There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 23,860
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to samfan, Mar 5, 2014

samfan wrote:

IVN wrote:

That is right, but Nikon is doing the same thing with DSLR lenses.

Well yes, but currently we are getting collapsible lenses for MILC systems and non-collapsibles for DLSRs so the real size advantage is there. Case in point, I don't think anyone will bother making collapsible FX 70-300 or any other lenses apart from the kit zooms.

Again, it will make it apples and oranges. Collapsible vs. not collapsible... macro vs. non-macro, fish eye vs. normal WA and so on.

A lens which is collapsed can not be used at all, so it is pointless to compare with something which is immediately usable.

It was mostly Leica vs SLR, not rangefinder vs SLR. My 45/2 for Contax G wasn't that much smaller than my 50/1.8 Nikkor.

It only proves that you can make lenses smaller or larger depending on how you engineer them.

Total lens size depends on many things, number of elements is one of those things. You can make 40-50mm pancakes fro FF but those are usually crap or poor quality.

That is not enough, IIRC. All the front elements need to be larger, not just the first.

Well... Leave that to the engineers to figure it out. Lenses are too complex nowadays to just say you need this or that. Light can be bent in really weird ways.

 You can't be serious... there are some facts no engineer can make magically disappear. The relationship between aperture size and focal length is one of those things which are not going to go away and is not sensor size related at all. Look it up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow