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

Started Mar 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 19,402
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to rrccad, Mar 8, 2014

rrccad wrote:

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.

Wow, you're really getting desperate, scraping at the bottom of the barrel, re-treading the same old arguments, aren't you? LOL. The fact remains that once you load up your camera bag with gear, the mirrorless gear user still ends up with a noticeable reduction in size and weight. Just try it out for yourself.

I think just about every sane person in the world can agree that mirrorless technology can yield size and weight reductions. (Just eliminating the space and depth required by the reflex mirror alone can yield a significant and noticeable difference!)  That's why there are many DSLR owners who are adding mirrorless systems to their gear collections, and calling it their "compact" system-- something to use when they want to go lighter and more compact than their DSLR gear. And they understand perfectly well that the differences in size and weight are more pronounced with certain body/lenses combos than others. With certain body/lens combos, the difference is very significant. With other body/lens combos, it's (at worst) only about the same as DSLR.  (I thought we already established that, but apparently you keep re-treading the point, LOL.)

Apparently you're one of the few who are hung up on the notion that the size and weight differences have to be significant with EVERY piece of equipment, otherwise ANY differences in size and weight are negated, LOL. Sensible people understand that you get the size and weight savings where you can, and those differences do add up, and those savings are still savings that you don't have to lug around with you on your shoulder or in your carry-on.

I'd say that your rabid exclusivity and devotion to DSLR is now becoming almost religiously fanatically. Get over it, dude. Plenty of us are a little more flexible and open-minded than you are, and are perfectly happy to use both DSLR and MILC, because we understand that each of them has their pros and cons. Jeez, you didn't marry DSLR. These are just tools. Sometimes I use DSLR, sometimes I use MILC. You don't have to stay monogamous to one or the other.

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