[Brightcolours]

If you don't print, maybe full frame is not for you?

That is more about high resolution, than about FF. The main advantage of FF is the ability to use more shallow DOF. But for that you of course need appropriate lenses too. In my opinion the OP does not benefit from FF (at the current time).

It's a lot more exacting to extract the full resolution, especially as the Soy A series cameras have no inbuilt stabilisation.

 

I wouldn't knock the EM10; there are of course many ways in which the em1 is better, but part of the point of m43 is size, and the em10 hits a sweet spot which is a lot smaller than the em1 while being big enough to be a lot more usable ergonomically than say the Panny gm1..all that this the same IQ as em1 and pretty good controls...

[frank]

It's something I've been considering as well.

In fact, I created a table that compares lenses in terms of weight and volume, between MFT and Fuji.

 

Some lenses are a bit different (MFT 12 and Fuji 14), but this is more to get a rough estimate of whether one would gain much by going the MFT route. Furthermore, the speeds are also a bit different too.
 
I only included primes, from the widest available to the classic portrait focal length (~85mm equivalent).
 
Note that I included results for two 85mm equivalent focal lengths: one with the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and the other with the new Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 (numbered "MFT (2)").
 
As we can see there are significant gains both in term of size and weight by going the MFT route albeit with generally slower FF equivalent apertures. Also, the gain is much less if one choose the Panasonic instead of the Olympus, at the cost of speed/DOF of course. Also, overall the Fuji offers more speed and DOF control (obviously).
 
So, as with everything in life, it's all a matter of trade-offs.
 

 

Frankly the table does not convinve me. For example, Pana 14mm and Fuji 18mm are not directly competable. One is pancake with F2.5, the other is a regular lens with F2. The same goes for the Oly 17mm vs Fuji 23mm:  a f1.8 lens with decent IQ vs a f1.4 lens with super IQ. I also think the Oly 45mm should be compared to the Fuji 60mm: same equiv. FL, similar equiv F.

[josephchai28]

Just as an additional comment - the A7 may be nice but the 28-70mm seems to be rather bad.

Why do you exclude Fuji ? I am curious.

Hi Klaus, feel free to recommend Fuji

Excluded bcos I hv no idea abt Fuji cameras.

I wait for your feedback.

Thks

[josephchai28]

Hi Klaus, feel free to recommend Fuji

Excluded bcos I hv no idea abt Fuji cameras.

I wait for your feedback.

Thks

Which Fuji camera and lenses Wud u suggest?

[thxbb12]

Frankly the table does not convinve me. For example, Pana 14mm and Fuji 18mm are not directly competable. One is pancake with F2.5, the other is a regular lens with F2. The same goes for the Oly 17mm vs Fuji 23mm:  a f1.8 lens with decent IQ vs a f1.4 lens with super IQ. I also think the Oly 45mm should be compared to the Fuji 60mm: same equiv. FL, similar equiv F.

 

Everyone will make slightly different comparisons as the line ups don't have the exact same focal lengths and apertures.

This was merely an attempt at comparing somewhat comparable lenses.

Feel free to compare other lenses too, but the general picture is that MFT allows for a smaller package overall.

 

I'd myself consider Fuji, but I'm holding back for 3 main reasons:

• No in-body stabilization I'm really against in-lens IS as makes lenses less reliable in the long term, it increases the risk of decentering defects, it makes the lens larger & heavier and it increases the cost.
  
• Poor AF compared to MFT.
  
• Poor QC and this is the killer for me.
  

Other than that I really love the Fuji lens line-up. It's the one that makes the most sense among all manufacturers IMO.

I also like Fuji's commitment to their users. They are the only company that actually listens to their customers and implements their wishes in new firmwares. Heck, they recently updated the X100 firmware to almost match the one in the X100S! It's really fantastic.  If I didn't have a whole set of MFT lenses and was starting fresh today, I'd probably go the Fuji route.

[nandadevieast]

A7 has an advantage that far outweighs all disadvantages. But that is only if you want that advantage.

Its a FF camera.

[Brightcolours]

A7 has an advantage that far outweighs all disadvantages. But that is only if you want that advantage.

Its a FF camera.

That is only an advantage with the right lens(es). Not so much with moderate aperture lenses.

[Klaus]

Which Fuji camera and lenses Wud u suggest?

 

Either the X-E2 or X-T1 - depending on the budget. The X-T1 is first choice now. AF performance was a weakness in the past but this issue was solved with these two cameras. The Fuji sensor is outstanding and the next best thing to full format.

 

As far as lenses are concerned ...

I have the Zeiss 12mm here on my desk but I still need some time to test it. Feels sharp though.

Same goes for the Fuji 23mm f/1.4.

The new Fuji 56mm f/1.2 seems to be a killer (not here yet).

I really liked the Fuji 60mm f/2.4 macro. The brand new Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 is another option here.

The 18-55mm f/2.8-4 is also good.

There are more pro lenses coming (e.g. 10-24/4 and 16-55/2.8 I think) in the near future.

 

As mentioned QC is an issue but assuming good samples, this is a highly interesting system.

 

Lens QC is very good on the Olympus side.

 

Personally I would make it a choice between the E-M1 and X-T1. 

[Klaus]

A7 has an advantage that far outweighs all disadvantages. But that is only if you want that advantage.

Its a FF camera.

 

What is the point of a full format mirrorless camera when the lenses are as big as for DSLRs ?

Just take the upcoming 70-200/4 as an example.

A 300/2.8 on a A7® would be a rather ridiculous view IMHO.

 

Sure, it's nice to have a EVF, fast CDAF and a smaller body but that's about it vs a DSLR.

I will not deny that it is a nice camera though (I can only speak about the A7R here but the A7 should be very similar).

 

The lens size debate also applies to APS-C (mostly, the wides are smaller and there's little quality stuff for DSLRs here anyway) but it feels more balanced here.

[peterottaway]

It depemds on what you want and what you are intending to photograph. I use my prime lenses on manual focus even though I prefer to purchase auto focus lenses for flexibity so they need to have reasonably decent focusing. I am more interested in accurate and repeatable auto fous than what is claimed to be fast focus. I say claimed because how do you prove fast ? Doing what and under what conditions ? Your own technique has a lot to do with whether you claim the lens is up to speed or not.

 

I use a tripod for many of my photographs, when you to get to good quality 24 or 36 MP sensors there are obvious differences between tripod and hand held shots. That is even without considering the extra quality of framing of your photos and considering what you are doing.

 

It is much like rhose say camera A is better than camera B because you think it produces better EI 6400 photos. I could look at the same photo and disagree on that. Plus I have absolute;y no interest in EI 6400.

 

I also don't live in a solar challenged part of the world. Although it does usually rain here from May to mid August the rain is mainly frontal not a combination of mizzle, drizzle and showers. Even when there is some cloud around at first light it eill be burnt off by around 8AM in summer and 10 AM in winter. I may have something around 30 cloudy/hazy days a year but the rest will be blue skies.

 

The light I encounter is high intensity, high contrast light so what you may consider a problem with slow AF is not going to cause me the same problems. Mid day in the middle of winter at up to 1/1500 at f 8.0 at EI 400 . So a f 4.0 zoom to me may need to be a f 1.4 zoom somewhere else. If such a thing would be possible.