Smaller sensor - smaller lenses
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 3K
raid
Dad Photographer
The advantage is saving on weight. It is a huge advantage when traveling with the family during the warm summer months and when we walk around and up and down hills all day long each day. A small and light 40mm or 50mm RF lens becomes my 80mm tele without me having to pack a real 80 or 90 or 100 lens for the M9.
Last summer we were in Italy. Robert B traveled to the same location before we did, and he "warned" me of some up hill walks that were challenging. I left the M9 behind, and I took with me 2 m4/3 cameras with very light lenses.
Last summer we were in Italy. Robert B traveled to the same location before we did, and he "warned" me of some up hill walks that were challenging. I left the M9 behind, and I took with me 2 m4/3 cameras with very light lenses.
JB-Dancer
Established
I agree with you Raid. When travelling I find that small light-weight quality cameras and lenses are the best equipment and are a huge advantage especially at my age when carrying heavy cameras and lenses are just out of the question.
ForestCap
Well-known
Not everyone needs an Em-1, especially for the people who are satisfied with what M9 can do.
Some small bodied M4/3 camera has same sensor with the em1, and still more functions than the M9. They are, to me, perfect travel cameras, with or without additional lenses.
Dogman
Veteran
This is one of the reasons I used Olympus 4/3 E system (along with Canon). The Olympus zooms were usually a bit smaller but also faster than equivalent Canon zooms--plus they were just as sharp or sharper. Most of my Canon lenses were made for full frame/35mm format so they were overly big and heavy. I still use those E system lenses adapted to the Olympus OMD E-M1 but the Micro 4/3 format has less appeal today now that I'm using Fuji gear. Fuji prime lenses are small and optically superb and the cameras handle better IMO. But I can't really compare the Fuji zooms in size since I don't own any (although I have a used 18-55 on order).
kshapero
South Florida Man
Right now my EDC is an APS-C Pentax K-3 with the tough as nails Pentax 20-40 (30-60 FF). Optical VF and plenty weather and water resistant.
Axel
singleshooter
Okay so far. But - in my opinion fourthirds colour rendering is far away from Leica. There are other (better I mean) options to complete a setup you described. Fuji colours and Fuji or Sony bodies for example are worth to have a look at.
"Smaller sensor - smaller lenses" doesn´t count here because the M9 makes the rules for the lens size.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Makes the rules for manual lens size. Leica autofocus lenses are enormous, e.g. the 50mm Summilux for the SL. Lenses like the 23mm and 35mm for the Fuji are small and quick to autofocus.
Spanik
Well-known
A 24/2.8, 16/2.8, 80-sh/2.8 1:1 macro and an DSLR. They do have primes but it are bloody big 1.4 ones. Heck I even would be happy with f/4, iso is good enough.
I don't like the handling of the Fuji either, got a Xpro-1 and got rid of it after a week. Stabilisation was awful, the exp comp dial got in the way every time and the evf was a disgrace to a viewfinder. Borrowed an XT-1 and it was larger but not better.
Today I went to a railroad model show, didn't use anything wider than f/8 and even that was at the limit. If I had a tripod I wouldn't have got wider than f/16.
Axel
singleshooter
M9 lenses are not comparable with SL-Lenses. Other system, other sensor-size.
But all lenses that originally are made for a M(9) are usable by the named bodies.
The sensor size 24x36 of the m9 makes the rules here for the physical size of the lenses.
jsrockit
Moderator
Right now my EDC is an APS-C Pentax K-3 with the tough as nails Pentax 20-40 (30-60 FF). Optical VF and plenty weather and water resistant.
Pretty nice...
jsrockit
Moderator
Ok... but they do have a 23mm f/2, a 27mm 2.8, a 16mm 1.4 (its not that big!), a 80mm macro coming very soon...
ok, they aren't going to have a DSLR...
That was 6 years ago... it was its first camera. and the XT1 was certainly better in the VF area. You just don't like mirrorless perhaps?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
No sense trying to talk him into a Fuji; his mind is made up. There are plenty of other cameras to choose from.
jsrockit
Moderator
True... .,..
Dogman
Veteran
Maybe you missed the 14/2.8, 18/2, 23/2, 27/2.8, 35/2, 50/2, maybe a couple I've forgotten. Only the 14mm is a bit larger but still pretty small. Only the high speed lenses and some of the zooms can be considered large and they're still small compared to the behemoth Canon L-series lenses.
The handling is subjective, of course--I consider the Fuji user interface superior. I love the X-Pro1 despite the viewfinder and the X-T1 was the camera that finally got me to accept and then to like EVFs. Different strokes, etc., but you can't fault Fuji for having oversize standard primes.
Oops! I didn't see that jsrockit already made these points. Just consider my comment as seconding his.
Last edited:
ptpdprinter
Veteran
They really have those?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I love the whole concept of smaller sensor, smaller/lighter camera package. Just not crazy about the reality of said package.
My two biggest problems with the 1" sensor package I tried using were its much worse ISO noise above ISO 1600, and its far too much depth of field, even with lenses of aperture 1.2.
If someone could solve those problems, I would be interested, because I certainly love the lighter weight.
Best,
-Tim
My two biggest problems with the 1" sensor package I tried using were its much worse ISO noise above ISO 1600, and its far too much depth of field, even with lenses of aperture 1.2.
If someone could solve those problems, I would be interested, because I certainly love the lighter weight.
Best,
-Tim
jsrockit
Moderator
I get what you are saying, but it is now my go-to camera in situations where I might be robbed. 😀
Similar threads
