Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
tt321
Senior MemberPosts: 4,138Gear list
Like?
Re: If I wanted a large camera I would have gone FF already (nt)
In reply to ultimitsu, Oct 8, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

tt321 wrote:

I know what you were saying. My point is you did not know that you were attacking at a point that was not made.

In other words, fell into the trap of straw-man. I don't think so. The simple reason is that I was not attacking, but instead, trying to make a fresh point of my own. My impression was that we have been having a discussion, rather than an argument or disputation. YMMV.

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."

But is Sony going to make them to the sizes of this no bigger group, or otherwise? This is the reality check. You argue about what's objectively possible then use existing commercial examples, uncommon ones at that, to illustrate the point. I thought practical examples work better for practical postulations so tried to discuss from a practical commercial point of view.

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" ?

Yes. Waiting for an APSC vs APSC example, when you have yourself given M43 vs FF examples seems methodologically unsupportable, hence the disagreement.

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?

Yes also here. It was not a proof of anything. Practical commercial examples are no proof of what are "objectively possible". Now if you could renege on the objectively possible constraint and just agree that we are dealing with what's on the market then I change disagree to agree. Your pick.

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.

There are two issues. 1. whether "they cannot" and 2. whether "they cannot" can lead to my barking up the wrong tree.

They cannot - you have not demonstrated this with a shred of credible evidence. To clarify matters, let me ask: Are you also assuming that they cannot make FF NEX lenses smaller than APSC NEX ones, i.e. the objectively possible sizes for those two sets must be the same? Or are you going one step further and thinking that the larger format should be able to have smaller lenses? This would be a point worth exploring as we could both study the engineering principles behind sensor size vs. lens size and come back for a more detailed discussion.

However, as it stands, your examples (and mine) are practical commercial cases that cannot be used to conclusively, or even convincingly, reason about what's objectively possible.

To continue the discussion, let me supply a bit of rope and let's assume that what you said was true, that they really cannot make NEX APSC lenses smaller than NEX FF ones. Does that mean that I was "barking up the wrong tree"?

A reminder: I was postulating that it is unsafe to assume that NEX FF will turn out a compact lens system, before we get to see the implementations. The reasoning I forwarded was based on known Sony practice, where their APSC lenses are larger than Canon's FF lenses and hence it was natural to assume that their FF lenses will be still larger. It is like assuming, for now, that CV will make larger lenses for NEX FF (if they are to make lenses for that format) because their M43 designs seemed to show a disregard for size and to say they will change tack needs observation of the implementations.

Whether Sony cannot make their APSC NEX lenses smaller than their FF NEX lenses is immaterial here because my concern has to do with whether they will, not can. Will they make their FF lenses the same size or even smaller, that's the question. And that has not been demonstrated as barking up the wrong tree even if "they cannot" is a fact, which itself has not been demonstrated at all.

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.

All these can be true (I am not interested in discussing whether I think them to be true) and for SLR longevity to still be an indication of a lack of technological progress. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I note in passing that this last part of the conversation was brought up by your asking for reasons of my personal preferences and has progressed far from the topic of the sub-thread where you joined. You cannot cherry pick where deviations from the topic means barking up the wrong tree. Either they all are, or they are all not.

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