Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,425
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to lnguyenh, Mar 9, 2013

lnguyenh wrote:

These threads are hilarious. Thx for the entertainment guys. Seriously, cameras are just tools. All of them have pros and cons, and there are different personal preferences and goals. There is no absolute, definitive answer for all of us, and it is a good thing.

Phew. I'm glad someone gets it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,314Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 9, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

36mm x 24mm. Smaller formats get more pixels on the subject because the sensors are more pixel-dense. That's different than getting more magnification.

So you understood the results I was after, and just decided to be pedantic. Cool.

How was I being pedantic? You claimed 1:1 on m4/3 equaled 2:1 on APS-C/FF (not sure which you intended). Had you claimed you wanted 16MP on a 17mm x 13mm sensor, then that would have been different.

Ok, my mistake. I was reading specs for minimum focus distance. Regardless, the Canon lens offers similar performance, a faster aperture, and costs less.

Wrong again. Same price ($599 for both), Same aperture f2.8.

At B&H, the Canon is cheaper. I don't see the point in discussing equivalent apertures any more with you as you go on to say that you aren't concerned about them later in your post. If that's the case though, I don't see why you wouldn't be using a Pentax Q if size is such a concern.

Does Olympus sell that lens for $500 or not? I didn't make up the price. And I didn't add it to your total kit cost either.

The price I used was the price for OM-D + that kit lens, as I bought it.

Ok, and I used the kit price in my summary too.

You're really going to scratch a lens from this comparison over 1.5mm at the wide end? What if I like 105mm (FF) at the telephoto end?

Then you go buy the lens you like. We were putting something together to compare against my small kit. I like 24mm (FF) wide . I have no lenses that stop at 14mm because I don't like 28mm (FF).

Ok.

That's funny. Your 12-60 is slower than the Sigma (factoring in equivalent apertures), bigger, and close to 3X the price. I could buy the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 15-85 for the price of your 12-60.

And, if you recall, we're simply trying to match my small kit. Buying more lenses to build a bigger kit sort of ruins the point.

My point was that the Olympus 12-60, which you claim to own but conveniently leave out of this comparison, costs as much as two lenses for APS-C, one of which would give you the 24mm FF FOV that you so want while the other would be a full stop faster than the 12-60 in equivalent terms. Ignore it if you want, but I think that's a substantial point.

You know, if equivalency mattered to me, you'd have a point. I'm well aware of the compromises of choosing a small sensor.

I'm not sure why you even began to address points I'm making then since all I'm discussing is equivalency.

Also, the Sigma is $550 (All my prices come from one store in Australian dollars, so there's no issue with currencies, etc)

All my prices are USD from B&H. I'm not shopping around either.

Except you were mixing them with the prices I've already put in the thread.

I did at first. My last reply fixed that.

As I've pointed out many, many times now, the DSLR kit might weigh more but it's mainly due to faster apertures. This comparison is no different.

From B&H, the Canon kit with the 15-85 total $2570. The OM-D kit with the Rokinon fisheye hits $2080. With a slight adjustment to the focal length range (a little less wide angle and a lot more telephoto), I could knock $400 off the Canon kit by getting the 18-135 kit lens. For an even slightly focal length change, add the Sigma and knock off almost $300.

So the OM-D kit's sole remaining "win" is weight but at the expense of slower apertures on all lenses. To begin coming close on apertures means spending more money than the DSLR kit (remember that 12-60mm lens for $1000) and eating into that weight advantage significantly.

Well, if we're going to compare whatever we like, then I would probably use the 12-35 and 35-70 f2.8s. That's not the point though. I asked Richard to put together a kit that would be similar to my small kit, and we'd see what the results were. We ended up with a non weatherproof kit that won't fit into the space I need it to, and weighed about 2.5 times as much. The benefits from this kit were marginal to me.

Ok, your specific need for a 24mm FF FOV does make it difficult to make a m4/3 kit given that none of the really small APS-C kit lenses go that wide.

The best you are going to get from Olympus is 600mm at a f/13.4 equivalent (a $900 lens). Or 300mm at f/11 equivalent. For APS-C I can mount a Sigma 150-500 for $150 more and get a 750mm f/9.5 equivalent. Or a Canon 100-400 for $1460 and get 600mm f/8. That's not much money for a 1.5 stop improvement. Try that for any other telephoto lens comparison.

And while you might be ok with an ultra-slow super-telephoto, plenty of wildlife shooters would disagree on the importance of a fast aperture. With a larger format, at least there is the option even if costs more than most are willing to pay. You can always rent as needed.

I think you mean a $550 lens. Try and keep up.

I'm using USD prices. My quoted prices are easy to check at B&H's site.

Funnily enough, I did consider this. Guess what? I chose the camera that offered the most versatility for my photography.

Sorry it offends you.

No, it doesn't offend me at all. I want you to use what works for you. I also don't want to see people duped into thinking they have this tiny m4/3 kit that equals a full frame DSLR kit because the f/ numbers and field of view are the same. It doesn't sound like that's happened to you. EinsteinsGhost on the other hand, does sound duped.

PS. I have no issue with equivalency. It's a useful way to compare across formats.

However, using it as you are for long telephotos just looks stupid. When using a long telephoto the most important thing is exposure.

There are several threads discussing why for the same aperture and shutter speed, the larger sensor gathers more light. If you want to equal that light of the larger sensor, you need to adjust your aperture by the crop factor.

All long telephoto lenses on most formats will be used in a pretty similar fashion, with an open aperture, to enable a faster shutter speed. The DoF, and for that matter equivalency is pretty well irrelevant. A better argument would be to state that under normal usage, a smaller sensor will have more noise.

More noise and less subject isolation.

In short, you've got your priorities wrong. You should be worrying about exposure first and foremost, to get that shutter speed up. Then worry about whether or not you can take the exact same image on other systems. Exposure first, for which most long teles are f5.6, or f6.7, or whatever.

Go on believing what you want to believe.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,425
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to joejack951, Mar 9, 2013

I'm pretty well done with this thread, but I'll just clarify a couple of things.

joejack951 wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

36mm x 24mm. Smaller formats get more pixels on the subject because the sensors are more pixel-dense. That's different than getting more magnification.

So you understood the results I was after, and just decided to be pedantic. Cool.

How was I being pedantic? You claimed 1:1 on m4/3 equaled 2:1 on APS-C/FF (not sure which you intended). Had you claimed you wanted 16MP on a 17mm x 13mm sensor, then that would have been different.

Ok, my mistake. I was reading specs for minimum focus distance. Regardless, the Canon lens offers similar performance, a faster aperture, and costs less.

Wrong again. Same price ($599 for both), Same aperture f2.8.

At B&H, the Canon is cheaper. I don't see the point in discussing equivalent apertures any more with you as you go on to say that you aren't concerned about them later in your post. If that's the case though, I don't see why you wouldn't be using a Pentax Q if size is such a concern.

All things are a compromise. You go smaller in size, you get less IQ. I was after a balance. I didn't want the smallest camera possible. You need to factor in everything, such as lens selection, features, etc when buying a new camera.

Does Olympus sell that lens for $500 or not? I didn't make up the price. And I didn't add it to your total kit cost either.

The price I used was the price for OM-D + that kit lens, as I bought it.

Ok, and I used the kit price in my summary too.

You're really going to scratch a lens from this comparison over 1.5mm at the wide end? What if I like 105mm (FF) at the telephoto end?

Then you go buy the lens you like. We were putting something together to compare against my small kit. I like 24mm (FF) wide . I have no lenses that stop at 14mm because I don't like 28mm (FF).

Ok.

That's funny. Your 12-60 is slower than the Sigma (factoring in equivalent apertures), bigger, and close to 3X the price. I could buy the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 15-85 for the price of your 12-60.

And, if you recall, we're simply trying to match my small kit. Buying more lenses to build a bigger kit sort of ruins the point.

My point was that the Olympus 12-60, which you claim to own but conveniently leave out of this comparison, costs as much as two lenses for APS-C, one of which would give you the 24mm FF FOV that you so want while the other would be a full stop faster than the 12-60 in equivalent terms. Ignore it if you want, but I think that's a substantial point.

I own lots of stuff that's left out of this comparison. That was the whole point behind the discussion – that you could strip down a mirrorless down to be a tiny kit if you wanted to. I use this tiny kit quite often as it's small enough to fit into my iPad bag. It's the kit I use for filling in an hour or two at the end of a work day, or when I have a break at Uni.

You know, if equivalency mattered to me, you'd have a point. I'm well aware of the compromises of choosing a small sensor.

I'm not sure why you even began to address points I'm making then since all I'm discussing is equivalency.

Also, the Sigma is $550 (All my prices come from one store in Australian dollars, so there's no issue with currencies, etc)

All my prices are USD from B&H. I'm not shopping around either.

Except you were mixing them with the prices I've already put in the thread.

I did at first. My last reply fixed that.

As I've pointed out many, many times now, the DSLR kit might weigh more but it's mainly due to faster apertures. This comparison is no different.

From B&H, the Canon kit with the 15-85 total $2570. The OM-D kit with the Rokinon fisheye hits $2080. With a slight adjustment to the focal length range (a little less wide angle and a lot more telephoto), I could knock $400 off the Canon kit by getting the 18-135 kit lens. For an even slightly focal length change, add the Sigma and knock off almost $300.

So the OM-D kit's sole remaining "win" is weight but at the expense of slower apertures on all lenses. To begin coming close on apertures means spending more money than the DSLR kit (remember that 12-60mm lens for $1000) and eating into that weight advantage significantly.

Well, if we're going to compare whatever we like, then I would probably use the 12-35 and 35-70 f2.8s. That's not the point though. I asked Richard to put together a kit that would be similar to my small kit, and we'd see what the results were. We ended up with a non weatherproof kit that won't fit into the space I need it to, and weighed about 2.5 times as much. The benefits from this kit were marginal to me.

Ok, your specific need for a 24mm FF FOV does make it difficult to make a m4/3 kit given that none of the really small APS-C kit lenses go that wide.

The best you are going to get from Olympus is 600mm at a f/13.4 equivalent (a $900 lens). Or 300mm at f/11 equivalent. For APS-C I can mount a Sigma 150-500 for $150 more and get a 750mm f/9.5 equivalent. Or a Canon 100-400 for $1460 and get 600mm f/8. That's not much money for a 1.5 stop improvement. Try that for any other telephoto lens comparison.

And while you might be ok with an ultra-slow super-telephoto, plenty of wildlife shooters would disagree on the importance of a fast aperture. With a larger format, at least there is the option even if costs more than most are willing to pay. You can always rent as needed.

I think you mean a $550 lens. Try and keep up.

I'm using USD prices. My quoted prices are easy to check at B&H's site.

The 75-300 had a price drop in the last month with the introduction of the mk2. It's now $550US. B&H I presume have the old lens and pirice.

Funnily enough, I did consider this. Guess what? I chose the camera that offered the most versatility for my photography.

Sorry it offends you.

No, it doesn't offend me at all. I want you to use what works for you. I also don't want to see people duped into thinking they have this tiny m4/3 kit that equals a full frame DSLR kit because the f/ numbers and field of view are the same. It doesn't sound like that's happened to you. EinsteinsGhost on the other hand, does sound duped.

PS. I have no issue with equivalency. It's a useful way to compare across formats.

However, using it as you are for long telephotos just looks stupid. When using a long telephoto the most important thing is exposure.

There are several threads discussing why for the same aperture and shutter speed, the larger sensor gathers more light. If you want to equal that light of the larger sensor, you need to adjust your aperture by the crop factor.

All long telephoto lenses on most formats will be used in a pretty similar fashion, with an open aperture, to enable a faster shutter speed. The DoF, and for that matter equivalency is pretty well irrelevant. A better argument would be to state that under normal usage, a smaller sensor will have more noise.

More noise and less subject isolation.

Yeah, but subject isolation is rarely an issue at 300/600mm

In short, you've got your priorities wrong. You should be worrying about exposure first and foremost, to get that shutter speed up. Then worry about whether or not you can take the exact same image on other systems. Exposure first, for which most long teles are f5.6, or f6.7, or whatever.

Go on believing what you want to believe.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,314Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Mar 10, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

This whole series of post started with the claim that mirrorless wide angle lenses can be made "very small" compared to the DSLR lenses. I disputed that claim referencing several small DSLR wide angles and pointed out how most mirrorless wide angles are only small due to their small apertures (relative to full frame DSLR lenses).

Leica lenses do show that you can make a smaller ultra-fast wide angle for mirrorless but it's not much smaller and at least in the case of Leica, the price is massive.

And irrelevant to this discussion.

Perhaps but in a sense, it makes the Leica lenses irrelevant too.

"Lens" isn't mirrored versus mirror-less.

No clue what you are talking about here.

You seem to think I'm dismissing comparing APS-C DSLR lenses to APS-C mirrorless lenses. I'm not dismissing it. I'm admitting that APS-C DSLRs fail to deliver on smaller lenses when equivalent apertures are considered just like mirrorless APS-C (and m4/3 for that matter) fail to deliver as well.

My point being comparison between Mirror-less cameras versus Mirrored cameras, where lenses are only a part of the equation, not the whole package.

Ok, that's fine if that's your point. That's not what I've been discussing this whole.

It is the point I have been. It is also the point of these threads: Mirror-less cameras (not mirror-less lenses).

Clearly this whole discussion has been a waste of time then since you seem to ignore half of what I type.

You cannot dismiss the fact that mirror-less cameras are allowing smaller and lighter lens designs compared to their mirrored counterparts.

Then prove it! Links, specs, whatever. Show me these smaller, lighter lens designs that are true equivalents of DSLR lenses.

Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8: 225g

On a crop sensor, that lens gives a field of view of 36mm on FF. Being a 24mm f/1.8 lens it has a max aperture of 13.3mm (yielding a 36/13.3 = f2.7 equivalent). Comparing the Sony to a Canon 35mm f/2 we have:

Sony size: 63 x 65.5 mm, Canon size: 68.6x 43.2 mm. The Canon has a slightly larger OD but is fairly shorter. We'll call it a draw.

Sony aperture: 13.3mm, Canon aperture: 17.5mm. Clear win for the Canon lens.

Sony weight: 225g, Canon weight: 210g. Another draw.

Sony price: $1098, Canon price: $289. LANDSLIDE win for the full frame lens here.

Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS: 225g

I've discussed this lens already. There's no full frame lens with that focal length range and such a slow equivalent aperture (about f/5.6). The Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is the closest I can think of and it weighs 160g more and is a bigger in both length and diameter, but it costs $100 lens and is 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster over its repsective range.

They are being made smaller because they have smaller apertures with maybe a few exceptions (the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro for example but that's all that I can think of and it's only smaller by a hair than the Tamorn 90mm f/2.8).

Sony 24-70 f/2.8 SSM: 955g

Sony 16-50 f/2.8 SSM: 577g

The Sony 16-50 would need to be an f/2 lens to be a true equivalent to a full framr 24-70/2.8. The math is simple..

FWIW, Olympus tried making a 14-35mm f/2 lens to try and compete with a standard full frame zoom. For a lens that's still a stop slower than a f/2.8 full frame lens, that lens costs as much, weighs as much, and is big as those full frame standard zooms.

For a true equivalent? Yes, if not even smaller. How much smaller than DSLR FF lenses? Maybe a bit for wide angles going by the example of Leica's lenses.

Equivalence is a useless term. One could argue that 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C can be matched by 300mm f/2.8 on FF for similar FoV.

Not worth discussing any more.

No, I'm not. But I am forced to use mainly non-FF mirrorless lenses as examples since the only FF mirrorless lens maker is Leica whose lenses are non-AF and priced so high that I consider them all but irrelevant. And as I've pointed out several times, even if we do look at those lenses, they simply aren't that much smaller than FF DSLR lenses.

Objective: They are smaller.

Subjective: They are not much smaller.

How many Leica lenses do you own then? Since they are the only place mirrorless currently has a size advantage I'm assuming you've stocked up.

2- You're assuming that a DoF argument can be applied to exposure. Right?

I'm assuming nothing. You seem to be assuming that because a lens offers the same field of view and has the same f/ number as another lens that it's equivalent. That's not how it works. For the same image, you must have the same field of view AND the same actual aperture size.

You're proving my point. You could make a point on DoF. Don't try to sell it on exposure. When I'm using 200mm f/2.8 on NEX, the lens offers two primary advantage: 300mm FoV equivalence to FF and low light capability with larger aperture (aperture size is identical regardless of the size of sensor behind it). DoF? Well, at 50 ft with this lens:

APS-C: 2.1 ft

Full Frame: 3.2 ft

You forgot to keep the same framing on full frame. Either use a 300mm f/2.8 on full frame for the comparison or move 2/3's closer with the full frame camera and 200mm lens to get the same field of view. Now do the DOF calculation.

As I said, a hell lot more decides pricing than the very limited idea you have of it.

One example of an APO designation amongst hundreds of examples of aperture increases doesn't prove your point. You can keep trying though if you'd like.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,949Gear list
Like?
This thread is hilarious.
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 10, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Indeed it is.

Did you catch the reply by the person who started four sentences with "OMG". Sounded just like a 12-year-old girl, he did.

Guys, you're being suckered into an argument you cannot win. This may be why Richard refused to look at matching my m4/3s small kit.

I've looked into the pros and cons of the various formats. Let me tell you how this is going to go.

OMG High ISO - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG Phase detect - Don't care. Already considered it (and, BTW, Front/back focus)

OMG Shallow DOF - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG More lenses - Guess what. Already considered it.

etc, etc, etc.

And you'll just keep butting your heads into the fact that a m4/3s kit is almost definitely going to be smaller.

Welcome to reality guys. Everyone has different things they're looking for in a camera. A DSLR is not necessarily the best solution for everyone. Maybe you should appreciate the fact that there are a lot of cameras out there and we can all choose what we like, rather than trying to squish everyone into the DSLR box.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,416Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to joejack951, Mar 10, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

This whole series of post started with the claim that mirrorless wide angle lenses can be made "very small" compared to the DSLR lenses. I disputed that claim referencing several small DSLR wide angles and pointed out how most mirrorless wide angles are only small due to their small apertures (relative to full frame DSLR lenses).

Leica lenses do show that you can make a smaller ultra-fast wide angle for mirrorless but it's not much smaller and at least in the case of Leica, the price is massive.

And irrelevant to this discussion.

Perhaps but in a sense, it makes the Leica lenses irrelevant too.

"Lens" isn't mirrored versus mirror-less.

No clue what you are talking about here.

You seem to think I'm dismissing comparing APS-C DSLR lenses to APS-C mirrorless lenses. I'm not dismissing it. I'm admitting that APS-C DSLRs fail to deliver on smaller lenses when equivalent apertures are considered just like mirrorless APS-C (and m4/3 for that matter) fail to deliver as well.

My point being comparison between Mirror-less cameras versus Mirrored cameras, where lenses are only a part of the equation, not the whole package.

Ok, that's fine if that's your point. That's not what I've been discussing this whole.

It is the point I have been. It is also the point of these threads: Mirror-less cameras (not mirror-less lenses).

Clearly this whole discussion has been a waste of time then since you seem to ignore half of what I type.

You cannot dismiss the fact that mirror-less cameras are allowing smaller and lighter lens designs compared to their mirrored counterparts.

Then prove it! Links, specs, whatever. Show me these smaller, lighter lens designs that are true equivalents of DSLR lenses.

Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8: 225g

On a crop sensor, that lens gives a field of view of 36mm on FF...

Irrelevant. You asked me to show mirror-less design allowing for a smaller, lighter lens design compared to their mirrored counterparts. Your turn to beat that spec with a lens designed for mirrored counterpart (and by counterpart, or "comparable", I would ALWAYS imply same format).

Being a 24mm f/1.8 lens it has a max aperture of 13.3mm (yielding a 36/13.3 = f2.7 equivalent).

Focal length doesn't change across format. For example, when I use my FF 200mm f/2.8 lens (Aperture size 71.4mm) on my old Minolta SLR, and then put it on my Sony A55 (300mm equivalent), the aperture size doesn't grow by 50%. It remains the same: 71.4mm.

Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS: 225g

I've discussed this lens already. There's no full frame lens with that focal length range and such a slow equivalent aperture (about f/5.6)...

Your idea about equivalence on aperture is misguided. Look above for a glimpse of it. The only argument you can make with it is regarding DoF, not with speed (16mm f/4 entails 4mm aperture, regardless of the format).

But, more importantly, you have demonstrated that you cannot find a comparable DSLR lens, designed for mirrored bodies that is as small and light as the mirror-less lens. Your entire argument hangs on this fact: You must disregard sensor size, because APS-C DSLRs (the vast majority of DSLR sales) sucks compared to APS-C mirrorless.

Equivalence is a useless term. One could argue that 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C can be matched by 300mm f/2.8 on FF for similar FoV.

Not worth discussing any more.

And I can tell why.

No, I'm not. But I am forced to use mainly non-FF mirrorless lenses as examples since the only FF mirrorless lens maker is Leica whose lenses are non-AF and priced so high that I consider them all but irrelevant. And as I've pointed out several times, even if we do look at those lenses, they simply aren't that much smaller than FF DSLR lenses.

Objective: They are smaller.

Subjective: They are not much smaller.

How many Leica lenses do you own then? Since they are the only place mirrorless currently has a size advantage I'm assuming you've stocked up.

Zero, to respond to yet another straw man argument. As if, you personally are unaware if you actually own something. Right?

2- You're assuming that a DoF argument can be applied to exposure. Right?

I'm assuming nothing. You seem to be assuming that because a lens offers the same field of view and has the same f/ number as another lens that it's equivalent. That's not how it works. For the same image, you must have the same field of view AND the same actual aperture size.

You're proving my point. You could make a point on DoF. Don't try to sell it on exposure. When I'm using 200mm f/2.8 on NEX, the lens offers two primary advantage: 300mm FoV equivalence to FF and low light capability with larger aperture (aperture size is identical regardless of the size of sensor behind it). DoF? Well, at 50 ft with this lens:

APS-C: 2.1 ft

Full Frame: 3.2 ft

You forgot to keep the same framing on full frame. Either use a 300mm f/2.8 on full frame for the comparison or move 2/3's closer with the full frame camera and 200mm lens to get the same field of view. Now do the DOF calculation.

No, I didn't forget to keep the same framing. I don't want a wider view when I am trying to maximize my reach. As I said above, your idea about aperture size is misguided. It would be more logical to argue that the 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C would be comparable to 300mm f/4 on FF, if depth of field is the criteria. Using that 200mm f/2.8 on FF would be better for what?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 5,425
Like?
Re: This thread is hilarious.
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Mar 10, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Indeed it is.

Did you catch the reply by the person who started four sentences with "OMG". Sounded just like a 12-year-old girl, he did.

Guys, you're being suckered into an argument you cannot win. This may be why Richard refused to look at matching my m4/3s small kit.

I've looked into the pros and cons of the various formats. Let me tell you how this is going to go.

OMG High ISO - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG Phase detect - Don't care. Already considered it (and, BTW, Front/back focus)

OMG Shallow DOF - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG More lenses - Guess what. Already considered it.

etc, etc, etc.

And you'll just keep butting your heads into the fact that a m4/3s kit is almost definitely going to be smaller.

Welcome to reality guys. Everyone has different things they're looking for in a camera. A DSLR is not necessarily the best solution for everyone. Maybe you should appreciate the fact that there are a lot of cameras out there and we can all choose what we like, rather than trying to squish everyone into the DSLR box.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

I'll spell out the joke for you next time so you don't miss it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,254
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 10, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Guys, you're being suckered into an argument you cannot win. This may be why Richard refused to look at matching my m4/3s small kit.

I've looked into the pros and cons of the various formats. Let me tell you how this is going to go.

OMG High ISO - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG Phase detect - Don't care. Already considered it (and, BTW, Front/back focus)

OMG Shallow DOF - Don't care. Already considered it.

OMG More lenses - Guess what. Already considered it.

etc, etc, etc.

And you'll just keep butting your heads into the fact that a m4/3s kit is almost definitely going to be smaller.

smaller but not the smallest. That goes to pentax Q system.

Welcome to reality guys. Everyone has different things they're looking for in a camera. A DSLR is not necessarily the best solution for everyone. Maybe you should appreciate the fact that there are a lot of cameras out there and we can all choose what we like, rather than trying to squish everyone into the DSLR box.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Hoy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,569
Like?
part 2.
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 10, 2013

A while ago Dpreview.com commented on the 150 post limit.  They said they would not increase the post limit mainly because not much good would come beyond 150 posts, e.g. bickering and mud slinging.  This is in regards to the "part 2" of this post.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
johnznyc
Regular MemberPosts: 124
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to Martin.au, Mar 12, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

lnguyenh wrote:

These threads are hilarious. Thx for the entertainment guys. Seriously, cameras are just tools. All of them have pros and cons, and there are different personal preferences and goals. There is no absolute, definitive answer for all of us, and it is a good thing.

Phew. I'm glad someone gets it.

Let me add that anything that gets trashed, IMHO, must be good to cause such defensiveness.

In a few short years there will be affordable, full-frame mirrorless cameras having advanced EVFs and a few other improvements that will make them the choice for most users, save for certain situations.

Ultimately, picture quality is the bottom line and even right now, in many common applications, mirrorless camera photo quality equals that of a DLSR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,416Gear list
Like?
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.
In reply to johnznyc, Mar 12, 2013

johnznyc wrote:

Ultimately, picture quality is the bottom line and even right now, in many common applications, mirrorless camera photo quality equals that of a DLSR.

Even then, photo quality depends on sensor and optics. A DSLR may be using the same sensor as the mirror-less (Sony A580/Nikon D7000 versus Sony NEX-5N, for example). And in fact, the same optics too.

The only difference is with AF where having a mirror helps speed up things, especially when continuous AF is desired, where future development of mirror-less technology is bound to happen (and also benefitting "DSLRs").

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads