Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why MFT?
#1
I asked this in another thread and thought it may be worthy of it's own:

 

I am definitely going to jump into an MILC. My goal is a smaller light weight system for travel and just every day use. I recently got to use a friends Fuji X-pro and couldn't find any real drawbacks for general use over my dSLR.

 

Where I'm struggling is whether to go APS-C or MFT?

 

The Sony a6300 with the 16-50 retractable (e.g. pancake) lens cost $50US more than a Pany GX85 with the 12-32 pancake lens and is only 20g heavier. The size difference is also negligible. Overall performance, iso, focus, resolution, etc, definitely goes to the Sony. IMO, with the standard kit lens the Sony wins hands down. Beyond this things get a little fuzzier.

 

For a small easy to pocket/travel MFT kit I could add the Pany 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 pancake lens and a 20/1.7 prime. While the zoom optics may not be great, this kit is appealing and the price is ~$450US less than a comparable Sony (55-210 and 35/1.8) kit.

 

The downside to the Sony kit is once you add a medium zoom. The Sony 55-210, their "kit" medium zoom kit lens, is twice as long retracted and 2.5x the weight. The same is true for the Sony 35/1.8, it's just shy of being twice as long and twice the weight. Albeit, it's still a small and light lens.

 

I keep feeling if Sony decides to come out with a retractable ~50-200mm lens for the alpha, it could put a last nail in the MFT coffin. At least for people looking at starter kits. Size becomes moot. Megapixels still means a lot to people and 24 vs 16 is significant. For reference, iPhone 7 has 12Mp and the iPhone 8 has 16Mp.

 

I'm not planning on getting rid of any of my Canon gear anytime soon. This MILC kit would just be supplemental. And yes, I've put a lot of thought into this, that's what I do! Mainly because once I jump in I will stick with it for many years.

#2
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.

#3
Quote: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.

 
 

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?
#4
The Panny kist you suggested is great, and you may actually be pleasantly surprised by the IQ of the 35-100 F/4.0-5.6.

 

The 12-32 is considered quite a good lens too, above average for sure for a standard zoom, and the 20 F/1.7 has always been considered a great lens, which it absolutely is.

 

BTW, if you'd like even smaller cameras, you could consider the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II or the E-M5 II. As a kit lens I would suggest the 14-42 EZ pancake in that case. If your budget is large enough, I'd also consider the Pen F. The latter is the one I always have with me. Nice thing is that it looks like a rangefinder, but has both an EVF and a tiltable/swivable screen.

 

Both Panasonic and Olympus have great consumer lenses in their ranges, and I would like to add that they generally perform better than you'd expect from the resolution tests you may read everywhere.

 

I've had a look at Fuji as well, with Sony having lenses which are way too large IMO, but again, as you noted, the cameras I am interested in are significantly bigger than MFT cameras.

 

I really like Olympus a lot currently, amongst others because of their size. They are all smaller than the old Olympus analog cameras, even the E-M1 II (although that has a large handgrip). Considering that I used a shoot a bunch of Pentax M-series cameras, I really like their small size. And the quality is easily as good as anything from Canon or Nikon.

 

Another thing I like is the fact that there are some very, very good adapters out there, which allow you to use virtually any other lens on an MFT body, like the Metabones adapters. Since I have a bunch of Canon lenses, that is really great, as I can always fall back to those if I want to or need to.

 

I started with MFT about 7 or so years ago, in addition to my Canon gear, when I got a good deal on some used stuff and a Panasonic GF2. Since then I have shot with and owned an Olympus E-M10, E-M10 II, E-M5 II and currently a Pen F and an E-M1 II, while I did test a few Panasonic bodies and a few more Olympus bodies as well. Great cameras all, you just need to check what is important to you in a camera for a specific purpose within your budget and go for it.  I doubt you will ever look back.

 

As to some other lens suggestions, you could also consider the Panny 42.5 F/1.7 or the Oly 45 F/1.8 - you'd be amazed how much you can still do with these lenses when it comes to shallow DoF. AAnd of course you'd normally only need to stop down MFT lenses by 1/2 a stop or 1 stop, or even less, to get to the optimum apertures resolution wise, whereas with FF or APS-C you often still have to stop down 2 stops or more. This is something that i soften overlooked in the equivalence discussions.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps a little.

 

I reckon either Fuji or MFT is great, but my personal favourite is MFT, and currently especially Olympus with their current top of the line cameras, great IBIS, and the best in-camera jpeg-engine in existence.

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 11 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#5
Quote: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?
 

What Klaus is saying is that Sony APS-C doesn't make real sense, Sony considers it a secondary low quality system and there are no high quality dedicated APS-C lenses in Sony world, the kit is crap so are other  native Sony APS-C lenses, if you want good quality your only option is using full frame lenses or third party lenses (like Canon and Nikon) via adapter. Doing this you will lose all the weight advantage of the system.

Would you move systems to use such a kit lens ?

http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-...55f3556nex

 

check the performance of their 16mmf2.8 prime

http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-...ny16f28nex

 

The camera body is good of course but that's not everything, why Sony still neglecting APS-C I don't know, maybe they are convinced people going APS-C will buy nothing more than the kit lens...
#6
The Sony 24, 35 and 50mm lenses are good. Just sayin'. Smile
#7
Quote:The Panny kist you suggested is great, and you may actually be pleasantly surprised by the IQ of the 35-100 F/4.0-5.6.

 

The 12-32 is considered quite a good lens too, above average for sure for a standard zoom, and the 20 F/1.7 has always been considered a great lens, which it absolutely is.

 

. If your budget is large enough, I'd also consider the Pen F. The latter is the one I always have with me. Nice thing is that it looks like a rangefinder, but has both an EVF and a tiltable/swivable screen.

 

 

Kind regards, Wim
 

I was looking closely at the Pen F. Tell me more about it. The cost doesn't bother me, my insurance is paying! 

 

I think I just started looking at the Pany because the built in IS works with the lens IS. Plus, the 12-32 and 35-100 easily cover the range I like. I like the 12mm. However, I just read the  Pen F does allow for lens IS with internal IS:-). I suppose the only thing I wish the Pen F had is a flash. I like in camera flash, it comes in handy sometimes... But I could live without it.

 

Now, and pardon my ignorance, are these systems truly universal or have they somewhat wandered off that path? Will all lenses cross over? What about accessories like external flashes? Though Oly makes an inexpensive small flash.
#8
Quote:The Sony a6300 with the 16-50 retractable (e.g. pancake) lens cost $50US more than a Pany GX85 with the 12-32 pancake lens and is only 20g heavier. The size difference is also negligible. Overall performance, iso, focus, resolution, etc, definitely goes to the Sony. IMO, with the standard kit lens the Sony wins hands down. Beyond this things get a little fuzzier.

 

For a small easy to pocket/travel MFT kit I could add the Pany 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 pancake lens and a 20/1.7 prime. While the zoom optics may not be great, this kit is appealing and the price is ~$450US less than a comparable Sony (55-210 and 35/1.8) kit.

 

The downside to the Sony kit is once you add a medium zoom. The Sony 55-210, their "kit" medium zoom kit lens, is twice as long retracted and 2.5x the weight. The same is true for the Sony 35/1.8, it's just shy of being twice as long and twice the weight. Albeit, it's still a small and light lens.

 

I keep feeling if Sony decides to come out with a retractable ~50-200mm lens for the alpha, it could put a last nail in the MFT coffin. At least for people looking at starter kits. Size becomes moot. Megapixels still means a lot to people and 24 vs 16 is significant. For reference, iPhone 7 has 12Mp and the iPhone 8 has 16Mp.

 

I'm not planning on getting rid of any of my Canon gear anytime soon. This MILC kit would just be supplemental. And yes, I've put a lot of thought into this, that's what I do! Mainly because once I jump in I will stick with it for many years.
 

Between the A6300 + 16-50 and the Pany GX85 + 12-32, the combo providing the best IQ is the Pany + 12-32. The Sony 16-50 lens is probably one of the worst lenses one can possibly buy; check the review here on PZ to get a reality check.

 

Sony might make great bodies, but their APS-C lens lineup is very weak compared to other mirrorless systems. Remember you're buying into a system, not only a body. Also ask yourself: do you really need 24MP? How big and often do you print? It's easier than ever to pixel peep, but also very misleading. This is not how we look at pictures.

 

I'd start by asking myself: what lenses do I need? And then I'd consider the system that suits me best based on how I'm going to use my gear and what I'm going to shoot.

 

Again, in terms of versatility/IQ/compactness, this MFT kit is very hard to beat:
  • Panasonic GX80 or Olympus E-M10 Mk II
  • Panasonic 12-32
  • Panasonic 45-150
  • Olympus 25 f1.8 (or Olympus 17 f1.8 if you like wider)
That covers your needs from 24 to 300mm (FF equiv) and gives you normal 50mm for low light situations and shallow DOF (f3.6 FF equiv).
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#9
Quote: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.
 

Regarding Fuji, you can still get a fairly compact kit as long as you don't need long lenses and enjoy prime lenses.

For instance, the following kit if very small while being very versatile:
  • Fuji X-T10 or X-T20
  • 18 f2
  • 35 f1.4
  • 50 f2
There is no equivalent in any other system. You can also throw a 23 f2 instead of 18 or 14 f2.8 if you like UWA (and don't mind the larger size).
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#10
Quote:BTW, if you'd like even smaller cameras, you could consider the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II or the E-M5 II. As a kit lens I would suggest the 14-42 EZ pancake in that case.
 

The pany 12-32 is better optically than the 14-42, especially at the wide end and I personally find the 12mm at the wide end mmore useful than the extra range.

 

Quote:I reckon either Fuji or MFT is great, but my personal favourite is MFT, and currently especially Olympus with their current top of the line cameras, great IBIS, and the best in-camera jpeg-engine in existence.

Olympus JPEG are great indeed. However, Fuji's are even better :-) The various film simulations are great and can be selected in pp within Lightroom. Very useful!




 

--Florent

Flickr gallery
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)