Weight: system more important than sensor size?

I started looking at m43 as a safari weight saving system. And in that case (long telelenses) I think is a very nice solution.

So I started looking at the "normal" lenses as well, since now that the new m43 sensors aren't that bad at higher ISO (even if still 2 stops worse than the new FF, you can't beat physic laws...), this system looks very interesting...

BUT

It seems to me that the weight saving has more to do with the what people want from the lenses, more than the physical issues that come from designing a lens for, say, FF.

What I'm trying to say is that people using m43 value more the small size/lightness of a lens compared to, say, a FF user; and lens designers put more effort in producing small and light lenses.

Example; given a FF setup of:

Zuiko 21mm 3.5 (180g) (manual focus)  length: 31mm

Canon 40mm 2.8 (130g) length: pancake

Nikon 100mm 2.8 (215g) (manual focus) length: 57.5mm

You can see that even fast, FF lenses can be small and light.

Yes, comparable m43 lenses are lighter (example: 45mm 1.8 has the same DOF of a 90mm f3.5, and you can shoot at ISO 400 on FF when you're shooting at ISO 100 on m43, so you can say that is very similar to the Nikon above), and in the example of the oly 45mm vs 100mm nikon can be half the weight. But half the weight of 200g is nothing. The huge gain is when you compare with regular, newer lenses on FF: the 100mm f2 is > 400g. (yes, it's f2 compared to f3.5 when it comes to DOF and noise-wise exposure, but still...).

Bottom line: lenses for FF could be smaller, but people using FF don't value the size that much, so smaller lenses are not created???

What's the point in comparision of autofocus vs legacy non autofocus lenses?

Put the nikon 100mm in a m4/3 body and you will have a 200 2.8 equivalent, how is the ff equivalent in this case?

Autofocus lenses are always heavier and bulkier, in any system.

I think you are probably right.  Canon and Nikon (and other DSLR manufacturers) have for decades followed a policy of making sure that their best lenses are their biggest and most expensive.  This encourages photographers to spend more money and, indeed, some photographers actually believe that a small lens cannot be as good as a large one.

Leica and Zeiss (and some others) have not always followed this policy, however.  For example, Leica's new 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron is better than their faster 50mm lenses, but lighter and smaller (although more expensive).

There are other examples from the days of film cameras, e.g. the Contax G Series cameras had superlative lenses that were much smaller and lighter than the best Canon and Nikon lenses, yet as good or better in IQ (although smaller maximum aperture).

Large cameras and lenses are a virility symbol to some and the manufacturers often pander to this.

well, I knew we were going to get to this point (and I don't like it, since people get really nervous when talking about "equivalent") but anyway:

The nikon on m43 would have the same DOF of a 200 f5.6 on FF and, since FF have 2 stops physical advantage in noise, a 200 5.6 400 ISO 1/200s will be the same as the nikon on m43 @100 iso 1/200s.

And since there's no 200 5.6 for FF, I can't compare it... I think it's the whole point of my post. Light, slow lenses just don't exist in FF. When they exist (40mm STM is one) are not that heavier than m43 lenses.

well, the 40mm is autofocus, and it's light and fast enough (it's cheap too, but that's not the point). So I don't think that autofocus is the problem.

The point, again, is that lenses like the 40mm are not "that" interesting for FF user, as they don't value the size/weight of the system as people in m43 do (and people in m43 are super-right to value the size/weight of lenses, because it's important).

I really doubt any reputable manufacturer has been producing large lenses just for the sake of it!

Indeed Canon for one has been for years looking at ways to reduce the lens size with their DO (diffraction optics) range of lenses - perhaps with mixed success.

One big difference between m43 and DSLR lenses is that m43 has taken the route of using software to correct certain lens aberrations, whereas with DSLR lenses these are addressed solely through the glass and design. I think this has allowed m43 lenses to utilise smaller and fewer glass elements to achieve quality comparable to larger and more complex DSLR lenses.

Colin

--
Colin K. Work www.ckwphoto.com

Mmh no I never meant that; but it feels like they are looking for the super-best-quality in image + construction, + super fast glass; sacrificing size and weight.

Maybe we'll have to wait for a mirrorless FF system to get light and small lenses.

i'm inclined to disagree. having used olympus 35mm film camera extensively in the 80's, i was and remain somewhat bemused by the size of roughly equivalent lenses for modern full frame digital. i use the 5D series with a range of L and consumer glass... i've also used old tiny olympus zuiko primes on my 5D2 with a cheap adaptor no problems at all. they are as sharp and generally free from vignetting as there larger modern counterparts.... autofocus is the only reason i can see ... that and perhaps  they're appealling to a macho bigger is better theme.

Yes, probably.  With SLR and DSLR systems the larger and faster lenses give an advantage even if you never use them at full aperture - the viewfinder is brighter and it is easier to get accurate focus manually (if you wish to focus manually).  With mirrorless systems (as with rangefinder cameras for film) there is no such advantage as the brightness of the viewfinder does not depend on the lens aperture.

I think you are looking at different market segments here.

Both Canon and Nikon have a very American view of their camera ranges, the bigger the better. Even though you can make FF cameras and lenses a lot smaller than they are today, the producers at least seem to think that the market want big heavy gear. Perhaps to show off? (You can see the 1Dx is better than the 650D simply because it is twice the size... Sort of like American cars)

Olympus and Sony on the other hand are very Japaneese in their designs, going smaller is better, to the same extremes sometimes, designing cameras that are not good to hold because they have become too small, at least for western hands.

You are simply right.

Just compare the "pro"- market aimed Panasonic GH3 to the small Olympus OM-D - same sensor size and features but very different size. .."The bigger the better ...."

No pro will never ever build up a m43 equipment in order to have a smaller alternative to carry around - as advertised by panasonic!

I get really tired of equivelance. If you NEED the same depth of field, sure, talk equivelence all you want. If you just want the exact same exposure and field of view, then they are almost directly comparable.

m4/3 25mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/100s and ISO200 will produce an identical exposure to a D600 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4, 1/100s and ISO200.

Yes, the D600 will have somewhat lower noise in the image and a few extra MP for its efforts. However, the field of view and exposure level will be effectively identical. That is what matters to the vast majority of photographers.

Now bringing up the 25/1.4 is probably not a great idea as it is one of the few m4/3 lenses that is roughly the same size and weight as most FF lenses of the same aperture and field of view. Most others are much smaller for m4/3.

I came from using an OM-1/OM-1n and a couple of dozen lenses for the last decade to an OM-D E-M5 and 5 lenses (for now) and I can very much say that the OM-D E-M5 + 14/2.5, 17/2.8, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 weighs significantly less than even my old OM-1 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/2 (or 100/2.8, the lenses are effectively identical in dimensions and mass). The m4/3 kit is roughly 2/3rds of the weight and takes up slightly less bag space.

Compared to most FF digital or even APS-c kits (with APS-c lenses, not FF ones) with similar Field of view and aperture lenses, the OM-1 kit weighs a bit less than the lightest of them (exception Leica digital kits).

The m4/3 kit weighs a fair amount lighter than the light weight OM-1 FF kit.

When it comes to image quality, depth of field, etc, in general m4/3 will NEVER match FF (within reason with lens choices and the state of the best m4/3 sensors, the best m4/3 equals or bests just about all APS-c right now with the exception only a couple of APS-c cameras which are only slightly better, not significantly better like a lot of new FF cameras are). However, when it comes to system weight when you compare field of view and exposure equivelence, m4/3 has FF beat, by a huge amount.

The lenses need to cover a much smaller image circle, the lenses also can have a much smaller physical aperture and length due to having half the focal length for the same field of view.

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

Also, there is a much bigger dimensional difference when comparing zooms vs. primes. The m4/3 lenses in the 40-175 range are positively tiny compared to "equivalent FF lenses. It's size as well as weight when traveling and wielding your gear in a Land Rover full of people vying for the same shots.

alan.

--
www.MotoEuro.org

Really?



EM5 = 3200 ISO

Indeed, equivalent lenses do not always exist across formats, and that singular reason is often a primary reason for choosing one system over another.

Larger sensor systems generally tend to have lenses that have larger apertures (entrance pupils) for a given AOV.  Of course, to some extent, this is necessary for PDAF, since PDAF has more to do with the geometry of the f-ratio than the light gathering power of the aperture.

Regardless, there is no way, no how, that a camera with a FF sensor could match the size, weight, and cost of something like the RX100, so smaller sensor systems absolutely have a size, weight, and cost advantage for smaller aperture (entrance pupil) lenses.

Yep, a 36MP camera vs a 16MP one....

Low-Light ISO dxo test:

2293 ISO for 5D mark III

OMD -> 826 ISO

again, 24mp vs 16mp..........

If smaller sensor were better, we would be using our cell phones, not m43.

does that mean that we should go large format? No. It means we should find the "best" compromise. That's why I'm looking at m43.

Sure; in fact, in my first post I talked about wide/normal lenses.  I came to the m43 forum looking for a safari combo... that 100-300 looks amazing...

What's better for one is not going to be better for all.  Everyone chooses the balance that fits them best in terms of size, weight, IQ, operation, and cost.

Why would you ever want the exact same exposure?

--
Bob

*shrug*... you merely said "full frame".

I didn't say they were.

I agree.

When the exact same exposure on the different formats represents the "best" shot for each.  For example, if the best shot was 50mm f/2 1/200 ISO 400 on mFT, 100mm f/2 1/200 ISO 400 on FF would be the best shot for FF is the lesser DOF and/or lesser noise was more desirable than the deeper DOF of the mFT shot.

However, if not, then the best shot for FF would be 100mm f/4 1/200 ISO 1600, which would be the equivalent to the mFT photo, although some intermediate balance, like 100mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 800 might be better still.

As you and I say, the competent photographer must balance exposure with DOF, motion blur, and blown highlights.  In the situations where the same exposure represents the best balance of the other elements, then the same exposure on different systems represents the best shot, even if the pics look different.