Why MFT? - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Micro-Four-Thirds (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16) +--- Thread: Why MFT? (/showthread.php?tid=322) |
Why MFT? - Guest - 05-01-2017 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. 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 MFT? - Klaus - 05-02-2017 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. 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. Quote:The Sony 24, 35 and 50mm lenses are good. Just sayin'. Now compare that to Fuji ... Why MFT? - Brightcolours - 05-02-2017 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 Why MFT? - thxbb12 - 05-02-2017 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 Why MFT? - Brightcolours - 05-02-2017 Quote:The MFT equivalent of the Canon 55-200 and Sony 55-210 would be the Panasonic 45-150.You are right, the 150mm is the more appropriate one to compare, focal length equivalent wise. Why MFT? - Klaus - 05-02-2017 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). Why MFT? - Klaus - 05-02-2017 Quote:The MFT equivalent of the Canon 55-200 and Sony 55-210 would be the Panasonic 45-150. 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. ;-) Why MFT? - Klaus - 05-02-2017 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. Why MFT? - Brightcolours - 05-02-2017 Quote:Here's a more or less fair comparison of fully equivalent setups: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 Why MFT? - Klaus - 05-02-2017 Quote: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. 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). |