relative size difference m43/APS/FE

Snapshot to show one example of the relative size differences between three mirrorless cameras:
- m43 = Panasonic GX9 with 14/2.5 (28mm) with 46mm metal screw-in hood
- APS = Fujifilm X-E3 and the 16/2.8 (24mm)
- FF = Sony A7 II and the 28/2



Note that Panasonic make a couple of similar size cameras, the GX80 (aka GX85) is tiny bit smaller with a more flush/fixed EVF - the LCD still tilts. And they have a much smaller GX800/850/880 range but these only go to 1/500s shutter mechanical shutter and are made from plastic. The Pan GX9 & GX85 are solid build though.

The X-E3 is Fujifilm's smallest proper camera.

And here the Fujifilm 16/2.8 (24mm) and Sony 28/2.
The fujifilm 18/2 (not shown, never owned it) is smaller but not weather sealed, the f2 lenses in the new range of lenses "the crons" (16/2.8, 23/2, 35/2, and 50/2) are all about the same size/shape as the Sony 28/2


Also show here (on the Fujifilm 16/2.8) is the un-branded metal screw-in hoods that I use instead of the bayonet/clip-on plastic ones. This is the 'wide' version in 49mm which will move over to the Sony 28/2. The Sony petal shape one is shown for size/reference (I tend to leave these wrapped in their plastic and stored in the box.

Sony did an amazing thing keeping the A7 and some of the lenses so small. One negative of the GX9 and X-E3 is the almost complete lack of 3-finger grip (which Sony have included).

I've grown used to using my pinkie finger under the camera.

Although I did just check the used price of the official Sony two-battery grip - I could pretend it is a Nikon D3

addy landzaat wrote: Though you can get much smaller with APS-C for similar roles, it usually is not equivalent. But in the only equivalent example the crop version is not smaller, at least, not much.

True, lenses with the same angle of view and aperture will tend to be the same size across formats.
Do note that I wrote aperture. This was on purpose and it is not synonymous with f-number or ratio

I recently had a disagreement with a guy about the whole M4/3 and FF debate. He insisted you couldn't compare the Sony 40mm f/2.5G lens to the Olympus 20mm f/1.2 Pro lens. Of course your can. I did a quick comparison of M4/3, APS-C and FF systems using Olympus, Fujifilm, Sony APS-C and Sony FF. I was surprised to find out that Sony APS-C was always the cheapest system (due to amazing lens selection) and that Sony FF could be cheaper than Fujifilm and Olympus depending on your lens choices. I think M4/3 might be done for as Fujifilm and Sony APS-C can match it for cost and often size and FF isn't a huge jump while all three offer better performance and flexibility.

It is just a comparison between big pears and smaller pears.

Harm vb wrote: It is just a comparison between big pears and smaller pears.

I'm inclined to agree.

pegelli wrote: I think the real advantage of m43 or APS-C is for nature/wildlife/birding where you need long lenses, those are much smaller/shorter for the same angle of view as their FF counterparts. However if you have a 24-70/2.8 on FF and use it to separate subjects from the background wide open with low DOF there really isn't a APS-C or M43 equivalent, but if you use the FF lens at f5.6 or 8 the Oly Pro 12-40/2.8 is indeed a nice and much smaller alternative on M43 weighing 500 grams less Bottom line, it's all horses for courses.

I'm inclined to disagree. I used them wide open and stopped down to pretty much the same output. The M4/3 did much better in the low light interior shots (a beautiful Christmas tree display at the Capitol Theater in Port Hope, Ontario) due to it's superior IBIS. We will not bother mentioning the size/weight difference, which is laughable.

pegelli wrote: LAbernethy wrote: I'm inclined to disagree. Which part, the dof, the long lenses for nature/wildlife, the weight difference (which I think we agree on) or something else?

On DOF. For practical use, not theoretical argument they're the same. On long lenses, I agree on the size/weight M4/3 advantage my EM-1 Mk2 w/75-300mm attached fits in the Sony 200-600mm lens hood. On short lenses it depends, old European adapted vs Sigma Art? For APS-C? I see no real advantage in size weight.