Michael Reichmann's take on smaller full frame Sony FE mount lenses

Started Dec 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
FrankS009
FrankS009 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,904
Michael Reichmann's take on smaller full frame Sony FE mount lenses

In a recent piece,

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Michael Reichmann wrote,

"A lens has to be of a certain size to cover full frame. That size is now smaller than it used to be, because FE mount lenses don't have to have the large rear register distance that ones designed for DSLRs did. By way of comparison have a look at Leica M lenses vs. SLR lenses. They have always been considerably smaller. Compare the size of a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux, for example, to a Nikon or Canon 35mm f/1.4. The implication of this is that the size and weight disadvantage of digital full frame is rapidly disappearing. And if I were a manufacturer committed to the Micro Four Thirds format I'd be looking over my shoulder nervously. Very nervously!"

Would someone please explain this to me. Is it possible to be more explicit about size and weight of FE mount lenses than Reichmann is?

Thanks

F.

-- hide signature --

When no-one else is there, the camera becomes my means...to say to a wider audience, "Did you see that?" David duChemin

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
G L
G L
G L
G L
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow