Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 3,400Gear list
Like?
Re: If I wanted a large camera I would have gone FF already (nt)
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

tt321 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

tt321 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

There is no reason why sony cannot make lenses the same size or smaller than these Canon SLR lenses.

Using the same line of reasoning, there was no reason why most of the current APSC NEX lenses have to be so big, and yet in fact they are, disappointingly.

what are you on about? which sony NEX APS-C lens is disappointing larger than comparable Canon?

It's surprising that someone who so diligently dug out info on obscure MF lenses for the M43 to compare with Canon should be so ignorant to standard E-mount choices.

The point is they are comparable in aperture size.

Using your examples namely Canon 35/2 and Canon 40/1.8,

That was a type, should have been 40 F2.8.

and disregarding premium labelling (Zeiss) and plastic cheapo following your method,

not sure what you are on about. the point for lenses of the same aperture size, FF are not larger than m43.

You went to great lengths to cherry-pick heavy and large and uncommon examples of M43 to compare with FF standard issue lenses. Fine. I could do the same with Sony APSC vs. FF Canon when you asked me to (see below), and I am surprised I did not have to cherry-pick so much. Just used your examples and voila.

the NEX primes roughly in this range have what sizes?

they are APS-C , we are talking about FF.

The 24/1.8 is larger and heavier than the 35/2

Correct, thus proving, smaller bodies do nto make smaller lenses.

This is exactly the answer to your "what are you on about" and "which Sony APSC is larger than Canon FF" questions, just in case you forgot.

Just in case you missed it, the thread is about Sony FF mirrorless. M43 lenses being similar in size to FF SLR lenses in some cases has nothing to do with this. You said there is nothing preventing FF mirrorless from having similarly sized lenses to SLR FF, which is technically true, but in reality, a company that's not able or willing to make APSC lenses comparable in size to Canon SLR lenses is expected to suddenly change heart and grow expertise to now make their FF lenses comparable to Canon SLR lenses and thus smaller than their own equivalent APSC ones? As I said we should wait and see. Even if they succeed, I wonder if the compromises might negate the format area growth.

There is no technological reason why an FF E-mount system should not have compact lenses like the Contax G system or the Leica M system, but we will need to wait and see.

Leica M lenses come with the price of very heavy vignetting.

Vignetting is a corner problem right? What APSC NEX lenses are corner gods on for instance the NEX7?

current NEX lenses do not suffer vignetting to the same degree as Leica lenses, but they do generally suffer from poor design. That however has got nothing to do with the point I was making.

Why should they not carry on the poor design into their FF venture, at least for a few more years? As I said we should wait and see the implementation rather than rejoicing about vapour-ware.

I'm all for great advancements in FF mirrorless and the eradication of SLR dinosaurs this could bring, whether this Sony iteration will be strong enough to do that is very questionable.

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