[nsandersen]

While moving countries, I appear to have lost my Panasonic G3 and 14mm f/2.5 pancake, a compact and very light kit I have been using for multiday mountain walking with lightweight gear.

OK, I thought, I can use it as an excuse to get a new micro 4/3 camera.. maybe a modern equivalent of a Lumix GM1.. but seemingly there are no such compact models anymore. OK, well perhaps I could get another GX9 even if it is a bit heavy in comparison, the sensor is better. But all the micro 4/3 cameras look big now.. what the?!

If I got that right, I wanted to ask what people think would be a good alternative / format? (It doesn't need to be able to use my other micro 4/3 lenses, as long as my GX9 keeps going.)

I would like 15-20MP sensor, ideally stabilised, RAW output, exchangeable lens with f/2.8 max aperture & equivalent focal length between 24 and 35mm (landscapes) and ideally a viewfinder. Probably a prime lens makes sense.

Camera, lens, polariser and 2 batteries should ideally weigh in at around 500g (or less!). For outdoor purposes splash proofing would not hurt, but I am usually able to keep the camera dry if it is small enough to fit under the raincoat.

The smallest compact Sony (Alpha 6000) looks good although not cheap. I even see that they have 24mm and 30mm equivalent pancake lenses, the former not being very good though.

Does anyone know any good options? Cheaper wouldn't hurt, but if it lasts 10 years..

[MLonlooker]

Lumix S9?

[nsandersen]

Lumix S9?

Thank you - I didn't even know they did full frame! Main issue with that one: It is 3 times my budget. Why they don't do a micro 4/3rds version I don't know.. mobile phones I guess.

[Klaus]

The OM-5 is tiny, really ...

And so are the Sony 6x00 series and the Fuji X-T30/50.

[nsandersen]

The OM-5 is tiny, really ...

And so are the Sony 6x00 series and the Fuji X-T30/50.

Danke. The price will probably decide Sony for me.

[mike]

The OM-5 is tiny, really ...

And so are the Sony 6x00 series and the Fuji X-T30/50.

Danke. The price will probably decide Sony for me.

It does seem like MFT is trying to put the nail in its own coffin.

[Klaus]

I still like MFT - and with all the image improvements that AI can give you it "should" get more appealing.
e.g image noise is mostly a non-issue with MFT if you use something like DxO.

The biggest problem with MFT is that they are longing for the high-end - the G9 II, GH7, OM-1 II ... and in this price segment, the air is getting thin.

Why buy a G9 II if you can get an S5 II for the same price? I don't quite understand this strategy unless they want to migrate folks to L-mount with this (if so, I've doubts that this is going to work)

Panasonic refuses to hear the calls for a GX/GM, and the OM-5 series hasn't seen much love either.

[mike]

I still like MFT - and with all the image improvements that AI can give you it "should" get more appealing.
e.g image noise is mostly a non-issue with MFT if you use something like DxO.

The biggest problem with MFT is that they are longing for the high-end  - the G9 II, GH7, OM-1 II ... and in this price segment, the air is getting thin.

Why buy a G9 II if you can get an S5 II for the same price? I don't quite understand this strategy unless they want to migrate folks to L-mount with this (if so, I've doubts that this is going to work)

Panasonic refuses to hear the calls for a GX/GM, and the OM-5 series hasn't seen much love either.

I still love my MFT gear  I have no real issues with image quality at all. 

But I fully agree. It just seems to me like they're going for the wrong market segment. Once the size, weight, and price are considered there are surely better options. Granted, there is still weight and size saving in the lenses. One would think however, that they would be shooting lower cost than comparable apc/ff as well as trying to target a niche.

[Klaus]

I still like MFT - and with all the image improvements that AI can give you it "should" get more appealing.
e.g image noise is mostly a non-issue with MFT if you use something like DxO.

The biggest problem with MFT is that they are longing for the high-end  - the G9 II, GH7, OM-1 II ... and in this price segment, the air is getting thin.

Why buy a G9 II if you can get an S5 II for the same price? I don't quite understand this strategy unless they want to migrate folks to L-mount with this (if so, I've doubts that this is going to work)

Panasonic refuses to hear the calls for a GX/GM, and the OM-5 series hasn't seen much love either.

I still love my MFT gear  I have no real issues with image quality at all. 

But I fully agree. It just seems to me like they're going for the wrong market segment. Once the size, weight, and price are considered there are surely better options. Granted, there is still weight and size saving in the lenses. One would think however, that they would be shooting lower cost than comparable apc/ff as well as trying to target a niche.

The lower cost is an illusion, though.

If you've got a 20mp MFT sensor or a 20mp FF sensor - all the surrounding electronics cost the same.
And if there's a cost difference between these sensors just because of the same - I sort of doubt it in 2024. If so, it's surely not in the triple $ range.

As for the lenses, there isn't a lot of difference, at least when compared to APS-C either (when comparing apples to apples).

Still, I see a lot of appeal in some of the more unique offerings - the 12-45/4, 40-150/4, and 8-25/4, just to name a few.