Even more interesting are the differences in lens size & weight- I sold already my D800 and some lenses, so I could not add anymore the Nikkor 70-200/4.0 etc. to show the size differences:
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 3200
Above: View from top to see the differences in filter size.
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2200
Above: Sorted by focal lenght and whether it is zoom or FFL. So if yu wnat to have focal lenght i.e. 35mm in fullframe terms, you can see what kind of size and weight the lens of another system has to cover that focal length.
The difference are sometimes huge. From left to right:
A. wideangle zooms
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 3200
- Smallest Panasonic Kit lens 12-32. It is kind of a pancake lens.
# 2 is the Nikkor 6.7-18.
#3 Olympus 9-18mm.
#4 is Fuji XF10-24.
The Nikon fullframe 18-35G was sold already, but is significantly larger than the Fuji.
B. Wideangle FFL
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2500
- Second row is wideangle FFL between 28mm and 35mm.
Winner here is Nikon 10/2.8 (Nikon 1 system). I do not have a Lumix WA FFL yet, so I do not know how big the i.e. 15/1.7 is
#2 is the new Fuji Xf23/2.0 WR (on the left side of the 10mm lens)
#3 is the Fuji XF23/1.4 (right side of the 10mm lens)
#4 as expected Nikon fullframe 35/1.8G ED.
C. Short telephoto FFL
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 3200
And this comes now at a surprise for me. Although the Nikon 1 systems covers the smaller sensor size, the 90mm FFL is bigger and heavier that the MFT fFL.
Winner is here the Panasonic Lumix 42/1.7.
#2 is the Nikkor 32/1.2.
#3 is Fuji XF56/1.2 but surprisingly very close to the Nikkor fullframe 85/1.8G.
I know these lenses have all different apertures. But If i want to achieve certain shallow DOF, I have to use sometimes F1.2 which I achieve easily already in fullframe with F1.8 or even only @F2.0.
D. Normal Telezooms
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2000
This is a mixed comparison only focused on lenses which I do use in real life. I tried for example the Fuji XF55-200 but did not find any advantage over the Fuji XC50-230. So I sold it again and therefore my benchmark for Fuji is this XC50-230 and not the even bigger alternatives. I would never carry a XF50-140/2.8 around for travelling. Same approach with other lenses.
So in this category, the Panasonic Kit lens telezoom (35-100, on the left side) is by far the smallest one and therefore the winner.
#2 is the Nikkor 10-100 for the Nikon 1 system.
#3 is a really great lens, the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 HD telezoom. This is a lot larger than the Kit zoom, but it delivers and if you want to have more shallow DOF than the Kitzoom, you need even @200mm still F2.8
#4 is the Fuji XC50-230. Only slightly bigger than the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 HD, but for shallow DOF the Pana beats easily the Fuji. Converted to APS-C sized sensor, tha Pana has the DOF of a F4.0 in the APS-C world @200mm. The Fuji give you F6.7
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4.5
- 1/40 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2000
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/4
- 1/60 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2200
And here you see what it means, if you use the lenses in real life. You want to have a longer focal lenght with your telezoom? Have fun with zooming out the lens. Only the Pana 35-100/2.8 HD stays the same size.
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/2.8
- 1/125 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 1600
This summer, I purchased the Olympus 75-300 MKII specifically to shoot surfers on holidays. So made this comparison later to see how big the differences are, if you want to go as far as 600mm in fullframe terms.
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/2.8
- 1/125 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 560
So the Olympus is @600mm smaller than the Fuji XC50-230 @345mm
- RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. - GR
- 18.3 mm f/2.8
- 18.3 mm
- ƒ/2.8
- 1/125 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 2200
Also the filtersize of the Olympus is very attractive for a 600mm lens.
This compariosn does not mean that MFT is the best. Since the new WR FFL 23/35/50 of Fuji, the size advantage of the MFT shrinked a lot and is basically only existing woth telezooms and wideangle zooms. But still it is good to know the real life facts instead of comparing product sheets
I enjoy MFT a lot. But I will keep my Fuji system, because I like it also a lot. If you stick with MFT or decide to enter this MFT system, make sure you check which lenses and bodies you want to buy. An Olympus EM1 MKII with Olympus Pro lenses is bigger than the Fuji X-System without having the bigger sensor. Food for thoughts...