One of our readers, Rudiger Wolf, has done some pretty extensive research to decide on what camera system he wanted to settle on. In this article, he wanted to share his findings with our readers and hopefully make it easier for others to select the system based on their particular needs. When Rudiger sent me an email earlier last week and asked if it would be helpful to share his findings, I responded to him that it would surely be beneficial. Photography Life is all about sharing knowledge and helping others to make healthy choices, so I was thrilled to have the opportunity. Enjoy!
Having owned several cameras, and always trying to keep my Gear Acquisition Syndrome in check, I decided to compare systems on cost, weight and size. My hypothesis was that full frame is more expensive, weighs more, and takes up more room than mirrorless APS-C or four-thirds, and that the same is true for APS-C vs Micro Four Thirds.
For comparison purposes, I created an ideal system of the following:
Prime Lenses plus two zooms with 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, Macro (varies), 24-70mm and 70-200mm. B&H web pages provided the cost, weight and dimensions. With that target set of lenses, would the difference in cost, weight and size be noticeable? I chose lenses from Nikon, Fuji and Olympus/Panasonic for my research.
Nikon, with at least thirteen lenses to choose from has the most choice. Fuji has seven, with zooms lacking a fixed minimum aperture. Olympus has all seven, plus more, with Panasonic adding even more choice.
UPDATED: The below comparison now includes the Nikon 1 system, as requested by our readers. Big thanks to Greg Ward for providing the information!
| System | Cost | Weight / Grams | Cubic Inches | Sensor Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nikon DSLR (High-End 7) | $10,560 | 5,392 | 261 | 36x24mm (864mm²) |
| Nikon DSLR (Enthusiast 7) | $4,460 | 3,057 | 171 | 36x24mm (864mm²) |
| Nikon 1 | $1,875 | 646 | 33.89 | 13.2×8.8mm (116mm²) |
| Fujifilm | $4,500 | 2,253 | 116 | 23.6×15.7mm (370mm²) |
| Olympus (High-End 7) | $5,029 | 1,493 | 79 | 17.3x13mm (225mm²) |
| Olympus (Enthusiast 7) | $3,800 | 1,191 | 68 | 17.3x13mm (225mm²) |
Bottom Line, the laws of physics prevail. Micro four-thirds is lighter and smaller than APS-C and by a huge margin more compact relative to full-frame. That is a big difference if you are carrying the weight. However, with the smaller size comes a huge penalty – the physical size of the M4/3 sensor is almost 4 times smaller than full-frame, which obviously has a huge impact on dynamic range, colors, depth of field and ISO performance. Interestingly, cost (based on B&H pricing as of 3/20/2014) is within $660 ($3,800 to $4,460), between the least expensive M4/3 and least expensive Nikon equivalent (enthusiast). So if you disregard size and weight, the price/performance ratio of a full-frame DSLR system in terms of image quality is much better when compared to M4/3. Camera bodies are excluded from this comparison, but you can add those up and do the rest of the math.
For the more detailed analysis, here are the detailed tables of values:
Table of Contents
Nikon – High-End DSLR
| Nikkor Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 7 | $10,560 | 5,392g | 260.56 | ||
| 24mm f/1.4 | $1,900 | 620g | 3.30″ | 3.50″ | 29.92 |
| 35mm f/1.4 | $1,600 | 601g | 3.27″ | 3.52″ | 29.55 |
| 50mm f/1.4 | $360 | 281g | 2.90″ | 2.10″ | 13.86 |
| 85mm f/1.4 | $1,600 | 660g | 3.40″ | 3.30″ | 29.95 |
| 105mm f/2.8 | $800 | 790g | 3.30″ | 4.60″ | 39.32 |
| 24-70mm f/2.8 | $1,900 | 900g | 3.30″ | 5.20″ | 44.45 |
| 70-200mm f/2.8 | $2,400 | 1,540g | 3.40″ | 8.10″ | 73.50″ |
Nikon – Enthusiast DSLR
| Nikkor Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 7 | $4,460 | 3,057g | 170.71 | ||
| 24mm f/2.8 | $360 | 270g | 2.50″ | 1.80″ | 8.83 |
| 35mm f/1.8 | $600 | 305g | 2.83″ | 2.81″ | 17.67 |
| 50mm f/1.8 | $200 | 187g | 2.80″ | 2.10″ | 12.92 |
| 85mm f/1.8 | $400 | 350g | 3.10″ | 2.90″ | 21.88 |
| 60mm f/2.8 | $500 | 425g | 2.80″ | 3.50″ | 21.54 |
| 24-120mm f/4 | $1,000 | 670g | 3.30″ | 4.10″ | 35.06 |
| 70-200mm f/4 | $1,400 | 850g | 3.10″ | 7.00″ | 52.81 |
Nikon 1 Mirrorless
| Nikkor 1 Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 5 | $1,875 | 646g | 33.89 | ||
| 10mm f/2.8 | $247 | 79g | 2.20″ | 0.90″ | 3.42 |
| 18.5mm f/1.8 | $187 | 71g | 2.20″ | 1.41″ | 5.36 |
| 32mm f/1.2 | $897 | 235g | 2.58″ | 1.85″ | 9.68 |
| 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 | $297 | 85g | 2.30″ | 1.10″ | 4.57 |
| 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 | $247 | 176g | 2.40″ | 2.40″ | 10.86 |
Nikon has the most robust selection, with very high end (expensive, heavy, large) lenses, and good, but not pro grade enthusiast glass (less expensive, lighter, smaller). Canon has a similar set of lenses. I did not check those out, as this is the comparison of different size sensors and their accompanying lens systems.
Fujifilm
| Fujinon Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 7 | $4,500 | 2,253g | 116.30 | ||
| 14mm f/2.8 | $700 | 235g | 2.56″ | 2.30″ | 11.83 |
| 23mm f/1.4 | $750 | 301g | 2.83″ | 2.48″ | 15.59 |
| 35mm f/1.4 | $450 | 187g | 2.56″ | 2.16″ | 11.11 |
| 56mm f/1.2 | $1,000 | 405g | 2.88″ | 2.74″ | 17.84 |
| 60mm f/2.4 | $400 | 215g | 2.52″ | 2.79″ | 13.91 |
| 18-55mm f/2.8-4 | $700 | 330g | 2.56″ | 2.77″ | 14.25 |
| 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 | $500 | 580g | 2.95″ | 4.65″ | 31.77 |
Fuji still has a very limited lens selection and comes really close to Nikon’s full-frame enthusiast lens selection. Note the difference in weight and total volume though.
Olympus/Panasonic High-End
| M4/3 Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 7 | $5,029 | 1,493g | 79.06 | ||
| Oly 12mm f/2.0 | $800 | 130g | 2.20″ | 1.69″ | 6.42 |
| Oly 17mm f/1.8 | $500 | 120g | 2.26″ | 1.40″ | 5.61 |
| Pan 25mm f/1.4 | $529 | 200g | 2.48″ | 2.15″ | 10.38 |
| Oly 45mm f/1.8 | $400 | 116g | 1.18″ | 2.20″ | 2.40 |
| Oly 60mm f/2.8 | $500 | 185g | 2.20″ | 3.23″ | 12.27 |
| Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 | $1,000 | 382g | 2.75″ | 3.31″ | 19.65 |
| Pan 35-100mm f/2.8 | $1,300 | 360g | 2.70″ | 3.90″ | 22.32 |
A high-end Micro Four Thirds system is not cheap, but look at the weight and total volume savings, even compared to Fujifilm.
Olympus/Panasonic Enthusiast
| M4/3 Lens | Cost | Weight | Diameter | Length | Volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Lenses: 7 | $3,800 | 1,191g | 68.38 | ||
| Oly 12mm f/2.0 | $800 | 130g | 2.20″ | 1.69″ | 6.42 |
| Oly 17mm f/1.8 | $500 | 120g | 2.26″ | 1.40″ | 5.61 |
| Oly 25mm f/1.8 | $400 | 136g | 2.20″ | 1.60″ | 6.08 |
| Oly 45mm f/1.8 | $400 | 116g | 1.18″ | 2.20″ | 2.40 |
| Oly 60mm f/2.8 | $500 | 185g | 2.20″ | 3.23″ | 12.27 |
| Oly 12-40mm f/2.8 | $1,000 | 382g | 2.75″ | 3.31″ | 19.65 |
| Oly 40-150mm f/4-5.6 | $200 | 190g | 2.50″ | 3.27″ | 16.04 |
Olympus and Panasonic team up to offer the widest selection other than Nikon or Canon. This set is a little less expensive than Nikon/Canon, weighs anywhere between ½ and 1/3 of the equivalent full frame, and takes up roughly 1/3 the space of full frame.
Summary
The point of the above article is not to show the obvious – that a full-frame camera costs the most, weighs the most and comes with the size, or that Micro Four Thirds is the smallest and lightest system. That’s a given, once you factor in the sensor and mount sizes. The comparisons above are to look at ratios and think about what you are giving up or gaining when looking at different systems. Full-frame cameras have a lot to offer in terms of image quality and building an enthusiast system won’t set you far off from building a similar Micro Four Thirds system. At almost four times larger sensor size, you get superb image quality, amazing low light performance, but a pretty hefty load that will take plenty of space in your bag. If low light performance is not that important for you and you prefer a smaller and lighter system, you can see that Micro Four Thirds can be between 2.5 to 4 times smaller – so there are potentially significant space and weight savings there. However, that smaller package comes with a relatively high price premium. Fujifilm APS-C is the middle ground here, with average weight and space savings. Sort of a “sweet middle”, having image quality better than M4/3, but worse than full-frame.
There is no right or wrong – take the above information and decide what matters more for you.
I disagree with the last part about the fujifilm having worse image quality then FF. I have both a Fuji X-E1 and Nikon D800E and in my eyes the image quality of the fuji is similar to the nikon’s in normal light and better than the D800E in low light. It doesnt autofocus as fast and that is the only reason I ever use the nikon instead of my lovely small and light fuji.
One more useless comparison between brands and different formats.
FX is a different world and to compare to 4/3 is sensless.
Who of you guys would take a Hasselblad and compate it to a 8/10 Deardorff ?
Who would take care of cost and weight ?
Everyone should buy the gear he needs to do his job.
Try a Nikon D800 for tabletop/studio portrait/stillife and you will trow away the other crap !
Quite a narrow minded view. In fact, I did the exact opposite. I sold my D800 + loads of lenses to fund… an Olympus E-M1 setup! What?? Why would someone want to do that? Switch from the holy grail of fullframe to the lowly MFT! The funny thing is that I don’t regret my move for one second. The reason is actually fairly simple. Whether we admit it or not, thanks to sensor technology MFT has now reached the “good enough quality” for 95% of applications. The burden to get the last remaining 5% is not worth it. As a bonus I now fully enjoy perfectly accurate AF and “what you get is what you see”, thanks to EVF and mirrorless technology (bye bye prehistoric SLR tech). But all in all, the main upside is actually very simple and can be summarized by this: “the best camera is the one you have with”.
you unpolitely missed the point.
i found extremely useful these tables for judging systems as whole.
owning a ff system i found that it is better going 43 not top and avoiding aps c.
i will buy an m10 w kit lens a 45 1.8 and a 9 18. iq is not top i have ff for that but weight is <1/4…
thanks nasim.
I think this is a brilliant initiative – well done. Be interesting to add Nikon 1 and maybe Pentax Q into the comparison.
To be honest it annoys me when some people seem to get one rule (perhaps we can even call it a “law” as it’s based on physics?) but not the equally important second “law”.
First law – all other things being equal a bigger sensor should be better than a smaller one
Second law – all other things being equal a bigger sensor needs bigger lenses to fully cover it – in theory the camera should be bigger too – but in practise camera design is driven by the size of the review screen on smaller cameras.
The caveats are important – in particular sensor design develops at a very quick pace. So a larger but older sensor may not be better than a newer/smaller one. More importantly the newer/smaller sensor may be “good enough” for more and more purposes – and this can only get better over time. Couple that with smaller lenses and you could have an option to suit some Photographers. After all the old maxim “the best camera is the one you have with you” has never been more true.
Can a V2 beat a D4S for low light performance? Don’t be silly! But it was interesting to see the shutter comparisons between the D4 and the D4S were shot on a V2!
Having been a keen photographer for over 40 years I don’t think there’s ever been more choice of great gear. The more it encourages people to get out and take photos the better as far as I’m concerned.
Happy shooting!
Sums it up nicely. Nikon are being complacent, they are being run in a maddeningly unfriendly and incompetent way, but there still isn’t a “magic bullet” alternative that manages to miniaturize size and minimize the cost. Nonetheless, reading this list and understanding size and weight will be important for anyone who faces old age, physical infirmity, a yen for remote campaign, the desire to mix photography with other tasks, or anything else that makes carrying an FX digital kit a chore. And perhaps Nikon ought to take DX more seriously — or else find a way of engineering the FX stuff as small as they did with their film cameras in the 1980s.
AF-S, VR, manual focus over-ride .. all add to the weight and girth of a lens. if ” light-weight” and ” physical size” are skewed in favor of “speed” and “good enough”, then Nikon’s Cx system is a worthy competitor to them all. :)
I am almost done with my Enthusiast collection. And, I say almost because I suffer the occasional Gear Acquisition syndrome myself.
D600
85mm f/1.8
105mm F2.8 Micro (macro)
16-35mm f/4
24-120mm f/4
70-200mm f/4
Next up? Probably some teleconverters and then 50mm f/1.8 and possibly a 35mm f/1.8(nikon) or 1.4(Sigma). Occasionally, I wonder about the 300mm f/4.
What I have already is quite versatile, so I can take my time on the new stuff.
I have an RX100m2 for my lightweight camera, because I didn’t trust myself with an 4/3 system; Gear Acquisition Syndrome on 1 system is bad enough. The smaller systems keep getting better, so it may just be a matter of time.
It makes no sense to include both the 56 and the 60 mm Fuji X lens. Deduct one of them and it becomes even more obvious that the Fuji system is clearly superior to the m43 system. However, you might have included the Sony A7/R system as a FF low volume alternative. :)
Interesting data collection, but I think a little bit of a false ‘comparison’. The article closes by saying there is no right or wrong – absolutely agree – but then says “decide what matters more for you”, as if the only course of action is to pick one of the 5 ‘system’ options presented. I think this weighing of the stats/numbers to come up with a ‘solution’ is completely backwards and is diagnostic symptom #1 for G.A.S.
For consideration:
– Among the 5 ‘systems’ presented there are essentially 3 different classes of camera bodies which are designed for and (arguably) suited to different photographic tasks. A ‘system’ comparison within rather than between classes would have more merit (but still be a bit of a futile effort).
– By focusing on the ‘system’, the article is implying that any ‘serious’ photographer would eventually purchase all or most of the lenses of that system. On the contrary, many working pros will ‘get by’ with perhaps 3 or 4 essential lenses… heck Cartier-Bresson created one of the most compelling bodies of photographic work of the last century with ONE lens.
– Maybe not so much for the Fuji and Olympus mounts, but this ignores the possibility (and for many working pros, the reality) that the right lens for the job is often RENTED for the duration of the assignment.
– It’s not ridiculous to imagine someone owning multiple ‘systems’ (and not just because money is no object). The FF DSLR for paid or ‘artistic’ work, and the wonderful, smaller, lighter system for vacation or more spontaneous, creative opportunities.
– Lastly, why wouldn’t a decision about what equipment to purchase (or rent) start instead with the initial question: “What am I trying to create?” or “What type of photography am I going to be doing?” and then “What equipment (old or new) will most facilitate my creative efforts or challenge me to grow my creative abilities?”
Pointless comparisons.
So, a nuclear bomb that has smaller dimensions than a bunker-buster is less powerful?
After all, it weighs less. smaller volume.
Choosing cameras is not a ‘health’ based decision.
What is going on?
Meaningless research.
A bit dismissive, don’t you think? When the lens weight alone for the Nikon “pro” system is three-quarters the entire carry-on limit of many airlines, and the lens weight for the “enthusiast” one closes the gap with Fuji to just a few hundred grams, I’d say this qualifies as “useful information.” Not to mention worth knowing for anyone who has suffered through carpal tunnel syndrome or any other infirmity.
The only thing missing here is a 1980s or 1990s film body and lens reference point. That would be very interesting indeed as such a Nikon “enthusiast” system could potentially close down the gap with mirrorless almost entirely on weight and size. Now, that would be an interesting goal for Nikon to set themselves.
No, I think you missed the point. I still think a meaningless comparison. I stand by that.
I think the lists done by an engineer (a very analytic person). I don’t think a helpful post.
I do not want to fly your airlines that weigh carry-on cameras. I fly all over the world. Not a pro. Never had someone pull me over to weigh my camera…..unaware of that one. Would never send via checked luggage. Not nowadays. Not ever.
Many pro’s use larger formats, check their bags. Like I said, just not for me.
Nasim and his colleagues are usually spot on. Their honesty and I believe integrity are unparalleled in our modern world. Too much gushing and sycophantic behaviors in written media. This article was not up to task for me. It is my opinion. So what? Don’t take it personally.
A camera comparison in mass and dimensions is same as comparing a Ferrari to a VW and discussing colors and weights. Or a mini and VW and Smartcar….or whatever. Meaningless.
I still do not think camera dimensions have anything to do with healthy choices either. My apology if I misconstrued this misadventure or offended you.
I have recently completed a trip to the US, India and Europe and due to heavy travel schedule only had a few days available to explore. I left my Nikon D800 with 24-120 f4 home and bought a Lumix DMC- LX5 to have a lightweight camera with me. This was a business trip so had limited time for photography, but I enjoyed the camera, and accepted the limitations and took some great fun and street images. However, I went into every Camera shop I could find and talked to the customers and attendants in the shop as the culture around photography and equipment fascinate me. I study the work of nature and wildlife photographers and photo journalists. It was clear from my ” research” that the USA consumers are a lot more concerned about equipment and often upgrade and change brands, especially in the UK most discussions revolved around photography, where and what they photograph and a lot less about equipment. They stick with their brands as they system they invested in and how they buy equipment is less driven buy the latest models and specs and more based on replacement after they have used their equipment for an extended time. The same in India who has a massive photograpic population. Yes this is not a scientific study but based on my interaction with shop attendants and customers. I often have the temptation to ” upgrade” go get the longer or faster lens or higher mp body. The new technology as discussed here is very interesting and reasons given insightful. And great fun to debate all matters related to photography. I am often surprised to see the most amazing images produced buy 10 year old equipment. After all, it is the photographer that make the image..
Jakes, that is an astute observation. That the USA is more materialistic than most other nations is no surprise. There’s a name for it: Affluenza! (also Gear Acquisition Syndrome, or G.A.S.)
Those who are most perfectionistic have a hard time deciding. Ah yes, the “Paradox of Choice” problem (an excellent book by Barry Schwartz.)
With money and time to burn (whether a wise use of either is open for debate!), we dither around seeking the “best” solution for our (often) ill-defined needs, responding to wants instead.
Camera makers (and other designers and manufacturers) usually know what we WANT, and that it can never be satisfied. They will never produce to current wants even when possible, because then we can be satisfied and hence, not a potential near term customer for their hoped-for expanding market.
Just as a side note, the Sony NEX system has some very interesting and very capable mirrorless systems as well. I am very interested in the Fuji X-T1, but I am just as equally interested in the newly announced Sony A6000 that is being released in April. I have read nothing but good reviews in regard to this camera. Apparently it is the replacement to the NEX 6 & 7’s, and it will only be retailing for about $650.00 without a lens which is very appealing.