Camera System Comparison

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!

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:

Nikon – High-End DSLR

Nikon – Enthusiast DSLR

Nikon 1 Mirrorless

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

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

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

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.