deniah

at last check there was 23 4/3 lenses, 66 native m4/3 lenses, excluding the (fantastic) manual focus ones made by rokinon. they cover fast primes at all ranges, pro zooms at all ranges, extreme telephoto zooms and primes and specialties like multiple macros, fisheyes.

the only thing it is missing is native tilt-shift. there is supposedly one from rokinon depending on who you asked... but ive never seen it offered for sale.

besides that bewildering selection, the lenses themselves are small and performs well wide open (an issue on the larger formats).

here are the 50mm eFOV and 90mm eFOV primes both of which shoot sharp corner to corner at f1.8





the prime trinity of wide-normal-short_tele of olympus is a combined 372g.
the aps-c short_tele on fuji is 405g alone. (or 205g with the macro)

abmj-jr

I think you are a little misinformed. The m4/3 world has a wider range of lens choices at lower prices than almost any APS.C selection I have seen. The array of lenses for m4/3 is not only wide, lens for lens they are smaller, lighter and less expensive.

In addition, when I switched from my Pentax K-5ii to m4/3, it cut the size of my kit by 40% and the weight by half. That is not insignificant. Admittedly, my upgrade to the EM1 involved a slight increase in size and weight from my old EM5 but it is still far less than the DSLR I had for years.

wco81

Yeah but how many lenses do the average person buy?

Or even use, especially the bigger and heavier ones which are a hassle to tote around?

I know the Sony APS-C cameras don't have as wide a lens selection but some of them are smaller and lighter than the M43 cameras.

If there are a couple of lenses which work well, then I don't think the overall lens selection matters as much unless you're a pro.

People here travel with their gear so they're going to pack 2 or 3 lenses at the most.

RSSrsvp

I am not a pro or anything close to being one and I purchased my micro four thirds system this month. I am carrying the OM-D E-M5 Mark II (417 g/14.7 oz) and 3 lenses in my small Tenba DNA 8 bag (589 g/20.8 oz).

The lenses are:
M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 (120 g/4.23 oz) 35mm-equivalent field of view of 34mm
M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm f2.8 PRO (weather sealed) (382 g/13.47 oz) 35mm-equivalent field of view of 24-80mm
M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150 mm f4.0-5.6 R (190 g/6.7 oz ) 35mm-equivalent field of view of 80-150mm

The only heavy lens in the group is the 12-40 f2.8 is from their Pro lens series because it has an all metal, weatherproof body which accounts for the heavier weight. The IQ is outstanding and has received rave reviews.

By the way the total weight of the bag, camera body and lenses is only 3.75 pounds.

lhgreengrd1

My Micro 4/3 travel kit includes the following lenses, because they are so small:

I always travel with: 14mm f2.5, 25mm f1.8, a 60mm f2.8 and a 45-175mm zoom. I usually add to this, a 0.75x front-mount wide converter that works well with the 14mm to make it a 10.5mm, and a 1.9x front-mount teleconverter that works well with the 60 and 45-175mm zooms. These lenses give me the 35mm equivalent of 21mm to 630mm

I also frequently add to this, either a legacy manual-focus Macro 50mm f3.5, or a legacy manual-focus 50mm f1.7 that I use as a portrait lens.

Generally, my entire kit, including 2 bodies (an OM-D EM-1 and an EPL-5), a flash unit, spare batteries, chargers, and memory cards, and the usual half dozen lenses, fits in a small camera bag that takes up about 1/2 of my personal item carryon, and weighs under 5 lbs.

My old D90 DSLR kit with just one body and 2-3 lenses took up the same amount of space, and covered a much narrower range of shooting situations. An equivalent 2 body, 4-5 lens DSLR kit would take up more space than my personal carry-on item would allow.

CitizenWorld

Genuinely good discussion but I think I'll stick with FF/APSC DSLRs depending on application.

RSSrsvp

I purchased the 17mm f1.8 yesterday at the $449 sale price and already started shooting with it. The IQ is beautiful and I will make good use of it.

The main reason why I purchased the 17mm f1.8 was for low light situations plus there are many times I just want to carry a very light weight camera. Don't get me wrong, the 12-40 f2.8 Pro lens is fabulous and most likely be my #1 choice when using the E-M5 Mark ll.

ChiefNWA

Anyone have any personal experience with the Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6?

I know, no the fastest lens, but being only $225 at some retailers I feel like I could make it work. Currently I've only been using the kit 18-135mm lens on my 60D.

Troopers

My thoughts as a semi-pro wedding/portrait/commercial photog. I say semi-pro because I don't shoot full-time but enough that it pay sfor gear and more (plus my day job pays way more). I primarily use Nikon D8xx for paid work, but have used the Oly EM5-MII. The Oly is used primarily for street/travel/family/stock/everyday photography.

The primary appeal for me is that the overall versatility of the system and the build quality. I agree with others about lens options.

Not sure what you mean by marginally smaller than an APSC. The Oly EM5-MII is significantly smaller than a D7200 than a D7200 is smaller than a D810.

Comparing a D7200 with the Oly EM5-MII:

- Nikon D7200 is 10% (11.8 mm) wider and 25% (21.5 mm) taller than Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II.
- Nikon D7200 is 100% (38 mm) thicker than Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II.
- Nikon D7200 [765 g] weights 54% (269 grams) more than Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

Whereas comparing a D810 and the D7200:

- Nikon D810 is 8% (10.5 mm) wider and 15% (16.5 mm) taller than Nikon D7200.
- Nikon D810 is 7% (5.5 mm) thicker than Nikon D7200.
- Nikon D810 [980 g] weights 28% (215 grams) more than Nikon D7200 [765 g]


Just want to emphasize application and add goal/output.

wco81

I think people are referring to things like the Sony a6000 or a6300, which is APS-C but compares well in size and weight to the micro 4/3 cameras.

Troopers

I was comparing like cameras within their respective format. a6000 can't compare to the D7200 (I have played with the a6300 but not enough to form an opinion)...awful EVF, RAW compression, etc. Comparing an a6000 to Oly is not even close.

wco81

Awful?

Maybe not as good for certain uses but I don't know about awful:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/13

It's certainly comparable to the Olympus cameras according to the reviews.

Troopers

The resolution just isn't there, and it's sensitivity is very frustrating.

And IMO, dpreview is

If not better...IQ of APSC is a step of from M4/3 (and the a6000 is a smaller camera than the EM5-MII)

lhgreengrd1

The size advantage of Micro 4/3 vs. Sony a6000/6300 is in the lenses, not the camera bodies. The Micro 4/3 lenses are noticeably smaller - the bodies are not.

RSSrsvp

Also the price of the lenses for the a6000/a6300 series are pretty expensive, especially when you are buying a Zeiss lens which has a FE mount and was designed for the FF alpha7 series.