[wim]

I'm going to jump into a MILC. Where I'm struggling is whether to go APS-C or MFT. The Sony a6300 with the 16-50 retractable lens cost $50US more than a Pany GX85 with the 12-32 pancake lens and is only 20g heavier. The size difference is also negligible. Overall performance, iso, focus, resolution, etc, definitely goes to the Sony. 

 

For a small easy to pocket/travel MFT kit I could add the Pany 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 pancake lens and a 20/1.7 prime. While the zoom optics may not be great, this kit is appealing. Then stick to my Canon SLR gear for everything else.

 

The only downside to the Sony is once you add a medium zoom. The Sony 55-210 is twice as long retracted and 2.5x the weight. I keep feeling if Sony decides to come out with a retractable ~50-200mm lens for the alpha, it could put a last nail in the MFT coffin.

 

I think it is about time people realize that there are different cameras ans systems for a purpose. They each have their own, Currently, for sports photography you'd likely go for Nikon D5, Canon 1DX, etc. MFT is great fro video (Panasonic GH5), and stills plus best weathersealing (Olympus OM-D E-M1 II). There also are size and weight differences which become more and more relevant too. Do note that quite a few pro photographers lately have been switching to MILCs, and photogs for NatGeo often use MFT cameras (they used to use FT a lot as well).

 

So nail kin the MFT coffin? <ROFL> Dslr is where the coffins are being built right now. Give it another 10 years ands most if not all manufacturers will no longer make dslrs.

 

BTW, I see a lot of youngsters who want to get beyond photography with mobile phones getting into MFT. Why? Because of the possibilities (120+ lenses available), small, compact and light compared to dslrs, and stylish.

 

Kind regards, Wim