E-m1 12-100 vs E-m5 12-45 form factor -minor or significant difference

Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
29
Location
Bellingham, WA
I just sold off my m43 gear, mainly an E-m1 ii with the 12-100 f4 mounted to it, because it had turned into more weight and bulk than I was willing to routinely carry on outings (family backpacks where I'm already carrying the kitchen sink, remote backcountry climbing and bushwhacking with friends). I'm keenly interested in replacing it with an e-m5iii and the 12-45 f4, but don't want to end up routinely leaving it at home again. At ~60% of the weight and size it seems like it would pass a threshold of being significantly less...intrusive.

Is there anyone out there shooting with both who cares to comment? The other option is something like a GX5 or GX1 but hard to give up on Oly.

Thanks so much.
 

Biro

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,888
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
Well, you can start here. The exact camera/lens combinations you're asking about are compared side by side. I think it's a no-brainer if one is serious about keeping size and weight down

https://camerasize.com/compact/#692.613,835.852,ha,t

I am putting my money where my mouth is and am currently in the process of selling off my E-M1 II and almost all of my PRO glass.

I have two Pen F's and all of Oly's small, light f/1.8 and f/2.0 primes. I also recently picked up an E-M 5 III and the 12-45mm f/4, which will be the only PRO lens I will own going forward.

Good luck with your decision.
 

Shortsonfire79

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
201
Location
Bay Area, California
Allow me to throw another contender into the ring: For backpacking long miles and multidays, I really liked the EM5ii and the 14-150ii f/4-5.6. A bit slower on the long end but you gain a lot more reach than at 45mm f/4. I found this a much better setup than the EM5ii + 12-40/2.8 because the reach made it much more versatile while shooting from the hip on the trail and the occasional wildlife we'd come across. Size wise it'll be more intrusive than the 12-45/4 but not by much (30g), and also a lot smaller than your 12-100/4.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#835.852,692.613,594.918,ha,t

I carried this setup for many miles and days but have since then gone ultraheavy with the EM1ii+O100400.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,663
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I just sold off my m43 gear, mainly an E-m1 ii with the 12-100 f4 mounted to it, because it had turned into more weight and bulk than I was willing to routinely carry on outings (family backpacks where I'm already carrying the kitchen sink, remote backcountry climbing and bushwhacking with friends). I'm keenly interested in replacing it with an e-m5iii and the 12-45 f4, but don't want to end up routinely leaving it at home again. At ~60% of the weight and size it seems like it would pass a threshold of being significantly less...intrusive.
I think your choice of the E-M5.3 and the O 12-45 would be perfect, as @Shortsonfire79 's comparison shows. I might also suggest substituting a PL 12-60 instead of the O12-45. I used a P12-35 (with an E-M10.1 and .2) for years but always wished I had more reach. When the PL 12-60 came out a few years ago, it gave me what I think of as the perfect "standard" lens. I agree that the 12-45 is VERY interesting, especially because of its size, and if I didn't already have the 12-60, I would have to scratch my head about which to get. But they would both be good options. As far as the E-M5.3 (which I now have myself), yup, a no-brainer for you, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,159
Location
UK
I have an E-M1 II and the 12-100. The 12-45 is quite a large lens, I thought about it and rejected it. The 12-40 which I also have is a lot smaller and is a great lens.

But for lightweight outings, so there is no excuse for leaving it behind, I have the Pen-F with the tiny Panasonic 12-32 on it.
And if I think I might need ultrawide I have the tiny Oly 9-18 in my pocket.
(The 12-32 when used held vertically at 25mm is perfect for high resolution panoramas, usually about 20 overlapping shots handheld.)
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,663
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Ah
Sorry, I meant the 12-40 is a lot smaller than the 12-100.
The 12-32 and 9-18 are really small.
Yup. Yeah, I wouldn't even consider the 12-100 either. The PL 12-60 is a fair amount smaller than the O12-40, so it's good to have options. I also use the 9-18 (the perfect travel ultra-wide, IMHO) and usually bring the 12-32 along as a backup lens, or use it on my GM5 for a super-compact setup. I agree that it would be great for stitched panos, and I have used the 12-35 for exactly that, using about 25 or 30mm, as you said.
 

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
283
I second an m5 with the 14-150, similar enough size and weight (one ounce, I do count ounces or grams) which is important to me. If wide had been more important, I would have looked seriously at the p12-60 f3.5 for more weight reduction, but I'm more of a telephoto guy, especially with wildlife. No backpacking yet with the m5+14-150, but in my walkabouts I think it will be a great setup, and about the most weight I'll tolerate. For good weather day hiking I size down to the pm1+p35-100 f4, wide angle uses the cell phone. I can't imagine another pound with the m1+12-100, it would never go hiking with me.
 

Shortsonfire79

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
201
Location
Bay Area, California
I think your choice of the E-M5.3 and the O 12-45 would be perfect, as @Shortsonfire79 's comparison shows.

Don't wanna derail too far, but @Biro started the comparison and I just added to it. ;)
Added the PL12-60 as well. I have time today at work so:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#594.918,835.852,692.613,835.569,ha,t

LensB&H Price (USD)Weight (Imperial)Dimensions (ø x L)
Olympus 12-100mm f/4 PRO$120019.68 oz3.05 x 4.59"
Olympus 12-45mm f/4 PRO$5508.96 oz2.5 x 2.76"
Olympus 14-150mm f/4-5.6 ii$50010 oz2.5 x 3.3"
Panasonic Leica 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6$4977.41 oz2.6 x 2.8"
 
Last edited:

mfturner

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
283
The f3.5-5.6 version of the 12-60 is what I would choose for hiking to save more weight, it would be nice to have that in your chart.

For example, my pm1+35-100 f4 weighs 15.2 oz on our scale, whereas the m5.3+14-150 weighs 26.5 ounces. That's why I take the pm1 trail running, and save the m5 for slower hiking.
 

PhotoCal

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
335
Is the shape and weight your only concern? Why not get a nice compact, like Sony's RX100?
 

Shortsonfire79

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
201
Location
Bay Area, California
The f3.5-5.6 version of the 12-60 is what I would choose for hiking to save more weight, it would be nice to have that in your chart.

For example, my pm1+35-100 f4 weighs 15.2 oz on our scale, whereas the m5.3+14-150 weighs 26.5 ounces. That's why I take the pm1 trail running, and save the m5 for slower hiking.

Oops you're right. I had selected the f/3.5-5.6 for Camerasize but clicked the wrong one on BH. Fixed it.

Also, if you're considering other sensors, my friend who was set to hike the PCT in 2020 was looking at the Ricoh GRiii APSC fixed 28mm, $896, 9.07oz to replace his Pany GM5+Pany 20mm f/1.7.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,268
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I think most of the weight is the 12-100, than the camera.
I have the 12-100 and I do NOT consider it a daily carry lens, or one that I would take on an all day hike.
I would go with either the 14-150 or P-Lumix 12-60.

If I have to travel, I leave my heavy pro lenses at home, and bring the smaller/lighter non-pro lenses.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
293
Location
Canada
Even coming from a little C-7070, I found E-M1 II + 12-100mm to be an ideal all-in-one weather-sealed package. I also tried E-M5 III + 12-40 F2.8 but I found it too front-heavy. This was right before the pandemic, there was no 12-45mm F4 and I was planning to go on a months-long overseas trip to a rainy tropical country. The longer reach of 12-100mm can save me from having to bring along a telephoto lens and switch lenses in the rain, and sync IS and constant F4 aperture can save me from having to bring along a tripod. E-M1 II + 12-100mm requires a bit more dedication, but the convenience of it cannot be underestimated either.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,217
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
OK, to clear up some numbers, in order by weight.

1609017170891.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

mumu

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
780
I've used the 12-35/2.8 (very close in size to the 12-45/4) on my GX7, GX9, EM5.2, and G9 and found it to be an excellent combination of versatility/size/weight/performance. Weight has never been an issue for me when carrying that combo. Although if it were, my next choice would be the P12-60/3.5-5.6. A very light lens with good performance and a longer tele.
 

runner girl

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
442
I will also weigh in in support of the EM5 MKIII 14-150ii. That is my travel/walkabout combo.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,018
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I have a EM5.3 and EM1.3 and the 12-100 f4 Pro lens. I used to have a 12-40, but sold it to get the 12-100. I was thinking of getting the 12-45 to pair up with the 5.3, but ended up getting a refurbed 12-40 on outlet sale instead. Could have picked either one, but decided that the faster aperture of the 12-40 would give me a little more flexibility. I felt that when traveling, the extra range of the 12-100 would be handy, even though it's bigger and heavier. Saved carrying a telephoto zoom and changing lenses in unpredictable weather conditions. I carried the EM1 w/12-40 on previous trips and didn't mind the weight. I could manage the 12-100 combo. I tried the ZD 12-60 SWD for a while and really liked the range, but it was even bigger and heavier than the 12-100 when you include the MMF-3 adapter. I would say the 12-40 was a little short (the 12-45 wouldn't be that much different) for a walk around travel lens, hence the 12-60 was a useful length. But, the 12-100 is even more versatile and I find that I use it at 100 quite a bit, especially for close-ups. I think the 12-45 and 12-60 are kinda like in-betweeners; a little longer, but not quite long enough. I think the Pana 12-60 f3.5-5.6 might be a good choice for a lighter weight kit, but I have no experience with it. It's all a compromise. You have to decide what the most important thing is and stick with it.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom