Some cool stuff from Olympus at CP+

Interesting.

But when I look at their pro lenses, I don't seem to see a size advantage. Seems that when you want to go to pro lenses, you might as well stick to pro bodies. For me, having such a small camera would only make sense with small lenses as well. And we all know that in order to have pro lenses with large aperture, they need large pieces of glass. So for now I'll just stick to Nikon and when I want to go light, use my X-10. Now we talk light.

What Marcel said has been discussed many times on Fuji forums. When it comes to comparing Fuji lenses to any lens made for a FF Nikon or Canon, the clear winner in regards to "light weight" are the Fuji lenses (comparing Fuji lenses to the equivalent 35mm, FF lenses from Nikon or Canon). Any combination of Fuji camera & lens is going to be lighter then a FF equivalent (lens wise). Yes, now that companies are coming out with larger focal lengths with smaller max apertures, the lenses are getting bigger. Though, it's a given. Below, you can see how Fuji compares to FF:

Fuji X-T1 = 450g
Canon EOS 6D = 760g

Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 = 655g
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 = 804g

Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 = 970g
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 = 1485g

Fuji 56mm f/1.2 = 400g
Canon 85mm f/1.2 = 970g

Fuji 35mm f/1.4 = 180g
Canon 50mm f/1.4 = 268g

Fuji 23mm f/1.4 = 296g
Canon 35mm f/1.4 = 580g

Fuji 10-24mm f/4 = 404g
Canon 16-35mm f/4 = 615g

If i want to compare some APS-C equipment, here we go:

Fuji 35mm f/1.4 = 187g
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G = 200g

Fuji X-Pro1 = 451g
Nikon D7100 = 675g

I have owned both the Nikon lens and Nikon camera i just mentioned. If anyone is going to move over to mirrorless solely because of weight savings, then they are doing it for the wrong reasons. The weight savings are there; but in some circumstances, it is negligible. Do your research and find far more compelling reasons to switch. They are out there.

Marcel said:

But when I look at their pro lenses, I don't seem to see a size advantage. Seems that when you want to go to pro lenses, you might as well stick to pro bodies. For me, having such a small camera would only make sense with small lenses as well. And we all know that in order to have pro lenses with large aperture, they need large pieces of glass. So for now I'll just stick to Nikon and when I want to go light, use my X-10. Now we talk light.

Click to expand...

The pro lenses really are smaller, about 1/2 the size of Nikon pro. The 40-150 2.8 gives me a FoV of 80-300 at 2.8. it is about the size of a Nikon 70-200 f4, If that was Fx, it would be huge. Same thing with the 12-40 2.8 (24-80), much smaller than the Nikon pro. Oly takes advantage of the 4:3 aspect ratio and uses a much smaller diameter. One thing that bugged me about Nikon Dx was all the good pro or even f4 lenses are made for Fx sensor size, huge. The upcoming 300 f4 will be about the size of the Nikon 70-200 f4, but with a 600mm FoV; imagine how big an Fx 600 f4 is!

I don't have the exact stats...but the Sony FX lenses are much smaller than a comparable Nikon. I am just waiting to see what the new Nikon FX mirrorless lenses will be like.