I’ve always wondered how small a mu43 equivalent of the x100 series might have been. Neither Panasonic or Olympus ever produced a fixed prime lens compact.
In all fairness, I think they were right not to feel the need to. Pair any of the smaller bodies and you're right there. Heck, even the oh-so-dated GF1 with the 20mm feels very much like the LX100 did, but it's faster to turn on and shoot, and the lens is better! Yes, the EVF is a joke, but I like it for framing enough to keep it - and at least it's small.
I enjoyed the E-PM1 with the 20mm immensely. And I was able to also carry the 12-32mm at the same time without any issues because it's so small.
In a way, best of both worlds ...
Canon M definitely gives a good fight against M4/3 in overall package size. Beautiful stuff. But it's a small system, very small lens selection and such.
Fuji X is noticeably larger though. Both in selection and overall package size.
Please clarify this for me as I haven't shot anything professionally... this is my impression how it's going to be.
Unless you are a working professional shooting Olympus, who needs fast pro level warranty packages (such as Nikon's NPS. Olympus doesn't even offer these sorts of deals!) I don't understand why you'd bury a perfectly usable system just because it may cease to sell new gear in the future.
Most pros would be satisfied buying spare copies of the lenses and bodies and keeping them as backups. Usually one has one spare, maybe under these circumstances you buy a third backup.
One way to understand this might be to try to recoup the resale value of the camera as well as possible by selling now instead of years later. But if you are professionally shooting Olympus in the first place, doesn't this mean you have evaluated the system as the one you prefer to make money with, and now you're willing to sell at a loss to jump to a "worse" system?
And if you're shooting for fun, what's exactly the danger of shooting "extinct" cameras?
Spot on. I'll hang on to the E-M5 III for a long time - it's the best overall package in a mid-range camera that there is on the market right now; and furthermore, the lenses are great, small and (comparatively) light. The GX9 is a super-fast shooter, too, very competent and efficient. The fact that other cameras, even small ones, offer slightly better IQ in some cases just doesn't compensate for that. I love the Fujifilm X-E3 because it's basically a Leica workalike and functions very conveniently - but not for the reason that it's in any tangible way superior to the GX9 or even the E-M5 III. Yes, you have to make some small (hah!) compromises when using
, but overall, there's just nothing like it.
And again: The whole system, two bodies, all lenses, fit nicely into a medium-sized bag - and that's even when packing lenses I usually don't shoot! On the other hand, even the very compact X-E3 loses its luster when you try to pack five lenses (one zoom, four primes) into the *same* space as the GX9 with three zooms and four primes, covering *everything* from a 15mm to a 600mm equivalent (28mm to 135mm for the Fuji). And the images look great ... I could even have substituted the GX9 and 12-32mm by the E-M5 III with 12-45mm PRO and still have some space left ... the Fujifilm kit actually made packing the tiny 27mm securely kind of a hassle (through a lack of dedicated lens space after putting in the 23mm and 35mm), and the 90mm took the place of the 100-300mm ... go figure.
For me, that's okay - I have several bags available to me, and I'm also used to carrying even bigger gear (Nikon D750 with the 70-200mm f/4, anyone? Or Z6 and D750, both with f/4 zooms - fills a backpack! In the realm of cropped sensor cameras,
is still going strong and is hard if impossible to replace in any convenient and obvious way. And Panasonic is still there to carry the flame, anyway.
btw. I also own a very nice, sufficiently compact and very inexpensive (for what it is) superzoom, the Panasonic FZ1000. Can it replace
? It *can* replace the 14-150mm II, I know that - but neither the package nor the results equal
in use, and it's bigger and just as heavy, if not heavier, as the E-M5 III using the otherwise quite nice 14-150mm II ... The Sony RX10 IV might be able to outdo the E-M5 III - but I seriously doubt it'd be as nice and versatile; you'd have to lug this behemoth of an all-in-one around all the time, with no escape whatsover. I'll smile quietly watching you do it, cuddling my superbly small and competent E-M5 III with its fantastic 12-45mm f/4 companion
M.