Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,443Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Mar 8, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Yes, real world helps these discussions which I why I'm using full frame DSLR prime lenses that exist rather than attempting to compare APS-C mirrorless prime lenses to APS-C DSLR prime lenses that do not exist.

What mirror-less camera are you using for this comparison, and why? Because they are more comparable to FF cameras than to APS-C versions?

Does it matter? I'm referring to APS-C mirrorless lenses that exist. That means Sony, Fuji, Canon, and Fuji. Somewhere along the lines we were talking about m4/3 lenses and even some full frame mirrorless (Leica) lenses.

I'm making comparisons where they can be made, i.e. looking at an existing APS-C/m4/3/Leica mirrorless prime/zoom and talking about it's equivalent lens in full frame DSLR terms.

Yes, I have no problems admitting that APS-C DSLR lenses lose to mirrorless APS-C lenses frequently when there are comparable lenses to evaluate.

Well, according to you, mirror-less cameras are already winning the battle when their sensor size is matched to DSLR.

I'm talking about lenses, not bodies. Why do you keep bringing up bodies?

But the latter loses to full frame DSLR lenses when you compare true equivalents.

And what would comprise these "true equivalents"?

Equal field of view and equal aperture size. To be honest, there are very few true equivalents mainly because the larger format lenses almost always have larger apertures. Take a m4/3 lens like the Panasonic 25/1.4. It's full frame equivalent is a 50mm f/2.8. That lens does not exist as far as I know. Your APS-C 35mm f/1.8 is a 52.5mm f/2.7 (close enough to the prior example). Again, no full frame 50mm has that small of an aperture.

We were discussing wide angle lenses so an example there is the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. That's a 34mm f/3.6 for full frame. Closest existing lens is a 35mm f/2 like Nikon's. The Nikon 35mm f/2 is cheaper, barely bigger, and almost two stops faster.

Another is the Fuji 18mm f/2. That's a 27mm f/3 in full frame. Canon's 28mm f/1.8 is over a stop faster, $150 cheaper, and only marginally bigger. Yes, it is considerably heavier but again, the Canon is so much faster for LESS money.

APS-C has a lot of the same issues as current mirrorless cameras in that for an equivalent lens, the system isn't any smaller. It's only smaller when you live with smaller apertures. My 24-120/4 zoom lens would need to be a 16-80/2.8 lens on DX.

Why? And that is not unique to mirror-less world (APS-C sensor is independent of whether the camera body can be mirrored or mirror-less).

Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure about what you are asking "why" here.

Your argument leading to "Why?" is highlighted in bold.

I hope my equivalency explanations above have answered this question.

 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