| |
| ▲ | dale_glass 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | True, but I think micro 4/3 still can be a good deal smaller. It's just that a fair amount of the cameras didn't make good use of that. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If one compares body size of early Sony APS-C cameras (NEX-5, a5100, even a6000), to the newer models (a6400, to ignore OIS models), the difference is staggering. Size is approaching full frame models like 7M2. But yes, lens is where it baloons further, yet good all-purpose zooms are chunky for APS-C too. I sometimes carry multiple cheaper primes on several bodies because that's easier to pack. So really, body sizes have grown due to processing and cooling needs (and in-camera OIS), but lenses still bring more heft (even with FF: look at the size of A7C series). | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are also great deals on used micro 4/3 lenses |
| |
| ▲ | tormeh 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | An APS-C lens is just going to be bigger than an M43 lens. That means you can carry more lenses for an M43 camera. I have an Olympus/OM camera plus three lenses and charger, and it all fits in my flight carry-on luggage together with a laptop, underwear, and an extra set of clothes. APS-C and full-frame are cool, but they're annoying to carry around. For travel, nothing beats M43. | | |
| ▲ | piva00 6 days ago | parent [-] | | They are a bit smaller but, to me, not that much of a difference when I compare my old Olympus M43 setup to my current Fuji X ones. Haven't really experienced any portability issues (also tend to carry the camera + 3 lenses when traveling), at the same time I do not use long lenses so I can agree with you there might be size advantages for those cases. |
|
|
