[Rover]

I think the "shallow DOF" issue is way overblown. Not many people consistently need the shallowest DOF possible, except for "artsy" purposes. I was sorting (mostly down into the Recycled Bin) an old wedding shoot that I did - only one of two in my life, and hopefully the last. I used a 16-35/2.8 stopped down to f/4 mostly (as the light was rubbish) and where I was shooting a couple, only one of the two was in proper focus a lot of the time. It took extra care to align them in a parallel to the sensor plane to remedy that. I should have shot at f/5.6 at least, probably f/8 for good measure - but I didn't have a high ISO body at the time.

The new 18-135/3.5-5.6 I got for my wife gives less DOF than anyone would want at the long end if focused up close. That's f/5.6 at 135mm on APS-C. You can stop down however much you want, of course, but then you'll end up raising the ISO into the realms where the larger sensor benefit wrt noise is going to evaporate.

[thxbb12]

Coming back to the original message - if you take similar DoF capabilities as the baseline, the MFT advantage is nil.

 

Of course. It's the eternal debate: DOF control vs size/weight.

 

Generally speaking, MFT will limit your DOF control, while FF will limit you in terms of lenses' size/volume (no slow very compact lenses.

Etc.

[thxbb12]

Just for fun, I'll have a go at an approximate Canon equivalent to the Oly lineup above, optimising primarily for weight, biasing for recent kit and not looking into historic options:

Canon 100D 407g

Canon EF-S 10-18 IS STM 240g

Canon EF-S 18-55 IS STM 205g

Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM 375g

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 160g

 

Total weight: 1387g (1.4x more than the Oly set)

 

Not bad. However, the total volume would be quite a bit more.

Note also that all these Canon lenses have a plastic mount whereas all the MFT ones are metal.

Another point is that if you want an APS-C DSLR body that is similar in size to MFT, you're stuck with entry level bodies with obscure tiny viewfinders. The reality is that nobody makes small high end APS-C DSLRs besides Pentax.

 

Of course it is not an exact parallel. The three zoom lenses cover 16-400mm full frame equivalent. This is 25x zoom compared to 16.7x of Oly, or 1.5x more. So roughly speaking the weight difference here is roughly proportionate to the system focal length range, with the Canon system likely having a bit more shallow DoF potential throughout that range. There doesn't seem to be any gain in looking for a 200mm zoom in the Canon stable, although the Tamron 55-200 would get you down slightly to 299g. It is a long time since I had one but it was one of the popular bargain starter lenses for DSLRs.

 

Obviously this doesn't compare other aspects that will inevitably end in more arguments like body features.

 

Well, if one wants reach, they could add the Olympus 75-300 f/4-6.7 to the list.

It's almost the same size and weight as the Canon 55-250.

At 600mm equiv. it's much smaller/lighter than any 400mm APS-C lens on the market: half the size and less than a third of the weight.

 

There is no argument that MFT is really unbeatable when it comes to volume/weight.

At the cost of DOF of course ;-)

[Brightcolours]

MTF is nice for snapshooters who in the past would be happy with a compact digital . Although a bit expensive for that  :ph34r:

[thxbb12]

MTF is nice for snapshooters who in the past would be happy with a compact digital . Although a bit expensive for that  :ph34r:

 

Eheh, nice bait 

[popo]

There is no argument that MFT is really unbeatable when it comes to volume/weight.

Let me rephrase that:

 

MFT is the best at MFT size/weight/performance/cost.

 

I have looked at possible downsizing, and continue to do so, but for my needs MFT isn't really small enough to make a practical difference. If a DSLR is too big, MFT would still be too big. I have to keep going to the travelzoom compacts to make a worthwhile size difference for my personal needs. I'm not convinced even at bridge camera size.

[thxbb12]

Let me rephrase that:

 

MFT is the best at MFT size/weight/performance/cost.

 

I have looked at possible downsizing, and continue to do so, but for my needs MFT isn't really small enough to make a practical difference. If a DSLR is too big, MFT would still be too big. I have to keep going to the travelzoom compacts to make a worthwhile size difference for my personal needs. I'm not convinced even at bridge camera size.

 

If the 24-70 range is enough for your need, it might be worth looking into a Sony RX100 III? It's really small and pocketable while still providing better IQ (1 inch sensor) than almost any compacts.

[popo]

As I hinted above the next stop for me is a travelzoom. I don't do much at wide angles like 70mm 300mm is when it starts to get interesting. Unfortunately our current application of the laws of physics dictate if you want good quality at longer focal length equivalents, you can't really escape size. So my main travel camera is still a Sony HX9V and I accept the lower quality.

 

Side note: I must have been ill when I got a Fuji X100 I've probably taken more photos with my phone than that, and my phone is rubbish.

[thxbb12]

As I hinted above the next stop for me is a travelzoom. I don't do much at wide angles like 70mm 300mm is when it starts to get interesting. Unfortunately our current application of the laws of physics dictate if you want good quality at longer focal length equivalents, you can't really escape size. So my main travel camera is still a Sony HX9V and I accept the lower quality.

 

Side note: I must have been ill when I got a Fuji X100 I've probably taken more photos with my phone than that, and my phone is rubbish.

 

Ugh... >= 300mm and reasonably good IQ in a pocketable form factor? I'm afraid you're out of luck!  :wacko:

 

Give it another 10-20 years. Maybe by then tech will have improved enough to make it possible? Until then.. well.. either shoot wider or use crappy compacts  B)

[popo]

It may be crappy, but it is small

 

Edit: my compact that is, that wasn't a stab at MFT