[Blacknight659]

I was at a local shop and decided to take a look at the new OMD M43 cameras. After trying several lenses and feeling the system in my hand, I was almost convinced this was a travel photographer's dream camera. My mind began to race and I was considering my options for selling my current system and switching to M43.

After I did my homework, I realized two things. First, holy cow is that a lot of money! Second, ONLY 5.92oz difference!

My decision was clear, keep the awesome kit I already have, it is already very low weight. Also, I'll keep the extra money I would have to spent and go on a vacation!

Now having said all this, you can make the argument M43 gives you a very low weight kit when you look at camera and 1 lens, but as a whole, the kits are almost the same weight.


Pentax System

• Pentax K-3ii - 28.8 oz
• 10-17mm - 11.3 oz
• sigma 17-50mm - 19.84 oz
• 50-135mm - 24.16 oz

• Config 1: Camera + 17-50 = 3.04 lbs
• Config 2: Camera + 10-17 = 2.50 lbs
• Config 3: Camera + 50-135 = 3.31 lbs

Total Kit Weight: 84.4 oz (5.25 lbs)
Total Cost: $2,234.85


Olympus system

• OMD EM5 - 15oz
• 12-40mm - 13.47oz
• 7-14mm - 18.72 oz
• 40-150 - 31.04 oz

• Config 1: Camera + 14-40 = 1.77 lbs
• Config 2: Camera + 7-14 = 2.10 lbs
• Config 3: Camera + 40-150 = 2.87 lbs

Total Kit Weight: 78.23 oz (4.88 lbs)
Total Cost: $3,576.00


------->>> Total Kit Diff = 5.92 oz!!!<<<-------

[pathdoc]

Weight is not everything - size also matters. How does your comparison change when you take that into account?

Not that I am trying to talk you into micro 4/3 - I considered it myself and rejected it on the grounds of really not needing the expense of a second system - but it might be a consideration for those who need the SMALLEST possible kit, not just the lightest, and are both willing and able to pay for it.

Speaking of minimalist kits, provided there are no last minute complications I'll be headed overseas in a few weeks, and I will be taking both a maximalist kit (K-5 and some Limited primes) and a minimalist kit in parallel (ME or MX and a 40mm M pancake). The one will fit in my camera bag; the other will fit in a side pocket of my Tilley travel vest. We shall see which gets the most use and takes the best pictures. Bearing in mind that the Olympus M4/3 are about the same size as the ME/MX (and the Olympus film SLRs that inspired them), perhaps some figures with the Olympus body and a small standard prime would be in order?

[Doundounba]

While I don't take issue with pricing - m4/3 lenses and bodies are very expensive - you're really not comparing equivalents here. The Pentax 50-135mm gives you 75-200mm equivalent FoV, so really you should be comparing with something like the Panasonic 35-100mm. Also, isn't the Oly 7-14mm a rectilinear lens? Comparing it to a fisheye makes no sense...

[jeallen01]

As far as the Pentax body is concerned, consider the K-30/K-50 - that's noticeably lighter than the K-5/K-3 range!

[jimr-pdx]

I dropped $1k in about a week for a G7 with 14-42, 45-175pz and a couple other items. The 4k future is now! but after few weeks of not connecting with it personally I returned it. Guess my 4k future will wait a bit longer. The G7 is an excellent camera with a nice grip and some cool features though.

I bought my red K50 plus 18-55wr and hd55-300 for half of my m4:3 sojourn, and added Two nx300 bodies plus small lenses later to satisfy my small-cam desires with APSc quality. For several reasons the nx interface makes far more sense to me than the G7 did, it's more like the Pentax I guess.

[UncleVanya]

I traded my spare K-50 and a kit lens for a Gx7 and the 14-42 zoom. This may be my camera for my trip to London and Paris in March. I may add something else not sure - perhaps the 20mm f1.7 or the 17mm f1.8 - or maybe the 45-175. My other alternative is the Panasonic LX7 or selling both and getting the LX100 or RX100 Sony. I like the Gx7 and find it not too complex. The Gx7 is very small compared to the OM-D series cameras. Size by volume is a huge selling point as is weight.

[savoche]

I'd love to have a smaller system when I pack my bag and go on holiday. But I don't really want anything smaller when shooting - at least not a smaller body.

There are some other issues I have with M4/3 (and other mirrorless systems):
- I still prefer an optical viewfinder. Yes, yes, I know all the advantages with modern EVFs. I just like a good OVF better.
- Battery life. Most mirrorless systems stop at ~300 shots per charge, maybe 350 for the best ones. How many batteries would I have to bring to be off the grid for 4-5 days on a trip?

That said, some of those M4/3 primes look very, very nice...

[UncleVanya]

I have three batteries for the gx7 and each lasts about half as long as my k3 in theory. But the batteries are not more than half the size.

The evf isn't as good as my of but I think that trade off is ok for travel.

[Blacknight659]

For some people size and weight are equally important. You can't beat the small form factor of M43 especially if you use a small prime. For me, I am mostly interested in the fast zooms and this increases the size and weight of the kit for both systems.

For me, size is not my primary concern. Currently my Pentax kit will do nicely considering I would not save me much wight by switching.


@Doundounba Yes, it isn't an absolutely equivalent system I am comparing. I am simply looking at the kits I would build. Could you imagine the amount of work I would have to do to get a full comparison and work out every equivalency? I don't have enough time for all that!!!

Feel free to do you own comparison if you like and post it here. I would be interested in your findings and what you come up with in weight differences.

[MJSfoto1956]

I was at a local shop and decided to take a look at the new OMD M43 cameras. After trying several lenses and feeling the system in my hand, I was almost convinced this was a travel photographer's dream camera. My mind began to race and I was considering my options for selling my current system and switching to M43.

After I did my homework, I realized two things. First, holy cow is that a lot of money! Second, ONLY 5.92oz difference!

My decision was clear, keep the awesome kit I already have, it is already very low weight. Also, I'll keep the extra money I would have to spent and go on a vacation!

Now having said all this, you can make the argument M43 gives you a very low weight kit when you look at camera and 1 lens, but as a whole, the kits are almost the same weight.


Pentax System

• Pentax K-3ii - 28.8 oz
• 10-17mm - 11.3 oz
• sigma 17-50mm - 19.84 oz
• 50-135mm - 24.16 oz

• Config 1: Camera + 17-50 = 3.04 lbs
• Config 2: Camera + 10-17 = 2.50 lbs
• Config 3: Camera + 50-135 = 3.31 lbs

Total Kit Weight: 84.4 oz (5.25 lbs)
Total Cost: $2,234.85


Olympus system

• OMD EM5 - 15oz
• 12-40mm - 13.47oz
• 7-14mm - 18.72 oz
• 40-150 - 31.04 oz

• Config 1: Camera + 14-40 = 1.77 lbs
• Config 2: Camera + 7-14 = 2.10 lbs
• Config 3: Camera + 40-150 = 2.87 lbs

Total Kit Weight: 78.23 oz (4.88 lbs)
Total Cost: $3,576.00


------->>> Total Kit Diff = 5.92 oz!!!<<<-------

you are not going to find better value than Pentax. They have created a tool that is a jack-of-all-trades -- and for many that is the tool they should be using.

Michael

[Spodeworld]

Do you think that a Sigma 10-20 would make more sense than the Pentax 10-17, which is a fisheye?

[pathdoc]

Do you think that a Sigma 10-20 would make more sense than the Pentax 10-17, which is a fisheye?

Like he said, that's the kit he would build. Either he doesn't mind fisheye (and knows how, when and what to shoot to minimise the distortion) or he's content to try to defish in post.

[UncleVanya]

12-35 f2.8 10.8oz
35-100 f2.8 12.7 oz

[Dickie]

12-35 f2.8 10.8oz
35-100 f2.8 12.7 oz

Looks a very close equivalence. Could add the Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 as a wide end option (slight compromise on maximum width vs fisheye above - but not fisheye) at 5.4oz and you have yourself a very much lighter kit bag.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

If less size and weight was your primary motivation, then you simply chose the wrong lenses. I added a Panasonic GX7 as a lightweight option to supplement my Pentax gear a few months ago, and since then my K-30 has rarely left the house.

I have several lenses for my K-30, but my most common kit to go out with was the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4. And I love shooting really wide, so sometimes I would take along my Sigma 8-16mm, but I usually didn't want to add the weight and bulk of the additional lens.

Now, with my GX7, I substitute the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 for my Sigma 30, and the Olympus 75mm f1.8 for my Sigma 85. And for now, I have the Olympus 9mm fisheye handling the super wide angle. It's not as versatile as the Sigma 8-16mm, but it has approximately the same maximum angle of view. Here's how the comparative numbers work out:

K-30: 650g
8-16mm: 555g
30mm f1.4: 430g
85mm 1.4: 725g
Total: 2.36kg (5.2 lbs)

GX7: 402g
9mm: 30g
20mm 1.7: 100g
75mm 1.8: 305g
Total: 837g (1.85 lbs)

So 5.2 lbs vs 1.85 lbs...a pretty drastic difference, as the K-30 kit weighs almost 3x as much. Not to mention that my m43 lenses are WAY smaller, which is really a bigger factor for me than the weight. I'm just loving being able to take a body and 3 lenses in a small, lightweight bag.

My original plan was to get the Olympus 45mm 1.8 for portrait duties, but somebody had the Olympus 75mm 1.8 locally on Craigslist for a price I couldn't resist. But it's a bit long at times, so I'll probably replace it with the 45mm 1.8, which is smaller and also weighs much less (116g vs 305g for the 75mm). In which case my entire kit will be only 648g (1.42 lbs).

Just for fun, here are some pictures comparing my Olympus 9mm fisheye to the Sigma 8-16mm: