Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,360Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Mar 8, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

So you are one of those who can only compare a mirror-less camera to a full frame DSLR, nothing else. I guess, the point then would be... have APS-C DSLRs been already defeated that mirror-less ought to be only compared to full frame cameras?

No, the discussion has been about ultra-fast wide angle lenses. To have any chance of making real comparisons across formats, we need to think in terms of equivalent field of views and apertures(otherwise compacts with ultra-ultra-wide angles kill everything we're discussing). Your 35mm NEX lens compares to a 50mm on full frame, and a fairly slow one at that. You'd need a 24mm f/1 on your NEX to match a 35mm f/1.4 on full frame. That would be quite a lens I imagine.

APS-C DSLRs are currently not being targeted by manufacturers for true professional usage thus there is not much in the way of high end primes. Mirrorless seems to be making more progress there but has a long way to go to catch Canon and Nikon's full frame lineups just in terms of breadth of focal lengths offered. What is offered is often times smaller than what's available for full frame but only because the apertures used are so much smaller.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "But, beyond this deflection you just attempted, wasn't your point independent of format?"

No, not at all. Format has to be considered because it plays a considerable part in how a lens is designed. Bigger formats need bigger glass so simply pointing out that a mirrorless lens for a crop format is smaller than the same exact focal length and aperture for full frame doesn't prove anything. If that mirrorless APS-C lens is 1.5X the focal length and is a stop faster than a full frame lens, then a real comparison can be made.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "I don't think you know that with a 15mm f/2.8 on a FF camera, unless you keep your point to focus under 10 ft, you will be dealing with all-in-focus imagery. And you'd buy these lenses for their background blur characteristics (does anybody?)?"

I'm well aware of what it takes to get shallow depth of field with an ultra-wide angle. I never said I'd buy that specific lens for that reason but the sample images I've seen prove that it does a very nice job when used in that fashion (main point of focus near minimum focus distance). Both the Nikon 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are also known for how nicely they render backgrounds.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "Size wise we're talking about a substantial difference between NEX-6 with 10-18 versus Sony A580 w/10-20. And weight wise, "only" more than double: 570g versus 1200g.

PS. I picked Sigma 10-20 as it is closest thing in FoV to Sony 10-18. An 18-35 lens would be "normal" on APS-C."

Yes, the DSLR body is a lot thicker than a NEX body but that's also why they are more comfortable to hold for long periods of time. The NEX can be stored in a smaller bag but I'd rather use my camera than marvel at how small of a bag it fits in. Furthermore, we've been discussing lenses, not bodies so while you've pointed out a fact, it's not all that relevant.

An 18-35 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12-24 APS-C lens so fairly close to the 1.8X zoom of the Sony lens with a slightly shifted focal length range. The lens I pointed out is anywhere from 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster than the particular Sony but only 160 grams heavier. With an equivalent aperture and similar build, I have no doubt that that number would decrease.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow