Continuation of my final thoughts.. on FF vs M4/3
Planning to buy the E-M1 Mark II next week, before that wanted to get an idea of the system I like to build. As I can’t buy all at once, one more check on my planned purchase / rental.
Here is the details on the weight and price of each system I have to carry.
Thanks to B&H for having nice wishlist grouping.
Combination , travel zooms with m4/3rd and Full Frame
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/wishlist.jsp#/AB8EB33657/
| Purpose | Body/Lens | Price | Weight | Grams | lb |
| Body | E-M1 Mark II |
$2,000 |
20 oz |
574 g |
1.26 lb |
| Wide to Tele zoom | 12-100mm f/4 |
$1,300 |
20 oz |
561 g |
1.23 lb |
| Body | D810 |
$2,500 |
31 oz |
880 g |
1.94 lb |
| Prime | 35mm f/2 |
$400 |
7 oz |
204 g |
0.45 lb |
| Portrait | 85mm f/1.4 |
$1,600 |
21 oz |
595 g |
1.31 lb |
| Ultra wide zoom | 7-14mm f/2.8mm |
$1,100 |
19 oz |
534 g |
1.17 lb |
| Macro | 55mm f/2.8 |
$400 |
10 oz |
290 g |
0.64 lb |
| Total |
$9,300 |
128 oz |
3,638 g |
8 lb |
Pro’s
- Just one lens with equivalent of 24-200
- Creamy Bokeh for portraits
- High ISO for restaurant, night time shots…
- All the fancy 15fps/60fps sequential shooting with the E-M1 body
- Two Cameras!
Cons
- Two Cameras?
Micro Four Thirds
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/wishlist.jsp#/93B4651945/
| Purpose | Body/Lens | Price | Weight | Grams | lb |
| Body | E-M1 Mark II |
$2,000 |
20 oz |
574 g |
1.26 lb |
| Wide Zoom | 12-40mm f/2.8 |
$700 |
13 oz |
382 g |
0.84 lb |
| Portrait | 42.5mm f/1.2 |
$1,400 |
15 oz |
425 g |
0.94 lb |
| Tele Zoom | 40-150mm f/2.8 |
$1,300 |
31 oz |
880 g |
1.94 lb |
| Prime | 15mm f/1.7 |
$550 |
4 oz |
115 g |
0.25 lb |
| Super Wide Zoom | 7-14mm f/2.8mm |
$1,100 |
19 oz |
534 g |
1.17 lb |
| Macro | 60mm f/2.8 |
$400 |
7 oz |
185 g |
0.41 lb |
| Total |
$7,450 |
109 oz |
3,095 g |
6.81 lb |
Pro’s
- Compact system
- Eq. tele zoom of 300mm
- All the fancy 15fps/60fps sequential shooting with the E-M1 body
Con’s
- Not all shot’s can be enlarged to five feet prints
- Low light shots can’t be printed to large size
- Lesser correction capability with the incorrect exposure
Full Frame
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/wishlist.jsp#/93B3D29D45/
| Purpose | Body/Lens | Price | Weight | Grams | lb |
| Body | D810 |
$2,500 |
31 oz |
880 g |
1.94 lb |
| Wide Zoom | 24-70mm f/2.8 |
$1,700 |
32 oz |
900 g |
1.98 lb |
| Portrait | 85mm f/1.4 |
$1,600 |
21 oz |
595 g |
1.31 lb |
| Tele Zoom | 70-200mm f/2.8 |
$2,100 |
54 oz |
1,540 g |
3.39 lb |
| Prime | 35mm f/2 |
$400 |
7 oz |
204 g |
0.45 lb |
| Super wide zoom | 14-24mm f/2.8 |
$1,900 |
35 oz |
1,000 g |
2.2 lb |
| Macro | 55mm f/2.8 |
$400 |
10 oz |
290 g |
0.64 lb |
| Total |
$10,600 |
191 oz |
5,409 g |
11.91 lb |
Pro’s
- All well lit photos can be can be enlarged to five feet
- Mistakes are easy to correct
Con’s
- Heavy and Pricey lenses to get the best of out the sensor
- Can’t match the details of Hi-Res shots
Summary
|
Price |
Weight |
|
| Micro Four Thirds |
$7,450 |
6.81 lb |
| Combination |
$9,300 |
8 lb |
| Full Frame |
$10,600 |
11.91 lb |
Conclusion
This chart kind of helps to reiterate my previous decision, I don’t see the IQ of FF alone justifying the additional 5lb and extra $3k for my needs. The combination path gives a goldilocks zone…, in terms of IQ, total weight and price.
K Nathan's Photo Blog 
You have really done some excellent work here, and I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts in the thorough testing and for sharing the details of that process. I have truly enjoyed reading your blog. FWIW, I arrived at a very similar conclusion regarding straddling systems (I am shooting two micro 4/3 bodies and a Nikon FF).
In case you’re interested, I purchased or borrowed many (if not most) of the native lenses in micro 4/3 over the past year. In September, I built up my old Nikon kit (after a 2-decade hiatus) around a new-to-me D750. In the end, my key lenses now are a mixture of micro 4/3 and FF Nikon:
Ultrawide: 12mm f/2.8 Laowa in Nikon F-mount
Wides: 24mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor (non-AF) and 15mm f/1.7 PanaLeica
Normal: 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor (considering upgrade to the Sigma ART)
Portrait Telephotos: 85mm f/1.8G Nikkor and 75mm f/1.8 Olympus
Telezoom: 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-S Nikkor
Occasional use: 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 (24-64mm equivalent) Panasonic and various other old Nikon lenses
Two key lenses that I sold even though they served me so well (to finance purchase of the Nikon):
12-35mm f/2.8 Panasonic (because in good light, the 12-32 is nearly as good)
42.5mm f/1.7 Panasonic (because it was made redundant by the 85mm)
For the most part, I keep the PL15 mounted on a GM1, the O75 on an E-M1, and carry the glass that makes sense for the day on the D750.
FWIW, I think you’re spot on with the conclusion that micro 4/3 gets the job done well enough in most situations. For low light and sports, the D750 is clearly the better tool. For portraiture, I also prefer FF, but I typically print no bigger than 16×20. Having said that, the Olympus 75 is truly a gem – it makes beautifully sharp images that are every bit as good as FF results. One of these days I’ll have to see how a larger print looks.
Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it, will help me choose the right combo.