Dear Canon, I'm not buying anymore DSLR Gear get on with the M

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 2,220Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 4 months ago

T3 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?! LOL. I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself. Hahaha.

sure. so tell me, just what exactly would be different in the SL1 if it had a full frame sensor.

three things: mirror box and actual mirror and sensor assembly.

I'd call that a pretty trivial adjustment to the overall size of the unit.

but i'll wait for your profound engineering, camera design and marketing knowledge to educate me

It makes a difference in this argument because you conveniently chose to compare a FF MILC with the world's smallest APS-C DSLR. That's called stacking the deck, LOL. Sure, it'd be great if the SL1 really did have a FF sensor, because then it would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison. But obviously, it's not.

Besides, the fact remains that even if the SL1 did have a FF sensor, it's still a chunkier body than the a mirrorless FF MILC. Plus, DSLR lens design is limited by their retrofocus requirement. Retro-focus lenses are designed to be positioned farther from the film/sensor plane in order to leave room for an SLR's reflex mirror.

only for lens designs that are less than the registration distance plus working distance of the lens - which is why the 40mm pancake lens could be developed on the EF mount.

so again, it's not a one size fit all solution, and only effects a majority of lenses that by nature are not the largest in a working kit anyways.

the biggest benefit to these (assuming larger sensor MILC's) are prime lenses or zooms under the nominal registration distance of the larger DLSR cameras. (ie: 16-35,10-22,etc,etc). once you get around the DSLR registration distance and above, the differences are minor.  consider there's hardly any savings in size to the 24-70 FE's versus the 24-70 canon.   and certainly not for 70-200.

The savings really are just for the working few that work with primes or ultrawides - which is why partly it's consumer adaptation is fairly low.  the longer lenses either don't even exist and/or if they do (18-200mm for sony E mount) they are ungainly and awkward.

the only place that seems to do well for a kit size is the m43's and Nikon 1.  (partly the reason I think Nikon made the RIGHT choice on sensor size, and sony and canon has made the wrong choices) is that the IQ is atypically "good enough", and the kits are much smaller regardless of focal length.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
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