[UncleVanya]

I took my trusty K-3 with a DA 50-135, and for for comparison my newest shootin' iron, a Panasonic GX8. It's the first mirrorless camera I've enjoyed using, because the EVF doesn't suck (as most of you probably know). Once again, I forgot to swivel it upright, because that's such a unique feature, but I swear I will next time. As always, I found the K-3's OVF a more pleasant visual experience, with one glaring exception. Colors were true, and there was detail in the shadows. My finished RAWs looked like what I saw in the OVF. The GX8 wasn't bad, though. It's EVF really proved valuable when I aimed south, into the sun, to show the brilliance of the snow-covered ice. While the Pentax forced me to squint and shoot fast, the EVF protected my eyes from the hazardous sun exposure so I could pause and consider my composition. I suspect the Panasonic will become my favorite for this kind of photo, and many sunsets.

My three MFT lenses showed surprisingly little variation. I had the two smallest and cheapest along with the most expensive. The little pocket rockets, the slow Lumix 12-32 and 35-100, delivered impressive detail, critically sharp on my big iMac screen. By themselves, these two lenses might be the best reason to own an MFT camera. When I'm willing to carry a larger package, the PL 12-60 does the job of both, and takes color rendition and detail another step beyond. This round still goes to the Pentax, because its dynamic range was clearly better. When I had to lift shadows in LR, I can go all the way with the K-3 and recover clean color with minimum noise. In the GX8's shadows, there's more noise than color. But what about sharpness? Isn't that the most important thing? Not to me. The overall sharpness difference between the two systems and formats was negligible, and all were sharp enough for any practical purpose.

Enough talk, but where are the photos? Here's a few-

I too have a GX8 and a k-3 (recently added the KP to the mix) and I’m also a fan of the tiny 12-32/35-100 lenses.

I agree on your assessment of the dynamic range as well. The GX8 is a very capable camera but it doesn’t quite have the dynamic range of a k-3.

Fun idea to shoot both together, I tend to take one out at a time so my comparisons aren’t as direct as yours.

[WPRESTO]

When I'm willing to carry a larger package, the PL 12-60 does the job of both, and takes color rendition and detail another step beyond.

If you want a one-lens-only kit, provided the extra weight and price are not prohibitive, I can highly recommend the Oly 12-100mm f4. Performance at all focal lengths has consistently been better than I expected. The only limitation is close-focusing, which is only so-so. However, I can carry an achromatic close-up filter which will allow that one lens to also serve as a near-macro for insects, especially out at 100mm (FOV = about 135mm on APS- C or 200mm on FF).

[Wheatridger]

If you want a one-lens-only kit, provided the extra weight and price are not prohibitive, I can highly recommend the Oly 12-100mm f4. Performance at all focal lengths has consistently been better than I expected. The only limitation is close-focusing, which is only so-so. However, I can carry an achromatic close-up filter which will allow that one lens to also serve as a near-macro for insects, especially out at 100mm (FOV = about 135mm on APS- C or 200mm on FF).

I've handled the Oly 12-100. The price and size is prohibitive, for me anyway. The value of MFT is compactness. When a lens gets to be twice the weight of the camera, or more, it's an awkward carry. I don't want to lug around a lens that's significantly larger and heavier than the DFA 28-105 that I mount on the K-1, with its much bigger sensor. The Leica 12-60 is close to the size of the DFA 28-105, and was about the same price used. And the Leica has excellent close focusing capabilities.

[dadipentak]

I'm a fan of the Oly 12-100mm f4 as well.

[UncleVanya]

I've handled the Oly 12-100. The price and size is prohibitive, for me anyway. The value of MFT is compactness. When a lens gets to be twice the weight of the camera, or more, it's an awkward carry. I don't want to lug around a lens that's significantly larger and heavier than the DFA 28-105 that I mount on the K-1, with its much bigger sensor. The Leica 12-60 is close to the size of the DFA 28-105, and was about the same price used. And the Leica has excellent close focusing capabilities.

In this we see eye to eye. I’m not interested in one lens solutions that are heavy and awkward. I like my 18-135 but I wouldn’t care for it if it was larger and heavy. I enjoy my m43 systems for their light and compact flavor lenses and have a few high quality primes and zooms with limited range to fill in.

[Wheatridger]

In this we see eye to eye. I’m not interested in one lens solutions that are heavy and awkward. I like my 18-135 but I wouldn’t care for it if it was larger and heavy. I enjoy my m43 systems for their light and compact flavor lenses and have a few high quality primes and zooms with limited range to fill in.

These are my first few months trying out MFT, and I'm surprisingly impressed. Previously I'd dabbled with the Fuji X Pro 1 and XE-2. Those cameras had great retro styling and gave lovely results, but system-wise, the gear matched up with Pentax a little too well. I wasn't looking for more heavy, expensive lenses. Their ergonomics weren't as attractive as their industrial design. MFT offers a whole different set of attractions, as you mentioned, as well as an increasing amount of bargains. My GX8 is strong where Pentax is weak: speed, AF, and compactness. That really changes when you get to longer lenses, though. The professional-level MFT telephotos and telezooms are heavier than Pentax lenses like the DA50-135 and the DA 300! Yes, these MFT lenses function as twice those focal lengths, but I can get the same magnification by cropping my K-1 or K-3 images. I haven't seen the slower, midrange telezooms; maybe when I do, I'll see some MFT benefit.

[moggi1964]

These are my first few months trying out MFT, and I'm surprisingly impressed. Previously I'd dabbled with the Fuji X Pro 1 and XE-2. Those cameras had great retro styling and gave lovely results, but system-wise, the gear matched up with Pentax a little too well. I wasn't looking for more heavy, expensive lenses. Their ergonomics weren't as attractive as their industrial design. MFT offers a whole different set of attractions, as you mentioned, as well as an increasing amount of bargains. My GX8 is strong where Pentax is weak: speed, AF, and compactness. That really changes when you get to longer lenses, though. The professional-level MFT telephotos and telezooms are heavier than Pentax lenses like the DA50-135 and the DA 300! Yes, these MFT lenses function as twice those focal lengths, but I can get the same magnification by cropping my K-1 or K-3 images. I haven't seen the slower, midrange telezooms; maybe when I do, I'll see some MFT benefit.

Take a look at the Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8 Pro. It is lighter and smaller than the DA300 and only slightly larger than the DA50-135 and of a similar weight.

[northcoastgreg]

With the Oly 100-400:

[WPRESTO]

With the Oly 100-400:

That is the appropriate time and place to use a tele rather than walk up closer to fill the frame.

[aaacb]

[dadipentak]

Mitzvah
Olympus E-M1mII & m.Z 75/1.8 [ISO 4000]

[AgentL]

From back when you could see faces...

[dadipentak]

From back when you could see faces...

I'm old enough to remember.

[Sam_I_am]

Mitzvah
Olympus E-M1mII & m.Z 75/1.8 [ISO 4000]

Nothing like a cute cat pic.

[dadipentak]

Nothing like a cute cat pic.

Cats are great gear testing subjects! First thing I do when I get a new-to-me lens is look for a cat.