How much smaller and lighter is Micro Four Thirds gear than an APS-C DSLR kit?
Asked 3/14/2011
5 views
2 answers
0
I currently use a Nikon D90 with several DX/FX lenses, and I’m considering switching to Micro Four Thirds because carrying a DSLR kit on long hikes is getting tiring. I’m mainly interested in the practical difference in size and weight when transporting the gear, not image quality. In real-world use, is the reduction in bulk and mass meaningful, and roughly how much weight can you expect to save compared with a typical APS-C DSLR setup with equivalent focal lengths?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
6
This question still has no accepted answer, so let me try to answer it more concretely.
Yes, it is. Now, I am sure there are multiple ways of measuring, so observations may vary.
If you are aiming for the least possible weight, each Micro Zuiko lens is usually lighter than nearly all APS-C compatible lenses given an equivalent field of view. There are exceptions on some focal-lengths (like the Pentax 21mm F/3.2) but, when considering a whole set, the size difference is significant.
For an article I am writing, Olympus sent me all their Micro Four-Thirds lenses. So here is a shot of lenses covering the 9 to 300mm (18 to 600mm equivalent) next to a 300mL juice (for scale):
The lenses here weight a total of 865g: M.Zuiko 9-18mm F/4-5.6, M.Zuiko 15-150mm F/4-5 and M.Zuiko 75-300mm F4.8-6.7.
To cover the equivalent field of view on an APS-C camera, lenses covering 12 to 400mm would be required. The lightest ones I could find weight a total of 1824g: Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5, Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 and the Tokina 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6.
Of course, this is not an exact match. There are slight differences in focal-lengths and maximum aperture. A closer match may be possible (perhaps with small gaps in the range) but I doubt that much coverage can be obtained with lenses taking up about the same space as two 300mL juice bottles.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—if your goal is to reduce what you carry on hikes, Micro Four Thirds can offer a meaningful size and weight savings. In general, m4/3 lenses are usually lighter and smaller than APS-C DSLR lenses for similar angles of view, and the difference becomes more noticeable when you look at a whole kit rather than a single lens.
One community example cited a three-lens Olympus m4/3 set covering 9–300mm (18–600mm equivalent) at a total of about 865g, which illustrates how compact a broad-range hiking kit can be.
A big part of the reduction comes not just from the smaller sensor format, but also from the mirrorless design, which allows smaller bodies and shorter lens designs. If you’re comparing against APS-C mirrorless rather than APS-C DSLR, the body-size gap may shrink, but equivalent APS-C lenses will generally still be larger and heavier than m4/3 lenses.
So your estimated 30–40% savings sounds plausible in real-world terms, especially for a travel or hiking kit with multiple lenses. The exact amount depends on which lenses you compare, but overall the convenience gain is real and often significant.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How noticeable is the image quality difference between Micro Four Thirds and APS-C for a beginner?
Can a C-mount lens be adapted to a Four Thirds DSLR mount?
Why do many kit zooms start around a 24mm full-frame equivalent, and why are wider lenses more expensive on larger sensors?
How does Micro Four Thirds compare with DSLR cameras?
Can you use a Micro Four Thirds lens on a Four Thirds camera body?