my DSLR lenses (70% Canon FD)

Although it does not always seem so here I find m43 and FF to be a very complimentary combo

I bought a Sony A7iii. I didn't want equivalent lenses to my M43 lenses, if I was going to do to spend the money I wanted some better characteristics than my M43 gear, particularly low light performance (so larger equivalent maximimum apertures) and better autofocus. I know that more pixels is important to many, but so far I haven't convinced myself that I should sell the A7iii in favour of the A7RIV.

The Sony IBIS is noticeably less effective than Olympus and Pnasonic IBIS, unless I buy one of the really expensive bodies.

I have the A7r iv A and previously had the mk II and mk III a while back , The IBIS is getting better but still not as good as m43. Though I think that the newest bodies have improved in this area even the small A7cr has good reports

I find most of the Sony GM series lenses to be very expensive. The G series is more reasonable. I got the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 zooms whach are are more reasonably priced and almost as good optically.

The extensive third party options is a great option. Though I am mainly a m43/ Nikon Z user . I am not a great fan of Sony ergonomics , however a fantastic deal fell into my lap with the A7r IV A, I will be sticking with a 3 prime set up I have the beautifully built Sigma 24mm f2 DG DN , the Sony 40mm F/2.5 and the Samyang 135mm F/1.8 an incredible performer.

Ideally I would have preferred a smaller slower 135mm , alas the market seams to have went with go big or go home

When I was getting seriously into photography many moons ago I had a 3 lens kit of 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm and I used them for everything . So the Sony kit is an updated take on this. I love my Pany 20mm so the Sony 40mm gives me that vibe

One of the really good Sony primes is the FE 20mm F1.8 G. Very sharp optically, low aberations, fairly small and light and not expensive.

I have seen some good reports about that lens but decided to go with the 24mm

At the time there was no M43 equivalent, although the 9mm/1.7 is getting close, although it will never match the light gathering capability. The Laowa 10/2 has the same FOV, but no autofocus.

 

[Mark P Thornton]

Thom Hogan doesn't like it much either: "For a lens labeled "Zeiss," the 24-70mm f/4 just doesn't begin to deliver to expectations."

 

[NowHearThis]

A clear statement

But seriously (I don't know this lens), is it that bad? That's a smear on the Zeiss reputation. Why don't they withdraw it?

Yes.
The center is great. But the outer areas of the frame are not. Usually a zoom is best at one end of the zoom range, but this lens is pretty weak at both. And by that I mean the outer areas never get good, even stopping down. As someone who would use this lens for landscapes, group photos etc, it would really let me down. The Zeiss E16-70/4 is also a let down with similar problems. Thankfully Sony’s now replaced it (at least the FF lens) with an excellent 20-70/4 that doesn’t weigh much more, doesn’t cost much more, and has solid image quality. It’s my 2nd favorite FF lens, behind the Z24-120/4. Now if Sony can do something with their APSC version - not holding my breath though.

 

[Tim200]

What was your reason for considering the switch? I only see a size comparison, but what were you hoping to gain otherwise?

Main reason... wondering if I should sink another $2000 in the system or not, and whether I'd be happy with what FF mirrorless is currently offering or not. I'm very happy with M43, it suits my needs but also not entirely confident in its future (can't help wondering how long the market will sustain a non-evolving system) and to know the options is a useful piece of information.

 

[vcxz]

If I was switching, I'd want in improvement in my primary area and match the secondary priorities. I don't know Sony but I also shoot Nikon.

First replacing the universal: 12-45/4. Nothing compares really, they all come short 20mm on the long end, and are all much larger. The next move would be to go to 105mm at the long end. Way larger!

The 12-45 is kind of unique in M43 because it would be an F8 equivalent in full frame, and they just don't make lenses like that. You could still get the APSC 16-50, which gets good reviews for sharpness. So with the larger sensor advantage, it could be an improvement. But the Nikon APSC bodies are old and barebones.

The WA prime walk about lens replacement: 17mm/1.8. Here size differences is rather obvious. What other option is there in the slower lenses?

The 40mm F2 is very small in FX. There is also a 24mm F1.7 in DX that's not in their database. They're releasing a series of 1.4 lenses that have older fashion rendering but aren't edge-to-edge sharp like the 1.8s.

Now replacing my UWA options: 8mm FE, things get difficult. No real option on the Nikon side at all. I could live with the Sony UWA zoom, but no fast FE primes with AF option really.

It's not in the database but there is a Viltrox 20mm F2.8 that is very small and lighter than the fisheye.

And my fast short tele: 56mm/1.4. Nothing matches focal length wise. Closest options are much bigger and either shorter or longer.

So the Sigma 56 was designed for APSC to emulate the 85mm focal length. The Nikon 85mm is still bigger, but not as big as the macro. You can also use that same lens on an APSC camera and have more latitude with cropping.

Last the mid-tele (which I am considering): 40-150mm/2.8. No real option on the Nikon side at all, I'd have to go much bigger. Sony OK, but loose on the speed, which means boosting ISO.

You might be interested in the 50-250 on APSC.

The problem I had with a compact Nikon kit is there weren't a lot of small telephoto options. There's the 24-200, and then also the Tamron 70-300 is lighter than the 40-150 F2.8. Part of the weight differential is OM is using metal while Nikon lenses are using lighter plastics. The Tamron 70-300 is light but very big. I'd always have to use a pretty big camera cube if I had it.

The obvious conclusion is that Sony is the move versatile option and Nikon is just too limiting as a system replacement. That said, there are many other compromises to be made. A quick scroll shows the overall system size compromise. Then the flexibility of the system is also a compromise. Neither Nikon nor Sony offering the computational features of the OM-1 either, so more compromises to be made there. We're really having it good with M43, we often don't realize how much so. So I decided to stick with M43 and sink more money into the system and get that 40-150/2.8 after all. Some of you will say go dual system, but that defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is to determine whether I should sink more money into M43 and go FF or not rather than buying that 40-150mm. IQ wise I can live happily with M43 for ever.

If you want small zooms, the Z50 and 16-50 and 50-250 kit lenses might be a good match for you. The Nikon APSC lenses are pretty good for their size, but the lens selection is very limited and the bodies don't have many features.

It also depends on what computational features you're really using. I found the internal ND filter isn't enough stops for daylight, so I'm not saving as much space as I thought since I still have to carry ND filters. Then also for night photography, the better IBIS is good for street photos, but for astro I'm still taking a tripod.

--

vcxz

vcxz.myportfolio.com

 

[john isaacs]

One should not expect to find completely equivalent lenses between these systems. First, you need to understand why you would want to switch systems. Or whether you would want to use both systems.

I used M43 and Nikon DSLR systems in parallel for years. I used the Nikon systems for events and sports/wildlife. The advantages were clear; better low light performance, shallower depth of field, better AF, and radio TTL flashes. Plus, I preferred how Nikon implemented Auto ISO with flashes. I upgraded to Nikon mirrorless with Z6/Z7, upgraded again to Z6ii/Z7ii because the first generation limitations were an issue. The Z7/Z7ii had a lot more pixels, and that was a plus.

But M43 eventually got radio TTL flashes and better AF, and the 150-450/f4.5 was an awesome addition for wildlife.

And finally, I basically stopped doing pro event shooting.

And the differences in user interface were what was making me lose interest in using Nikon cameras. Primarily their custom settings management (more on that) and the fact that the lenses mounted backwards from everybody else. But there were a few other things that really bothered me: they did not do live view zebras (highlight/shadow) for still photography, and their image review was irritatiing (they resumed live view before displaying the playback image).

Still, I was interested in adding the Z8 and updating my 200-500/5.6 lens for sports/wildlife. One thing I wanted was to get 20fps flash support. For some reason, Olympus maxes out at 10fps, and I had tested the Z8 for that. But their Pre-release capture was still JPG only; they hadn't fixed that limitation of the Z9.

Finally, I had one job to shoot and was going to be using my Nikon gear. I started to go through the process of restoring my custom settings for the job, and I just suddenly decided I had had enough. I pulled out my m43 gear and shot the job with it. And I bagged up my Nikon gear (three large backpacks) and took it to the local camera store and sold it all.

Yes, there are some things I miss, but I won't go back to Nikon for them if I ever decide to do something about it.

 

[Mark P Thornton]

As a cyclist I am limited by what will fit in my bar bag (carrying anything elsewhere doesn't work for me). My normal carry is GX9 plus 12-35 f2.8, 9mm f1.7 and one of 35-100 f2.8 or 100-300 f5.6. That 100-300 is right on the limit for what will fit in terms of length and diameter.

So what might I switch to? The Sony a7C II is a similar size to the GX9. The 20-70 f4 is interesting, but only a stop faster in light gathering than what I have (and marginally slower than the 9mm). Nothing in the catalog for focal lengths past 70mm will fit, except perhaps the 24-105 f4, but that would replace the 20-70. So at considerable cost I could gain a stop (mostly) but lose out on focal length range.

Other options might be 24-50 f2.8 which gains a more noticeable 2 stops at the expense of a limited focal length range. Perhaps supplement with a 20mm and 85mm primes. Might fit.

Now if I was buying from scratch now with my current finances (as opposed to what I had a decade or so ago when starting in m4/3), then I might well get an a7c ii with the 24-105. But as an upgrade from what I already have it is hard to justify.

Have I missed anything relevant to my size constrained choice?

Mark

 

[James Stirling]

As a cyclist I am limited by what will fit in my bar bag (carrying anything elsewhere doesn't work for me). My normal carry is GX9 plus 12-35 f2.8, 9mm f1.7 and one of 35-100 f2.8 or 100-300 f5.6. That 100-300 is right on the limit for what will fit in terms of length and diameter.

I am not a big tele user but I like the size of my 100-300mm and the aperture works ok . I wish Panasonic would update the optics

So what might I switch to? The Sony a7C II is a similar size to the GX9. The 20-70 f4 is interesting, but only a stop faster in light gathering than what I have (and marginally slower than the 9mm). Nothing in the catalog for focal lengths past 70mm will fit, except perhaps the 24-105 f4, but that would replace the 20-70. So at considerable cost I could gain a stop (mostly) but lose out on focal length range.

Sony does have the advantage of having quite a few third party AF options that broaden the potential choices

Other options might be 24-50 f2.8 which gains a more noticeable 2 stops at the expense of a limited focal length range. Perhaps supplement with a 20mm and 85mm primes. Might fit.

Now if I was buying from scratch now with my current finances (as opposed to what I had a decade or so ago when starting in m4/3), then I might well get an a7c ii with the 24-105. But as an upgrade from what I already have it is hard to justify.

I think that is all that matters Mark if you are happy with what you already own I would stick with it. If you can be bothered using two systems is a good combo.

Have I missed anything relevant to my size constrained choice?

Mark

 

[ahaslett]

As a cyclist I am limited by what will fit in my bar bag (carrying anything elsewhere doesn't work for me). My normal carry is GX9 plus 12-35 f2.8, 9mm f1.7 and one of 35-100 f2.8 or 100-300 f5.6. That 100-300 is right on the limit for what will fit in terms of length and diameter.

So what might I switch to? The Sony a7C II is a similar size to the GX9. The 20-70 f4 is interesting, but only a stop faster in light gathering than what I have (and marginally slower than the 9mm). Nothing in the catalog for focal lengths past 70mm will fit, except perhaps the 24-105 f4, but that would replace the 20-70. So at considerable cost I could gain a stop (mostly) but lose out on focal length range.

Other options might be 24-50 f2.8 which gains a more noticeable 2 stops at the expense of a limited focal length range. Perhaps supplement with a 20mm and 85mm primes. Might fit.

Now if I was buying from scratch now with my current finances (as opposed to what I had a decade or so ago when starting in m4/3), then I might well get an a7c ii with the 24-105. But as an upgrade from what I already have it is hard to justify.

Have I missed anything relevant to my size constrained choice?

Mark

A Sony A7CR with 20-70/4 gives 10-50/2-3 equivalent with 61 to 26Mpix (on an APSC crop). I have that. It is a great one lens solution for much of what I shoot, especially switching from family to landscape.

In your position, I'd stick with the GX9 with the two PL f2.8 zooms. I had the Sony pair out today and wished I'd gone with an OM1 with 40-150/2.8 and OM5 with 10/2.

If I was a cyclist, it would be OM5 plus 12-45/4, 40-150/4 and 10/2 all the way. Shooting action in dim light would be a bit tough but I can handhold at 10mm for 1.3s with absolute confidence.

Andrew

PS I'm one of the people that think images from the 24-105/4 look flat, and it is a bit heavy. The Tamron 28-200mm with a CV 21/3.5 Colour Skopar would be more my pick. Not keen on the Tamron corners, but that's for architecture at a distance.

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Mark P Thornton]

The OM5 would be my first choice if I had to replace the GX9.

 

[ahaslett]

The OM5 would be my first choice if I had to replace the GX9.

In my case it was downsizing and upgrading an EM1 mk i as my small camera with PDAF (for a 3y old).

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[OSPhoto]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:


First replacing the universal: 12-45/4. Nothing compares really, they all come short 20mm on the long end, and are all much larger. The next move would be to go to 105mm at the long end. Way larger!


The WA prime walk about lens replacement: 17mm/1.8. Here size differences is rather obvious. What other option is there in the slower lenses?


Now replacing my UWA options: 8mm FE, things get difficult. No real option on the Nikon side at all. I could live with the Sony UWA zoom, but no fast FE primes with AF option really.


And my fast short tele: 56mm/1.4. Nothing matches focal length wise. Closest options are much bigger and either shorter or longer.


Last the mid-tele (which I am considering): 40-150mm/2.8. No real option on the Nikon side at all, I'd have to go much bigger. Sony OK, but loose on the speed, which means boosting ISO.

The obvious conclusion is that Sony is the move versatile option and Nikon is just too limiting as a system replacement. That said, there are many other compromises to be made. A quick scroll shows the overall system size compromise. Then the flexibility of the system is also a compromise. Neither Nikon nor Sony offering the computational features of the OM-1 either, so more compromises to be made there. We're really having it good with M43, we often don't realize how much so. So I decided to stick with M43 and sink more money into the system and get that 40-150/2.8 after all. Some of you will say go dual system, but that defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is to determine whether I should sink more money into M43 and go FF or not rather than buying that 40-150mm. IQ wise I can live happily with M43 for ever.

You wont find a match for the 10-18mm, 70-350mm or 135mm in mft either.

Yea, and the 10-18 and 70-350 are APSC Sony lenses, not FF Sony lenses, so I'm not sure those are the choices if one is going FF. I'm thinking one would be looking at some Tamron or Samyang lenses if the goal is "matching" or getting as close as one can.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

First replacing the universal: 12-45/4. Nothing compares really, they all come short 20mm on the long end, and are all much larger. The next move would be to go to 105mm at the long end. Way larger!

The 24-70 f/4 zeiss is not a great lens. It's been superseded by the much sharper and way more versatile 20-70mm f/4 G. As for Nikon, the 24-70 f/4 S is an exceptionally sharp lens for the price. Considering the difference in light gathering, I don't consider 20mm to be that high of a price to pay, especially if you put a Z7 on the other end of it.

As for the Sony lens, I think it's more versatile than the 12-45. I'd rather have the 20-24mm range than the 70-90mm range.

The WA prime walk about lens replacement: 17mm/1.8. Here size differences is rather obvious. What other option is there in the slower lenses?

You could use the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 on Sony and the Nikon 40mm f/2. 40mm is close enough to 35mm (and personally, I even prefer it to 35mm)

Now replacing my UWA options: 8mm FE, things get difficult. No real option on the Nikon side at all. I could live with the Sony UWA zoom, but no fast FE primes with AF option really.

Here I would use the 14-30 for Nikon. much smaler than the gigantic 14-28 f/2.8. Sure, it's an f/4 but it's more than usable with a full frame camera imho.

On Sony, the 14mm f/1.8 exists, and it's not expecially big. Great lens.

And my fast short tele: 56mm/1.4. Nothing matches focal length wise. Closest options are much bigger and either shorter or longer.

Sometimes you have to make compromises. The difference between 85mm and 100mm is not huge, and I'd rather not use a gigantic macro lens for a short tele. Worst case scenario, I use an 85mm on a 45mP sensor and crop a little. You can always adapt the excellent 105mm f/1.4E, but that's a larger package.

On Sony, you can use the really excellent Sigma 90mm f/2.8, basically an equivalent to the 56mm f/1.4 on MFT.

Last the mid-tele (which I am considering): 40-150mm/2.8. No real option on the Nikon side at all, I'd have to go much bigger. Sony OK, but loose on the speed, which means boosting ISO.

Here you can use the tamron 70-300 on both systems. Decent lens, pretty sharp, not too big. You have a tighter aperture than the MFT equivalent tough, but in the end, with the improved noise performance and resolution of the FF bodies, I don't think the IQ would be that different. DoF wise, the MFT lens would be equivalent to a f/5.6 lens, here both systems would have a f/4.5-6.3 lens.


I used the 70-180 f/2.8 to show the size, it's pretty similar to the tamron 70-300 (which is on the Sony cam next to it). That being saidm the 70-180 f/2.8 is also a great option if you don't need the 200-300mm range.

The obvious conclusion is that Sony is the move versatile option and Nikon is just too limiting as a system replacement.

I don't agree with this at all. In my opinion you just selected the wrong lenses for the job when doing your comparison.

That said, there are many other compromises to be made. A quick scroll shows the overall system size compromise. Then the flexibility of the system is also a compromise. Neither Nikon nor Sony offering the computational features of the OM-1 either, so more compromises to be made there. We're really having it good with M43, we often don't realize how much so. So I decided to stick with M43 and sink more money into the system and get that 40-150/2.8 after all. Some of you will say go dual system, but that defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is to determine whether I should sink more money into M43 and go FF or not rather than buying that 40-150mm. IQ wise I can live happily with M43 for ever.

I don't think there's superior systems, it all a matter of compromises, always.

If it works for you, there's no reason to look elswhere, except maybe the G.A.S. / "grass is greener elsewhere" syndrome.

All cameras are great nowadays anyway.

--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

 

[Jacques Cornell]

After years of comparing size and weight of various camera and lens combinations, I came to the realization that small differences don't matter to me. All that matters is which of four portability categories a particular combo fit into:

1) Fits comfortably in a pants pocket

That's my iPhone 14 Pro Max. Would love to have a GR IIIx, though.

2) Fits in a very small pouch on a shoulder strap

That's my a7C with 28-70, previously my FZ1000II, LX100 or GX9 with a small zoom.

3) Fits in a shoulder bag with 1-3 other lenses

That's my a7RV with 20-40 and 50-300.

4) Fits into my rolling backpack with 1-2 other bodies, 4-6 other lenses, and 2-4 flashes

That's my a7IV with battery grip and 35-150/2.0-2.8.

FWIW, I shot exclusively with Micro Four Thirds from 2014-2020, then switched to Sony FE over the past four years. I loved the portability of the MFT system when I was traveling and hiking a lot. Now, I'm more settled, so portability is a lower priority. And, I'm finding it not at all hard to come up with Configurations 2 and 3 (above) that I can comfortably carry all day on foot with a Sony FE kit.

FWIW, my main motivation for switching was the ability to gather two more stops of light in bat-cave-dark venues where use of flash was difficult, impossible and/or unwanted. Had DxO's DeepPRIME XD2s noise reduction been available back then, I might have just pushed ISO two stops instead of investing $20,000 in a new kit. Kinda makes DXO PhotoLab and PureRAW the deals of the century.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Sam Bennett]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:

The reality is, total system-wise, you're going to end up with a larger, heavier, more expensive system, even if you're going with slower glass.

As someone who uses both MFT and FF (L-Mount), I cannot say that the "benefits" of FF (for me, better DoF control) are significant enough that I'd flesh out my kit any more than I already have.

As others have already noted, the 40-150/2.8 still has no peer in FF in any system, and for my tele work it's on the OM-1 Mark II most of the time, so moving to FF for tele work is simply a non-starter. At tele lengths, DoF control is less important for me since the "compressive" effect of being further away and more zoomed in and the narrow FoV that comes with that results in an inherently less cluttered background, so there's really no reason to move now that the OM-1 Mark II has the AF system I needed.

 

[Sam Bennett]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:

The reality is, total system-wise, you're going to end up with a larger, heavier, more expensive system, even if you're going with slower glass.

As someone who uses both MFT and FF (L-Mount), I cannot say that the "benefits" of FF (for me, better DoF control) are significant enough that I'd flesh out my kit any more than I already have.

As others have already noted, the 40-150/2.8 still has no peer in FF in any system, and for my tele work it's on the OM-1 Mark II most of the time, so moving to FF for tele work is simply a non-starter. At tele lengths, DoF control is less important for me since the "compressive" effect of being further away and more zoomed in and the narrow FoV that comes with that results in an inherently less cluttered background, so there's really no reason to move now that the OM-1 Mark II has the AF system I needed.

One of the things not apparent in your comparison is that not only are the Nikkor f/1.8 primes unnecessarily large, they are also relatively slow focusing and noisy. As a former Nikon user, I was very disappointed after using these lenses and it was pretty much the death knell for switching back to Nikon. Very disappointing.

 

[User9180204109]

In regard to the Leica/Lumix 50-200 f2.8, please see my post elsewhere about the failure of my copy of this lens and Panasonic's claim that the required part for repair is unavailable, making the lens unrepairable, this despite the lens still being sold and, I presume, still being manufactured. The diaphragm failure was not due to damage to the lens (no accident I am aware of and no damage found on assessment by the repairer), instead a failure of a critical internal part, such that the lens was stuck wide open and didn't transmit this to any MFT camera, resulting in over exposure of photos.

Tragic and very annoying in an otherwise good lens that hitherto had given the excellent Olympus 40-150 f2.8 a run for its money.

 

[nycgeo]

OK, before I invest deeper into the M43 system, I am going through an analysis of what I would need if I were to switch to either Nikon or Sony FF. Interesting, and not easy finding a comparable system I must say. Just thought it might be of interest. Here's what I came up with, there may be other options I missed:


First replacing the universal: 12-45/4. Nothing compares really, they all come short 20mm on the long end, and are all much larger. The next move would be to go to 105mm at the long end. Way larger!


The WA prime walk about lens replacement: 17mm/1.8. Here size differences is rather obvious. What other option is there in the slower lenses?


Now replacing my UWA options: 8mm FE, things get difficult. No real option on the Nikon side at all. I could live with the Sony UWA zoom, but no fast FE primes with AF option really.


And my fast short tele: 56mm/1.4. Nothing matches focal length wise. Closest options are much bigger and either shorter or longer.


Last the mid-tele (which I am considering): 40-150mm/2.8. No real option on the Nikon side at all, I'd have to go much bigger. Sony OK, but loose on the speed, which means boosting ISO.

The obvious conclusion is that Sony is the move versatile option and Nikon is just too limiting as a system replacement. That said, there are many other compromises to be made. A quick scroll shows the overall system size compromise. Then the flexibility of the system is also a compromise. Neither Nikon nor Sony offering the computational features of the OM-1 either, so more compromises to be made there. We're really having it good with M43, we often don't realize how much so. So I decided to stick with M43 and sink more money into the system and get that 40-150/2.8 after all. Some of you will say go dual system, but that defeats the purpose of this exercise, which is to determine whether I should sink more money into M43 and go FF or not rather than buying that 40-150mm. IQ wise I can live happily with M43 for ever.

You wont find a match for the 10-18mm,

I prefer the PL8-18/2.8-4 and O8-25/4 to any APS-C ultrawide ever made. I prefer them to many FF ultra wide lenses too. But that's just me.

70-350mm or 135mm in mft either.

right on there. I'd probably use the PL50-200 with a 1.4xTC or Oly 100-400 for the zoom (the later pairing better with my 12-100) and the Oly 75/1.8 or maybe the Sigma 56/1.4 if I needed a prime longer than my 42.5/1.7. But everyone's needs are different. I don't have a single lens the OP listed, although I do have a 15/1.7 arriving Mon/Tues of next week, so I guess that's close enough to the 17/1.8 he listed.

OP appears to reason that the lack of perfect matches for some MFT lenses in other system is a reason to choose MFT. I'm just saying that the opposite is also true, and as I see it that ain't no reason to choose for MFT or against MFT. As long as you can find lenses that fit your need/want.

IMO no system has the perfect lens (in MFT that would be something like a 5-2000mm/f0.75 100 grams TC compatible pancake zoom with Sync IS and Dual IS, with >90 MTF across the frame wide open and zero distortions?) - so we have to live with the compromise of just really great lenses. And these can be found in most systems.

I kind of eluded to the same kind of thing when I said the OP and I pretty much share no common lenses. Even using his lenses, I wouldn't made the comparisons he made. I like my system for what it is and what is gives me, I'm sure the OP has the same view about his. Now I'm guilty of posting some cherry picked images from time time back in the past, but I think many people can find a lot of things in most systems that could work for them. There will be pros and cons either way and people will have to sort that out for themselves.

Let me share an example using my own setup and explain.


I could work with any of these - happily.

This is a massive image, but it will help explain my point and my point. The top kit is mine (I pickup my PL15 on Tuesday, but it's already paid for so I'm adding it to my kit now). The next 3 rows are what I would use from Canon, Nikon, and Sony if I shot of them instead. Generally speaking they do much of what I use my existing lenses for. There are pros and cons for each. Generally the Nikon setup is the most appealing among them although the Sony 20-70/4 can really make for a one-lens-do-most. Although if I had had it tonight when I was out shooting, it might not have been wide enough. My 8-25 was perfect for late evening flowing stream for my particular situation at this particular location for the particular look I was wanting. Long story short (too late), what I like is rather common among most brands/formats - probably why most companies make similar things to what I use now.

So the question becomes, why didn't I buy one of the other FF cameras with [insert list of advantages here]? The answer is because things on paper (or a computer screen) aren't so simple in real life. My kit has taken me 11 years to get to. If I had nothing now and bought everything new it would cost $4000 +/-. And that's assuming I buy the OM1 on it's fire sale from OM System right now over my EM1.3, or the more expensive OM1.2. Now I can't drop $4000 on a system and I certainly can't spend even more for something else.

I had to start like most and get the base model (an EM10, almost 11 years ago) and the kit lenses and then save up for other things. I was fortunate to get some money together to and buy the PEN-F, PL12-60 and P42.5/1.7 in 2017. Six years later, I was able to save up and sell the Pen-F for a good price and pick up a used EM1.2. Another year after that I got lucky and got a great deal on the EM1.3 and was able to not take too much of a loss on the EM1.2. This year I've been extremely fortunate saving and getting money together. All 3 of my new lenses I've been able to purchase on sale for about $700-$800, in total, less than their regular prices - that alone pretty much paid for my 8-25/4. I also was able to sell my PL12-60 for a very good price to help cover some of the expense - I was able to get the 3 lenses for $1900 after all was said and done.

So while it seems like sometimes it's easy to say, well you could or could have bought (brand B instead of A) that's not always the case. Some people stay with what they have because it takes years to acquire it like me. I have no problem admitting that FF could easily work for me - if I won the lottery to be able to buy it all at once. But I could not have done it 11 years ago and what I've used has given me great memories that my family enjoys looking back on. So like the OP, I'm happy with what I have, and that doesn't take away from what is offered in any other system or with what anyone else uses. This was just my journey to get where I'm at. One last purchase remains, I think I might have found the perfect bag for my camera and lenses - or at least the perfect hiking/out and about bag - Tenba Solstice v2 12L. I don't need it now, that can wait until February just before I go on a vacation trip I've got planned.

That Tenba sling is awesome, FYI