[Guest]

Well the T10/T20 address size as well as most of the f2 lenses. They aren't quite as small as (for example) the 45f1.8 but they are still more reasonable. The 18-55 is not quite the same as the 12-40 but is is not horrible alternative in terms of speed/size/image quality. 

-

For good optical quality in zoom MFT seems to have most of the field covered with the 12-40/12-100/35-100 and a pair of decent ultra wide. What is lacks is something similar to 100-400 full frame lens. The panasonic is not horrible but is just too slow (diffraction) to compete.

-

For a truely small setup (ignoring image quailty) MFT is hard to beat and if you can live with one lens (with good optics) the 45f1.8 with mft camera makes a nice small package.

Honestly, Sony APS-C is dead. Most of the native APS-C lenses are mediocre and the FF alternatives are too expensive for an APS-C use case.

 

In the sub-FF league it's either Fuji or MFT in my opinion. 

 

MFT is not the place to for if your priority is shallow DoF. However, in terms of high quality you have quite some options in a compact package.

Fuji is pretty awesome and it's touching FF in quality. However, it's not the place to be if you prefer a compact size/low weight.

[Klaus]

Why do you say the Sony is dead? I do agree there are gaps in their lenses, performance and selection. However, in terms of overall sheer performance, it seems from all the MILC reviews I read the a6300 and to a lesser extend the a6500 are the benchmarks to which others are compared to.


I haven't ruled out a Fuji x-t20, but as you mention, it's not exactly compact. That was the only down fault I found with my friends X-Pro. Size wise it was encroaching SLR land.


What are your thoughts on the Pany kit I mention? It is hard to beat that for size. Also, why are they still at 16Mp? That seems behind the times. Do they have manufacturing issues?

The cameras are great but most of their APS-C zoom lenses are ... crap. Also unlike Fuji/MFT I'd not call that a (APS-C) system really. The amount of native APS-C lenses is marginal really.

The Sony 24, 35 and 50mm lenses are good. Just sayin'.

Now compare that to Fuji ...

[Brightcolours]

You can even look at a Canon EOS M5 with 15-45mm and 55-200mm lens. The 15-45 appears to be better than the Sony 16-50mm in a number of areas, and the weight of the 55-200mm is considerably less than the Sony 55-210mm.
Of course, the Panasonic combo remains the most compact.

http://j.mp/2qo2T2N

[thxbb12]

The MFT equivalent of the Canon 55-200 and Sony 55-210 would be the Panasonic 45-150.

With this combo, the Pany still remains smaller as expected.

For quick I also added the Pany GM5 + 35-100:

 

http://j.mp/2qnSd4t

[Brightcolours]

The MFT equivalent of the Canon 55-200 and Sony 55-210 would be the Panasonic 45-150.
With this combo, the Pany still remains smaller as expected.
For quick I also added the Pany GM5 + 35-100:
 
http://j.mp/2qnSd4t

You are right, the 150mm is the more appropriate one to compare, focal length equivalent wise.

[Klaus]

Seems as if you folks like that site. :-)

 

FWIW, I contacted the owner and we'll now use his images for comparisons in our reviews (cross-linking).

[Klaus]

The MFT equivalent of the Canon 55-200 and Sony 55-210 would be the Panasonic 45-150.

With this combo, the Pany still remains smaller as expected.

For quick I also added the Pany GM5 + 35-100:

 

http://j.mp/2qnSd4t

 

Although it's a bit unfair. MFT trades DoF/Speed for size/weight ... just to come up with the game you always hate to play. ;-)

[Klaus]

Here's a more or less fair comparison of fully equivalent setups:

MFT vs APS-C vs FF

 

http://j.mp/2qohuve

 

As you can see - almost no difference - as expected.


Note: The Pentax lens is actually a little "longer" (equiv. 375mm) which is why it is a little bigger.

 

Pentax 60-250mm f/4 (x1.5) = 90-375mm f/6 

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 (x2) = 90-300mm f/5.6

Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 = 70-300mm f/4-5.6

 

Same quality league.

[Brightcolours]

Here's a more or less fair comparison of fully equivalent setups:
MFT vs APS-C vs FF
 
http://j.mp/2qohuve
 
As you can see - almost no difference - as expected.

Note: The Pentax lens is actually a little "longer" (equiv. 375mm) which is why it is a little bigger.
 
Pentax 60-250mm f/4 (x1.5) = 90-375mm f/6 
Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 (x2) = 90-300mm f/5.6
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 = 70-300mm f/4-5.6
 
Same quality league.

The small Panasonic set up is about 1/3rd of slower than above mentioned APS-C mirrorless from Canon and Sony, not that big a deal when shallow DOF was not something to look at to begin with.

If you want to make a real equivalent set (not really the purpose of this thread?), skip that Pentax and insert a Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f4 on APS-C. I'd like to show the Nikkor in the comparison, but the site does not offer that lens:
http://j.mp/2pBalVz

[Klaus]

The small Panasonic set up is about 1/3rd of slower than above mentioned APS-C mirrorless from Canon and Sony, not that big a deal when shallow DOF was not something to look at to begin with.


If you want to make a real equivalent set (not really the purpose of this thread?), skip that Pentax and insert a Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f4 on APS-C. I'd like to show the Nikkor in the comparison, but the site does not offer that lens:
http://j.mp/2pBalVz

 

It's not totally fair though. The 70-200mm f/4 is a FF with a bigger image circle than necessary for APS-C. An APS-S format 70-200mm f/4 could be smaller.

 

The thing is - if you bring everything in sync there's barely any size difference (other than due to special designs like fresnel elements or whatever). That being said - there is nothing like e.g. the Leica 100-400mm f/4-6.3 in FF available making MFT unique when it comes to such setups.

 

Here's another example of a true APS-C setup vs FF:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#660.550,380.7,ha,t

 

Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 vs Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 

 

The Canon lens is, again, slightly bigger because it's longer (160mm vs 200mm).