p.2 #1 · Potential Newbie Sony A1ii User - From Canon
johnvanr wrote:
Unless you print very large, MFT will give you the best combo of size and capability.
I don’t think the R3 is that large for what it is. That 28-70/2, however, is crazy large. I don’t know why anyone who doesn’t earn money with it would consider that lens.
Everything but the A1 II (or the Olympus OM-1) will feel slow compared to your R3.
As someone that switched from M43 to Sony, I agree that the size and weight is great on M43(for lenses, not the cameras), but that quality just isn't there. I used both systems together near the end, and the quality of images on m43 was absolutely noticeably weaker, as I process both together. On my last jaunt, I took the same pictures with both systems, and it sold me on getting rid of M43. It just wasn't nearly of the same caliber as Sony.
And you don't need to print very large to see the difference either. 12x9 would show.
p.2 #2 · Potential Newbie Sony A1ii User - From Canon
shadow9d9 wrote:
As someone that switched from M43 to Sony, I agree that the size and weight is great on M43(for lenses, not the cameras), but that quality just isn't there. I used both systems together near the end, and the quality of images on m43 was absolutely noticeably weaker, as I process both together. On my last jaunt, I took the same pictures with both systems, and it sold me on getting rid of M43. It just wasn't nearly of the same caliber as Sony.
And you don't need to print very large to see the difference either. 12x9 would show.
I’ve printed larger with MFT and also compared prints of the same size with FF prints and didn’t find a difference.
That said, for landscapes, narrow DoF and heavy crops and when I don’t care about weight or size, I prefer FF and MF.
p.2 #3 · Potential Newbie Sony A1ii User - From Canon
gdanmitchell wrote:
I thnk that buyers can consider APS-C cameras (from Sony, Canon, Fujifilm, and others) in comparison to full frame cameras based on their needs and intended usage.
There is no question that a larger sensor with more photo sites can produce excellent files that can hold up to larger reproduction, for example. But most people buying cameras today are never going to present their photographs large enough to reveal the differences — that’s certainly he case for people who generally share their photographs online or perhaps in emails/texts to friends and family.
So for them, the potential IQ pluses of the larger format are fairly meaningless.
On the other hand, the potential for a smaller, lighter, and less expensive system to satisfy their photographic goals can lead them to a smaller-than-full frame option such as APS-C or even MFT.
It isn’t as simple as “bigger is always better.” (If it were, we’d all be shooting Phase One…)...Show more →
I think you misunderstood my point. It is not that one might not choose Mft over full-frame; but if one is comparing camera systems in terms of their weight and size, as the OP was asking about, one should compare cameras with similar specs. Some of the advice he was getting compared the X-T5 to the A1 II in terms of size, which is inapt. The Sony a6700 is the apt comparison for the Fuji X-t5 and not the Sony A1 II.
p.2 #4 · Potential Newbie Sony A1ii User - From Canon
Cameras with micro-four-thirds, full-frame, and medium format sensors excell in different ways.
For example, medium format is arguably better than full-frame for wide angle to normal focal length photography. Compared to Canon specifically, the weight difference isn't a reason to pick a Canon system. For example,
Fujifilm GFX100S II + GF 20-35mm F4 (equivalent to 16-28mm F3.2) ~1,608 g
Canon EOS R5 + RF 15-35mm F2.8L ~1,578 g.
R1 and R3 bodies are considerably heavier than the R5 or GFX100S II:
EOS R1
~1,115 g
Canon EOS R3
~1,015 g
Canon EOS R5
~738 g
Fujifilm GFX100S II
~883 g
On the other hand, my "desert island" micro-four-thirds system is the OM-1 II & Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 (equivalent to full-frame 80-300mm F5.6) that weights ~1.36 kg without the tripod collar and leg that it doesn't need. This lens alone is a good reason to buy a micro-four-thirds camera.
A cross-system comparison is not useful when the use isn't acknowledged.
