Originally posted by er1kksen If you want ultrawide, m4/3 absolutely does have the advantage over your K-7
Wait, how can you say that when I can get a Pentax 10-17 and use it as a diagonal fisheye on the wider side, or a Sigma 4.5mm and use it as a circular fisheye? Where are the m4/3 equivalents for those lenses?? Basically, there's *one* lens, the 7-14mm that has a 1mm edge over the Sigma 10-20mm in terms of FOV on the wide end (but fall 2mm short on the long end), and you say m4/3 has a definite advantage over all APS-C cameras regarding ultra-wide (which is pretty much what you are saying)?
Putting aside IQ (which would most likely be a fruitless debate), I can definitely give the m4/3 + 7-14mm a huge thumbs-up on their compactness. As has been said, that'd be a perfect travel cam if you're constrained on space in your luggage. On the other hand, I would NEVER swap my DA 12-24mm for that lens/cam combo, since that lens can't take my beloved Hoya R72, Circular Polarizer, and ND400 filters. When I shoot my 12-24, I usually have one of those three on it, and wouldn't have it any other way.
So, you see, your "definite advantage" is actually quite subjective, and highly debateable. The only thing definite about it is compactness, but you should expect that from m4/3, since that
is their
raison d'être. If there is somebody who is into ultrawide landscape photography, I must say it would be remiss to recommend to him/her an m4/3 as having some sort of inherent advantage for that kind of photography, just because of one lens (that can't even take filters).