Panasonic G v S body size

[mikew]

I know the lens size will blow this but the new bodies are smallish

 

[woof woof]

I've been saying the same for years.

My Sony A7 is about the same size as the Panasonic MFT mini SLR cameras I had (G1 and GX7) and the only way to really make them smaller is to go to a RF style body which drops most of the grip and the evf hump. Things like the Panasonic GX9, GX80 and of course the APS-C Sony A6xxx cameras. Also, Sony is rumoured to be about to bring out an A7c (c for compact) which could be a FF camera in an A6xxx style body. Sony are also rumoured to be about to bring out a new range of compact lenses to go with this new compact camera. Time will tell if this will really happen.

There does seem to be a push to make mirrorless SLR style camera bigger but I don't agree with this trend as the smaller ones, like my A7 and the Panasonic SLR style cameras that I no longer own are really about the size of the film era SLR's I had. It's only perhaps in my modern times that (some) DSLR's and their lenses have become the bloated things they are now.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Forget the body size, its the lens that matters.
This shows the difference and the FF lens is only the f4 model compared to the mft f/2.8 version

https://j.mp/2Rx53H3

 

[woof woof]

The lens can be much less significant though, if you're happy with a smaller lens.

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.

camerasize.com

 

[tijuana taxi]

The lens can be much less significant though, if you're happy with a smaller lens.

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.

camerasize.com

Much more significant if you're not
Not many people are going to weigh in that sort of cash for a camera to only use it with a small relatively slow prime

 

[woof woof]

Much more significant if you're not
Not many people are going to weigh in that sort of cash for a camera to only use it with a small relatively slow prime

Well I did and the image quality an A7 and a small relatively slow prime like a 35mm f2.8 gives will easily exceed that of a MFT camera and 17mm f1.8 and the costs of a FF set up could well not be discouragingly over expensive as MFT is hardly a cheap system these days.

If you have a SLR style MFT camera and fit any lens to it it's a size and weight which needs to be in a bag rather than a pocket and once you're taking a bag the additional difference in bulk and weight of a fairly compact FF body and lens is IMO not all that significant.

I mostly use prime lenses in the 17 to 85mm range and also have a 28-70mm kit zoom and any of my lenses on my Sony A7 makes for a combination that isn't significantly bigger than the last MFT SLR style camera I had, a Panasonic G7. This is why I no longer have MFT SLR style cameras, because unless you're using lenses that tend to be a lot bigger on FF like long lenses or some of the heftier wides or primes there's no real significant advantage for MFT over a smaller FF camera. Even the MFT RF style cameras are really only a grip and EVF hump smaller than my A7 which is why my MFT kit hardly gets used these days except when I want to use my 100-400mm lens or want to shoot with a silent shutter.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Well I did and the image quality an A7 and a small relatively slow prime like a 35mm f2.8 gives will easily exceed that of a MFT camera and 17mm f1.8 and the costs of a FF set up could well not be discouragingly over expensive as MFT is hardly a cheap system these days.

If you have a SLR style MFT camera and fit any lens to it it's a size and weight which needs to be in a bag rather than a pocket and once you're taking a bag the additional difference in bulk and weight of a fairly compact FF body and lens is IMO not all that significant.

I mostly use prime lenses in the 17 to 85mm range and also have a 28-70mm kit zoom and any of my lenses on my Sony A7 makes for a combination that isn't significantly bigger than the last MFT SLR style camera I had, a Panasonic G7. This is why I no longer have MFT SLR style cameras, because unless you're using lenses that tend to be a lot bigger on FF like long lenses or some of the heftier wides or primes there's no real significant advantage for MFT over a smaller FF camera. Even the MFT RF style cameras are really only a grip and EVF hump smaller than my A7 which is why my MFT kit hardly gets used these days except when I want to use my 100-400mm lens or want to shoot with a silent shutter.

I did say not many people and I suspect you are in that minority

 

[woof woof]

As is anyone who buys any of this kit from MFT and up through FF.

The point is that a small FF camera need not be prohibitively large compared to MFT and the smaller FF systems demonstrate that. Only a minority would argue otherwise and those using larger lenses which would make a more significant difference are a minority within the interchangeable lens camera minority. Some people even think that these cameras need to be bigger.

 

[jakeblu]

As is anyone who buys any of this kit from MFT and up through FF.

The point is that a small FF camera need not be prohibitively large compared to MFT and the smaller FF systems demonstrate that. Only a minority would argue otherwise and those using larger lenses which would make a more significant difference are a minority within the interchangeable lens camera minority. Some people even think that these cameras need to be bigger.

I think for wildlife users the size difference is considerable, and looking at the Oly thread there's a lot of wildlife shooters posting, not necessarily saying that's the norm

 

[tijuana taxi]

As is anyone who buys any of this kit from MFT and up through FF.

The point is that a small FF camera need not be prohibitively large compared to MFT and the smaller FF systems demonstrate that. Only a minority would argue otherwise and those using larger lenses which would make a more significant difference are a minority within the interchangeable lens camera minority. Some people even think that these cameras need to be bigger.

Nobody is saying the cameras can't be of a comparative size, but the lenses will not
Commonsense tells you that if you need to cover a sensor about four times bigger the lens must be larger too.
Please continue, but to my mind any more discussion on this subject is futile