Fullframe vs. MFT - size of lenses

[Travis Butler]

I think they misjudged the demand for small cameras, same like the whole industry missed the train for high end compact cameras.

They might have thought, that in the future, only people who use telezooms will be interested in MFT. For big telezooms you beed bigger bodies to hold it comfortable.

OM system tries to offer now more. The OM5 is still an Olympus product and more or less a Olympus EM5 Mk3.. It will be interesting whether OM system will launch a real new replacement for the OM5.

Whoops. I typed 'OM5' when I meant 'OM3'.

The OM3 is a different product and also here, OM system saved money. My guess is that they wanted to use the same innerts of the OM1ii. This is why the OM3 is so wide. IMHO OM3 should be a lot smaller.

That tradeoff... is actually one I'm happy with, I think, at least based on the pics - I might change my mind holding it in my hand. Having the innards of the OM1ii - with the capability that implies - is nice enough that I might give up that extra width.

 

[dirk]

@Markuswelder

I have the 28-70/2.8 too. It is a great lens. I use in MFT for that range the Lumix Leica 12-35/2.8. Of cause it has a different DOF because of the smaller sensor. But I do not need always shallow DOF. The 12-35 is significant smaller and lighter, which is as a travel kit with tge telezoom 35-100/2.8 more important for me. That does not mean that it is the best solution for others.

That does not mean MFT or fullframe is better or worse. Both have their use cases in specific situations. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Sometimes I prefer to take my S5ii with the 28-70 with me, sometimes a GX9 or G9 Mk1 with the 12-35.