My reference point for this comparison is a Micro Four-thirds (M 4/3) standard camera, specifically the Panasonic DMC-G1. Cameras in this class compare favourably against the larger cropped and full-framed Canons and Nikons. Favourable in terms of size and weight and only favourable if you believe a smaller size and lower weight is preferable.
One of the arguments of the M4/3 community is that a smaller sensor allows a smaller body and lenses. It all sounds very logical, until one sees the Leica M9. A full-sized sensor with a body of comparable size and smaller lenses! How could that be?
A Canadian quarter sets the reference point.
From left to right:
- Leica Elmarit-M f/2.8 28mm lens (left),
- Panasonic Lumix G 14-45 (middle) and
- Panasonic Lumix G 45-200 (right).
This shot was taken in each lens’ most compact form, typically used for travel.
The difference in size is so dramatic to be almost shocking. But after the shock wears off then one starts to think if Leica can package a full-frame sensor into a small package then why can’t the larger manufacturers like Canon and Nikon? Sony has already started with the NEX-3, but they have factored it into a consumer product, not one that offers the controls a professional would like. I expect that they will come, and when they do, what will be the advantage of the M4/3 system?
Leave a Reply