Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to joejack951, Mar 8, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

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).

Why? Is it a religion to believe that mirror-less must follow smaller format? Why are you having trouble avoiding APS-C/DSLR to APS-C/Mirror-less comparison?

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.

I couldn't care less about pros, who come in all shapes, sizes and form. Let us stick with attributes of cameras not people who may or may not be using them.

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.

Focal length is a lens attribute, not sensor size attribute.

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.

So your last straw is that you would only compare mirror-less technology to full frame DSLR. Right?

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.

Well, now that you're increasing focal length to cover up your previous argument, perhaps it is a good time to ask you to show me these great images out of 15mm f/2.8 you'd mentioned. Can't wait to see, especially since you're not a fan of "everything in focus".

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.

Not IMO. There is a reason why manufacturers make efforts to make camera bodies lighter.

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.

Or, to be able to carry more in ANY bag.

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...

If you insist on comparing 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 on FF body to 10-18 f/4 OSS on NEX:

NEX-6 + 10-18/4 OSS: 570g

D600 + 18-35/3.5-4.5: 1200g

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.

Sony 10-18 f/4 is a constant aperture zoom, Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is not. Regardless, I wear normal pant sizes, so fitting Sony 10-18 in one pocket won't be an issue.

With an equivalent aperture and similar build, I have no doubt that that number would decrease.

..

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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