[frank]

For me, MFTs are for fast primes, DSLRs for zooms.

[joachim]

MFT for zoom lenses. Fuji for primes. ;-)

Your verdict on the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 is extremely positive. Stating it is a reason to enter the system. Not any longer? I have an X20 and am considering moving to Fuji for the nice JPEG colours and very usable in-camera RAW processor.


What mFT body are you after?


Did you not find time to test/assess the Zeiss before the trip? If it as bad as you say, you should have noticed within a few frames.

[Klaus]

MFT or Fuji is primarily a question of size. The 55-200mm is a rather big lens for instance.

Olympus lenses - at least the mid to pro range - are also better centered.

The X-T1 is better (for photography) than all of the MFT cameras though.

 

I am still thrilled by Fuji - don't understand me wrong here. 

 

On the MFT side I am leaning towards the GMs. But again, I'm mostly into outdoors.

[Guest]

I just checked my vacation images taken with the A6000 and the Zeiss 16-70.

I have to admit ... I am not thrilled by the quality. The borders are rather soft.

 

Is the review of the Zeiss 16-70 still in the works?

[dave9t5]

Is the review of the Zeiss 16-70 still in the works?

 

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/top...b/?p=28256