Quote: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.
Quote: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 ;-)