{"id":181,"date":"2015-02-03T22:58:53","date_gmt":"2015-02-03T21:58:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dieferbers.net\/?p=181"},"modified":"2015-02-03T22:58:53","modified_gmt":"2015-02-03T21:58:53","slug":"bean-counting-on-size-weight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dieferbers.de\/wordpress\/2015\/02\/03\/bean-counting-on-size-weight\/","title":{"rendered":"Bean counting on size & weight"},"content":{"rendered":"

Very honestly, I am not a bean counter. But here I somehow enjoyed the engineering skills making excellent beautiful high end \u00a0cameras so small and light. I asked myself how much more do I have in my pocket if I choose MFT or Fujifilm x-mount system. Here is a comparison:<\/p>\n\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Camera<\/b><\/th>\nlens [mm F]<\/b><\/th>\nW [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nH [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nD [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nWeight [g]<\/b><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Sony RX100 III<\/td>\nZeiss 8.8-25.7 1.8-2.8<\/td>\n101,6<\/td>\n58,1<\/td>\n41,0<\/td>\n290<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nno lens<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n36,1<\/td>\n211<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLumix 12-32 3.5-5.6<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n60,1<\/td>\n281<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Olympus PEN E-PM2<\/td>\nno lens<\/td>\n110,0<\/td>\n64,0<\/td>\n34,0<\/td>\n225<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Olympus PEN E-PM2<\/td>\nOlympus 14-42 3.5-5.6<\/td>\n110,0<\/td>\n64,0<\/td>\n56,5<\/td>\n318<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fujifilm X-M1<\/td>\nno lens<\/td>\n117,0<\/td>\n67,0<\/td>\n39,0<\/td>\n280<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fujifilm X-M1<\/td>\nFujinon XF 18 2.0<\/td>\n117,0<\/td>\n67,0<\/td>\n72,7<\/td>\n396<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The Sony is clearly a pocket camera and offers the smalls Height and Depth with a fixed lens<\/strong>. The Lumix wins the Width<\/strong> dimension and the Olympus offers shortest Depth amongst the interchangeable lenses. \u00a0Weight is a clear win for the Lumix. The Fujifilm plays in a different size and weight league.<\/p>\n


\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the end it is a race between Sony and Lumix. But the above table is not completely fair, as the Sony offers „much more light“ with F=1.8-2.8. Getting this with the Lumix MFT lenses \u00a0pays a high price on weight and size:<\/p>\n\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Camera<\/b><\/th>\nlens [mm F]<\/b><\/th>\nW [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nH [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nD [mm]<\/b><\/th>\nWeight [g]<\/b><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Sony RX100 III<\/td>\nZeiss 8.8-25.7 1.8-2.8<\/td>\n101,6<\/td>\n58,1<\/td>\n41,0<\/td>\n290<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nno lens<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n36,1<\/td>\n211<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLumix 12-32 3.5-5.6<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n60,1<\/td>\n281<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLumix 12-35 2.8<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n109,9<\/td>\n516<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLumix 14-42 3.5-5.6<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n62,9<\/td>\n306<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nOlympus 14-42 3.5-5.6<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n58,6<\/td>\n304<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLumix G 20 1.7<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n61,6<\/td>\n298<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nLunix G 14 2.5<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n56,6<\/td>\n266<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lumix DMC-GM5<\/td>\nOlympus 25 2.8<\/td>\n98,5<\/td>\n59,5<\/td>\n59,6<\/td>\n306<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A comparable Sony\/Zeiss lens at MFT is the Lumix 12-35mm F2.8. But it is long and heavy, lifting the weight of the Lumix up to 485g, and the depth of 109,9mm makes it like a big box in your pocket. The fixed focal length pancake lenses both from Lumix and Olympus give a much better pocket feeling. As a compromise I would then choose the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 with the Lumix 12-32mm F3.5-5.6<\/strong> as the standard zoom and pick a fixed focus Lumix G20mm F1.7<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Finally, the winners in the competition for smallest and lightest are:<\/p>\n