Closing the gap at Photokina.

Started Sep 26, 2012 | Discussions
Thorgrem
Regular MemberPosts: 391Gear list
Like?
Re: BUT you can get a much smaller m43 camera
In reply to G L, Sep 27, 2012

G L wrote:

As others have stated already you can get a much smaller m43 camera, you can not get a smaller 35 mm camera.

That's my point. Choices in m4/3 land.

 Thorgrem's gear list:Thorgrem's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ropo16
Regular MemberPosts: 106
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to SHood, Sep 27, 2012

SHood wrote:

The interchangeable lens version would be much larger as the lens would not be able to colapse into the body. Also, the micro lens on the sensor can be customized for a specific lens when it is fixed. That is the advantage of fixed lens compacts like the

RX100, RX1, X100, etc.

Don't you mean disadvantage?

http://fourthirds-user.com/2012/08/the_full_frame_dslr_legacy_compromise_explained.php

Mazin Sami wrote:

I know that... the E-M5 is a jewel, almost bought one today, Samy's Camera had a no sale tax this week, but I decided to wait a little more, I'm watching for Sony to come out with an interchangeable camera lenses, like the RX1.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
don_van_vliet
Contributing MemberPosts: 618
Like?
The tallest woman is taller than the shortest man.
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

Therefore women are taller than men. It's a fact, chaps.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,663
Like?
Not only size, $$$
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

Well OC you do what you want, especially if you are a rich amateur with $ burning your fingers.

Because the issue is not with the size of the body, although it will probably be with the size of the lenses. In the 135 world 35mm is the smallest lens of all. Not using a mount makes it even smaller.

But then OC everybody knows the size of Canon white ultra-teles. Do you want to carry those?

And finally the price. Makers can lure one by making a body which is small, but can they make it below 2000 or in the future below 1500$? Industry watchers say no. And then add the price of the lenses, and large lenses. The white ones.

A pro will offset them in a couple of yrs. but an enthusiast?

Therefore these threads about FF, the millionth one, just help deluding the poster that he is richer than the others. Without even having to spend the many thousands to buy such a system.

I call it borderline consumerist trolling, a v. common sport nowadays, and not an expensive one. Costs only some electronic ink

Am.

Mazin Sami wrote:

I know that... the E-M5 is a jewel, almost bought one today, Samy's Camera had a no sale tax this week, but I decided to wait a little more, I'm watching for Sony to come out with an interchangeable camera lenses, like the RX1.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
clengman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

What lenses will they use for this camera? If A-mount, don't forget to add a 1-2 inch long mount adapter to every lens. At that point it won't be a small difference in lens size. If you think they'll start over with a new lens mount...?

Mazin Sami wrote:

I know that... the E-M5 is a jewel, almost bought one today, Samy's Camera had a no sale tax this week, but I decided to wait a little more, I'm watching for Sony to come out with an interchangeable camera lenses, like the RX1.

 clengman's gear list:clengman's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093Gear list
Like?
Re: Not only size, $$$
In reply to amalric, Sep 27, 2012

Even though I am "hardcore m4/3", you can make a FF body significantly cheaper. These days the complexity of a dSLR is one of the bigger costs. An entry level dLSR body, even APS-c is significantly more costly to manufacture than an ILC body. The mechanical complexity of the mirror, mirror box, etc adds a lot of cost in manufacturing.

So going from a small dSLR FF body to an ILC FF body, especially if you are comparing it to a dSLR FF body with a real pentaprism, I'd bet you could easily slice 200-300 off the body cost and have similar margins for the ILC compared to the dSLR, even taking in to account the possible cost of an EVF.

FF's also tend to be bigger margin, even for this "cheap ones" probably have twice the margin or more than the entry level APS-c dSLRs have.

So if one wanted to, I'd bet Nikon or Canon could sell a FF ILC camera AT COST, for well under $1,000. Probably under $500. Now, if they want to make a profit, obviously they need to price it well above that.

That said, if they moved to ILC FF bodies, I see no reason why the manufacturers couldn't be making FF ILC bodies in the $1,500 range for an entry level body and $2,000-2,500 for a more "pro" ILC FF body. They'd likely still have great margins.

Now, the truth is, even with an ILC over a dSLR, you just can't shave that much off lens size. You CAN do some of that though. For shorter focal length lenses, you don't need retrofocus designs, so you can save size, weight, cost and complexity on some of those lenses, which could be significant. You could also still shave maybe 10-25mm off some of the shorter lenses as well by not needing to make room for the mirror box. Though there isn't too much you can shave of the lens size without making it a telephoto design (IE lens length from front element to sensor plane is less than the distance of the focal length I believe is what actually defines a telephoto).

In the end, an ILC FF camera is going to have lenses that are longer, wider, heavier and likely more costly than an APS-c ILC camera, or a m4/3 ILC, or a 1" sensor ILC.

There are certainly some interesting things you can do with an ILC FF camera though, and supposing someone where to make one and made one with really good and compact (for FF) lenses, and not just an ILC FF and an adapter and a "have a nice day", I might be interested at some point.

To me the advantages of a smaller sensor are manifest. Its a lot happier I am carting something even as massive as this prototyped Panasonic 150mm f/2.8 appears to be and I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens in everything that really matters to me!

However, a nice compact (again, for FF) FF ILC camera, with a fast 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lens would be really nice. It probably wouldn't get nearly the use my m4/3 kit would, but hey, when I wanted "ultimate" image quality, and the additional ability for shallow DoF, it could be really nice (say a 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8).

I like choices. Choices are good.
--

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jon Ragnarsson
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,263Gear list
Like?
It looks to me....
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

...that there is a potential market for pinhole photographers...

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,663
Like?
Re: Not only size, $$$
In reply to azazel1024, Sep 27, 2012

I think you are an optimist, if you don't think that while selling the RX1 Sony directors don't walk laughing all the way to the bank.

Surely an ILC successor might be cheaper, and perhaps have 3 dedicated lenses that are not too big.

Bu the set would still be v. expensive for what it is, and not have the flexibility of m4/3.

I am not a mirrorless fundamentlist, i think that 135 FF is the pro middle format, and that even dSLR will stay for that.

But then it will become even more refined and expensive, not less. The RX1 is an expensive toy for managers and dentists, who have the money but not the time.

m4/3 goes in the opposite direction, but with such a good sensor, and lens flexibility that it will stay for a loong time, longer than myself at any rate

I think it was at the Phoblographer that I saw a comparison between the Leica M9 and the E-M5, and the latter won in resolution and perhaps even in DR. It is pretty astonishing what small sensors can now do.

My take is that some users can't really fight in their mind the meme of 135mm being the central format, but it is the same of the Equivalence illness. Once you reach such a degree of resolution in cropped sensors, it doesn't make any sense to saddle yourself as a donkey to carry such a system.

BTW the Fuji Trans X sensor is just as astonishing, it even has the filmic feel of a Leica, so what more is needed?

One of the reasons given to cling to 135mm is that you can use legacy lenses at the true focal they were designed for, but you end up in paying quite a bit the privilege

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mazin Sami
Regular MemberPosts: 322Gear list
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to clengman, Sep 27, 2012

What lenses will they use for this camera? If A-mount, don't forget to add a 1-2 inch long mount adapter to every lens. At that point it won't be a small difference in lens size. If you think they'll start over with a new lens mount...?

I would assume a brand new mount, just like Fuji.

 Mazin Sami's gear list:Mazin Sami's gear list
Sony RX100 II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,536
Like?
Re: Closing the gap at Photokina.
In reply to Louis_Dobson, Sep 27, 2012

Louis_Dobson wrote:
Not on the lenses though.

Mazin Sami wrote:

Ironically the size between the two formats is becoming trivial.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#381,380,wa,f

Don't bother mentioning the lenses! Such facts aren't a consideration. Neither is the inclusion of stronger construction or weather sealing.

-- hide signature --

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093Gear list
Like?
Re: Not only size, $$$
In reply to amalric, Sep 27, 2012

Nope, I am interested in it purely from a higher IQ and shallower DoF reason.

Oh, my OM-D E-M5 is amazing, but at the same time, the extra IQ possible from 4x the sensor area and the shallower DoF would be nice to utilize from time to time.

I don't think it is likely I'd buy in to such a thing any year soon (too expensive most likely) and heck, it would never be my main system. However, there were/are plenty of people back in the film days who had medium format cameras and a couple of lenses (or larger format) that they'd use on occasion for the most critical work, but they carried around a 35mm film system for most of their stuff.

amalric wrote:

I think you are an optimist, if you don't think that while selling the RX1 Sony directors don't walk laughing all the way to the bank.

Surely an ILC successor might be cheaper, and perhaps have 3 dedicated lenses that are not too big.

Bu the set would still be v. expensive for what it is, and not have the flexibility of m4/3.

I am not a mirrorless fundamentlist, i think that 135 FF is the pro middle format, and that even dSLR will stay for that.

But then it will become even more refined and expensive, not less. The RX1 is an expensive toy for managers and dentists, who have the money but not the time.

m4/3 goes in the opposite direction, but with such a good sensor, and lens flexibility that it will stay for a loong time, longer than myself at any rate

I think it was at the Phoblographer that I saw a comparison between the Leica M9 and the E-M5, and the latter won in resolution and perhaps even in DR. It is pretty astonishing what small sensors can now do.

My take is that some users can't really fight in their mind the meme of 135mm being the central format, but it is the same of the Equivalence illness. Once you reach such a degree of resolution in cropped sensors, it doesn't make any sense to saddle yourself as a donkey to carry such a system.

BTW the Fuji Trans X sensor is just as astonishing, it even has the filmic feel of a Leica, so what more is needed?

One of the reasons given to cling to 135mm is that you can use legacy lenses at the true focal they were designed for, but you end up in paying quite a bit the privilege

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

-- hide signature --

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
clengman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,297Gear list
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

This is part of my point. If they use a-mount lenses (unlikely) you have a complete system from the get-go, but the lenses are ridiculously mismatched to the body size. If they start over with a brand new mount then you get something like the new fuji system, an exorbitantly-priced novelty act. Undoubtedly a fine camera, but limited to a small handful of prime lenses, unlikely to ever have as useful a range of lenses as what m43 has already. To paraphrase amalric, a high-priced bauble for the idle rich.

Mazin Sami wrote:

What lenses will they use for this camera? If A-mount, don't forget to add a 1-2 inch long mount adapter to every lens. At that point it won't be a small difference in lens size. If you think they'll start over with a new lens mount...?

I would assume a brand new mount, just like Fuji.

 clengman's gear list:clengman's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Rokinon 7.5mm 1:3.5 UMC Fisheye CS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NumberOne
Senior MemberPosts: 1,444Gear list
Like?
Re: Closing the gap at Photokina.
In reply to Mazin Sami, Sep 27, 2012

Mazin Sami wrote:

Ironically the size between the two formats is becoming trivial.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#381,380,wa,f

Not when used with Glass(es)...

Best regards,
Pedro

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
G L
G L
Regular MemberPosts: 230
Like?
Sorry, my mistake
In reply to Thorgrem, Sep 27, 2012

Sorry it was intended as answer to the OP. My mistake

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mazin Sami
Regular MemberPosts: 322Gear list
Like?
Re: Looks small
In reply to SergeyGreen, Sep 28, 2012

perry rhodan wrote:
What about this? Look at that "tiny" epl5 and a65.

You're totally right, I have an EP-1, GF1 and EPL-3, and I'm not denying the difference in size here, but I was amazed by Sony's RX1 and how they managed to put a full frame sensor in such small body, it's almost as small as the GX1, I love the size of my m34 gear, and please don't take me wrong, I have a Canon 5D that I haven't used in a while!!!

Cheers

 Mazin Sami's gear list:Mazin Sami's gear list
Sony RX100 II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,663
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to clengman, Sep 28, 2012

Well, it's not exactly my thought about FF - see my discussion at 43rumors, on the 43 hybrid.

To recap, cheaper FF (C,N, Sony) are effectively imposing a price cap to m4/3. It still has legroom, but only below 1500-1200 $.

I can see v. well a pro using both formats, they already do. The RX1 is an expensive toy, but at a lower future price an ILC version could have potential.

But if I think about myself, I am certainly a cropped format user, not willing to spend more than 1000-1200, and certainly not every year

Am.

clengman wrote:

This is part of my point. If they use a-mount lenses (unlikely) you have a complete system from the get-go, but the lenses are ridiculously mismatched to the body size. If they start over with a brand new mount then you get something like the new fuji system, an exorbitantly-priced novelty act. Undoubtedly a fine camera, but limited to a small handful of prime lenses, unlikely to ever have as useful a range of lenses as what m43 has already. To paraphrase amalric, a high-priced bauble for the idle rich.

Mazin Sami wrote:

What lenses will they use for this camera? If A-mount, don't forget to add a 1-2 inch long mount adapter to every lens. At that point it won't be a small difference in lens size. If you think they'll start over with a new lens mount...?

I would assume a brand new mount, just like Fuji.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NumberOne
Senior MemberPosts: 1,444Gear list
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to amalric, Sep 28, 2012

amalric wrote:

Well, it's not exactly my thought about FF - see my discussion at 43rumors, on the 43 hybrid.

To recap, cheaper FF (C,N, Sony) are effectively imposing a price cap to m4/3. It still has legroom, but only below 1500-1200 $.

Quite true, and good for us, consumers!

I can see v. well a pro using both formats, they already do. The RX1 is an expensive toy, but at a lower future price an ILC version could have potential.

As usual, Sony forgets about lenses when releasing interesting new cameras/formats...

In RX1 case, I believe that's the reason for being a (very expensive) "fixed lens camera", and a niche product with no selling (serious) perspective...

If a lens roadmap and an ILC are provided, many - myself included - could be tempted; as it is, I'll pass!

But if I think about myself, I am certainly a cropped format user, not willing to spend more than 1000-1200, and certainly not every year

Am.

For me, it comes to lenses, size & weight, IQ, UI & ergonomics and - of course - value for the $...

clengman wrote:

This is part of my point. If they use a-mount lenses (unlikely) you have a complete system from the get-go, but the lenses are ridiculously mismatched to the body size. If they start over with a brand new mount then you get something like the new fuji system, an exorbitantly-priced novelty act. Undoubtedly a fine camera, but limited to a small handful of prime lenses, unlikely to ever have as useful a range of lenses as what m43 has already. To paraphrase amalric, a high-priced bauble for the idle rich.

Mazin Sami wrote:

What lenses will they use for this camera? If A-mount, don't forget to add a 1-2 inch long mount adapter to every lens. At that point it won't be a small difference in lens size. If you think they'll start over with a new lens mount...?

I would assume a brand new mount, just like Fuji.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

Best regards,
Pedro

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
azazel1024
Senior MemberPosts: 1,093Gear list
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to NumberOne, Sep 28, 2012

Yeah. I think the argument that "well if you release an ILC that takes legacy FF lenses native, than you have the issue of lens size still" is a little specious. Look at the Pentax solution. It isn't good.

It just ends up leaving the camera large. Stripping a mirror box and making a short register ILC FF camera doesn't really make the lenses smaller at all, it reduces the size of the camera body, but not the lenses...necessarily.

The best solution would be something like what Sony did with the NEX. New mount, and adapter that'll take A-mount lenses, with autofocus and develop all new lenses.

In this case you can use FF lenses with a simple adapter, they'll retain everything and then you develop some new lenses that will mount natively. Anything retrofocus can be made smaller/cheaper/better and anything else can at least be made such that you no longer need the adapter to make a slightly shorter overall lens/camera combo. You don't necessarily need to push out a bunch of lenses right away, as its not like the new lenses are likely to be massively smaller.

Oh, Leica mount lenses tend to be relatively compact, but they also do away with things such as autofocus, electronics, image stabalization, etc. They'd be a resonable amount bigger with that stuff added in.

A FF ILC system is still going to be a lot larger than an APS-C or m4/3 ILC system with lenses custom made for them. However, it could still be less costly than a FF dSLR system (a lot of lenses would be cheaper to make, at least wide angles would be and the body would be easier/cheaper to make) and some of the lenses could be smaller and more compact.

Also with EVF, you have WYSIWYG. I forget who's propaganda I was reading yesterday about how dSLRs are dead, long live dSLRs and the specious proposal that dSLRs somehow provide WYSIWYG. Compared to a modern ILC with a good EVF, they are MUCH further from WYSIWYG than an ILC. The screen can show you a pretty good representation of exactly what the exposure will be. A dSLR only provides you roughly with what your eye sees, not what the sensor will expose like.
--

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

 azazel1024's gear list:azazel1024's gear list
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TomFid
Senior MemberPosts: 1,256Gear list
Like?
Re: Here are with equivalent lenses
In reply to micksh6, Sep 28, 2012

If you only shoot wide-to-short-tele, the advantage isn't that great. But at the long end it matters. This is what caused me to switch:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#381.35,380.310,wa,t

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,663
Like?
Re: Try This...
In reply to azazel1024, Sep 28, 2012

I think that we must separate the FF issue and the dSLR/mirrorless issue.

In the latter there are advantages in both formats, and some pros reacted quick enough saying that they could use a proportion of 90% over10% of both.

Among the advantages of m4/3 much smaller teles. In theory FF can deal better with wides, but I wonder if short distance to flange won't create even worse problems at the edges.

Therefore it's much too soon to predict the disappearance of dSLR FF.

But m4/3 still retains a chance as everyman's camera.Just don't make it a luxury item.

Am.

azazel1024 wrote:

Yeah. I think the argument that "well if you release an ILC that takes legacy FF lenses native, than you have the issue of lens size still" is a little specious. Look at the Pentax solution. It isn't good.

It just ends up leaving the camera large. Stripping a mirror box and making a short register ILC FF camera doesn't really make the lenses smaller at all, it reduces the size of the camera body, but not the lenses...necessarily.

The best solution would be something like what Sony did with the NEX. New mount, and adapter that'll take A-mount lenses, with autofocus and develop all new lenses.

In this case you can use FF lenses with a simple adapter, they'll retain everything and then you develop some new lenses that will mount natively. Anything retrofocus can be made smaller/cheaper/better and anything else can at least be made such that you no longer need the adapter to make a slightly shorter overall lens/camera combo. You don't necessarily need to push out a bunch of lenses right away, as its not like the new lenses are likely to be massively smaller.

Oh, Leica mount lenses tend to be relatively compact, but they also do away with things such as autofocus, electronics, image stabalization, etc. They'd be a resonable amount bigger with that stuff added in.

A FF ILC system is still going to be a lot larger than an APS-C or m4/3 ILC system with lenses custom made for them. However, it could still be less costly than a FF dSLR system (a lot of lenses would be cheaper to make, at least wide angles would be and the body would be easier/cheaper to make) and some of the lenses could be smaller and more compact.

Also with EVF, you have WYSIWYG. I forget who's propaganda I was reading yesterday about how dSLRs are dead, long live dSLRs and the specious proposal that dSLRs somehow provide WYSIWYG. Compared to a modern ILC with a good EVF, they are MUCH further from WYSIWYG than an ILC. The screen can show you a pretty good representation of exactly what the exposure will be. A dSLR only provides you roughly with what your eye sees, not what the sensor will expose like.
--

Many things dealing with Olympus and their OM and Pen cameras, plus my general photography and musings http://omexperience.wordpress.com/

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads