Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,233
Like?
Re: If I wanted a large camera I would have gone FF already (nt)
In reply to tt321, 6 months ago

tt321 wrote:

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

Here I was referring to lenses for the same sensor size - Sony FF lens (if they are to be made to match an FF NEX), after giving Canon FF lens as examples of FF lenses are not bigger than M43 lenses.

Then you responded:

tt321 wrote: 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.

in the context of this particular point, you probably did not realise but you were arguing that Sony NEX APS-C is disappointing larger than Canon APS-C, because the statement you are responding to was discussing sensors of the same size.

Not at all. I was saying that the APSC lenses, similar to the examples you set up with CV vs. Canon FF, are larger than Canon FF. I kept saying that I used your examples. You set up your examples in FF, not APSC.

I know what you were saying. My point is you did not know that you were attacking at a point that was not made. I would like to repeat the passage that I had already reproduced once before:

"Here I was referring to lenses for the same sensor size - Sony FF lens (if they are to be made to match an FF NEX),"

My examples served for the purpose of showing that

"FF lenses are not bigger than M43 lenses."

Which is why I asked:

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

I was waiting for your APS-C vs APS-C example. instead, you gave me an APS-C vs FF example. which was completely irrelevant to this particular point, but was a proof to the other point that I was making - smaller sensor does not mean smaller lens.

I don't agree.

you dont agree that:

"I was waiting for your APS-C vs APS-C example" ?

or

"an APS-C vs FF example. which was completely irrelevant to this particular point, but was a proof to the other point that I was making - smaller sensor does not mean smaller lens." ?

which one?

They have not made APSC NEX the same size as Canon FF, let alone smaller.

They cannot, and that is the point I have been making from the very start - smaller sensors does not mean smaller lenses. My original examples were to illustrate this point. Since NEX APs-C have smaller sensors than FF, of course following the same line of reasoning, Sony NEX APS-C lenses have to be no smaller than FF lenses. So you see, you have been barking at the wrong tree right from the start.

Expecting them to change suddenly in FF and effectively produce an FF NEX system smaller than their APSC NEX system seems quite questionable.

OK. this is a fresh point now, but why?

More locally, manip16 was saying that the NEX would be a larger system because of larger lenses. This has happened in APSC NEX

Has it? has anyone provided comparable lenses between NEX and M43 to prove that effect? He has not and you have not.

and if we want to see this trend to end with FF NEX we need to wait and see the implementation.

Then why bother have a discussion or why bother making any of the point that you made?

Fundamental engineering principles would indicate that everything else being equal, a lens that covers a smaller image circle should not be larger than another covering a larger one, if we are talking about what's objectively possible. There may exist multiple counter-examples in the marketplace, but these have nothing to do with what's objectively possible.

There is difficulty in defining what exactly do you mean by "everything else being equal". because there are two possibilities.

1, final image being equal, which means equal aperture diameter, equal light passed, equal DOF. that is the case with 42.5/0.95 vs 85/1.8. the 0.95 lens will be larger because it has to have the same aperture size while also has to have far more complex optical design to refocus light from such larger opening onto the sensor.

Or

2, F ratio being equal, in which case, a m43 lens would be smaller because its actual aperture is also smaller.

This might have something to do with extending below F1.0. For instance, the 45/1.8 is smaller than almost all 50/1.8 lenses in existence.

That is because, quite simply, 45 F1.8 has a smaller aperture and since it has the same F-ratio, it sticks to the same simple optical design. Bit falls under category 2 in above quoted passage.

And can you make a 100/3.6 of that size and cover the FF sensor?

My trade is not lens making so I cannot make lens. But if the question is can canon or nikon or ziess do it, the answer is very possibly.

The leica 90mm F4 MACRO is 52 x 41mm, while the oly 45 F1.9 is 46 x 56 mm.

courtesy Ken Rockwell

The leica is only 100 grams heavier but it is made of steel. if plastic was used I have no doubt it will be lighter.

I am saying, however, this longevity of SLRs, or a potential future longevity of mirrorless/M43/NEX, is an indication that the industry is not moving forward fast. Not as fast as I'd like, subjectively. Hence if Sony comes up with an overwhelmingly good FF NEX solution that forces everyone to follow, causing the elimination of SLRs, that would be welcome news to me. I am anti-dinosaur, if I can be said to be anti anything, in the context of technological progress. The identity of the dinosaur does not matter.

Other sector examples? In 1983, SLRs were the normal tools for most working pro photographers and keen hobbyists, same as 30 years later. Compare that with ICT. Or more closer to home, with videography.

That SLRs will prosper for another 20 years - your prediction - would indicate a kind of "standing still" in a rapidly changing technological landscape, especially in the electronics/ICT sector to which photography is more and more closely related.

SLR's popularity should be attributed to its optical quality rather than electronic quality. SLRs are more popular today than it was 30 years ago because "shooting more" has become a lot cheaper, and "shooting action" has become popular, and the mirror asssembly has become cheaper to make and assemble. This speaks vert much of a significant technological progress. Until the day LCD technology can beat optical view finder, SLR is going to remain popular. if it can be considered a dinosaur, then I dont know what you make of a ordinary mirror, or a window. Because after all, they are much older than SLR and their endured popularity arises from their optical property.

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