Reading mode: Light Dark

Finally a mirrorless SLR like camera but...

Go to last post
MrRoger said:
Canon have been losing ground to Nikon in DSLR sales, so wether that
will inspire them to make an EVIL I don't know. Nikons entry level
DSLR dosn't even have LV.
Click to expand...
I think every DSLR manufacturer will do EVIL cameras. It's a logical evolution from DSLRs.
MrRoger said:
Note also that Canon allready make lenses that reach back into the
body about as far as an APS-C mirror will let them go, which in part
reduces the need for a "new" sub mount, they could just do an EVIL
camera based on the existing mount.
Click to expand...
Except that they still want EF-S lenses to be compatible with DSLRs. So if you want the rear element closer to the sensor you can't do it. There's no problem with using a shorter mount, just have an adapter (basically an extension tube) to mount EF/EF-S lenses.
MrRoger said:
But both Nikon and Canon need to do a lot of homework on contrast AF
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt this is a problem for Canon, as they make digicams with contrast AF. Nikon digicams are outsourced, so they may not have the expertise in-house.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
14-140 mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S., which is 28-280mm in 35mm terms.
Gondor said:
I have been waiting for this several years and finally it happened
and in many ways the G1 looks promising but still not for me I guess

I am not after smaller size than e.g. a Canon 450, instead I want
someone to use the smaller size to give me more. A good walk around
lens, lets say 28-250 mm (adjusted with the multiplier factor),
fairly bright for low light shots and to enable me to control DOF.
The sensor should be the best in the market, low noise and good image
quality, which probably means an APS-C sized sensor.

Besides this I of course want the advantages with a good EVF/LCD,
e.g. magnification while zooming, wysiwyg etc.

What I am hoping for is perhaps something that Samsung are willing to
deliver or perhaps even Nikon in time. Canon could of course do it
but I doubt they will unless they are loosing market shares.
Click to expand...
 
J1000 said:
14-140 mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S., which is 28-280mm in 35mm terms.
Click to expand...
But it's not "fairly bright". Of course no superzoom is -- which is one reason why the OP will never get exactly the camera he wants.

--
Erik
 
Gondor said:
Erik Magnuson said:
Gondor said:
Looking at the review of G1 I think it is some difference and to
quote the comment in the review of the picture below: "The new
smaller lens mount and reduced flange back distance means that Micro
Four Thirds lenses are noticeable smaller than their conventional SLR
counterparts - even the already diminutive 14-42mm Olympus kit lens."

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/features/lenses.jpg
Click to expand...
You see a "noticeable" difference in that photo? They are almost
exactly the same length. The new lens is a bit slimmer in diameter
though. If you compare the Panny 45-200 vs. the Sigma 55-200, the
Sigma is shorter and almost the same diameter.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
Yes the old lens is noticeable wider than the micro lens even though
it's a 14-42 lens compared to the new micro lens which is 14-45.

No big differences I agree but still an improvement, if I can get the
same size but with slightly better spec I say yes.
Click to expand...
from the presentation mockups, this is the 40-150 series (80-300 EFL) mFT in centre, at right is the mFT/FT adapter. mFT is both narrower and shorter. Expect wides to be considerably smaller too, b/se this is were FT properties have worked against it



--
Riley

in my home, the smoke alarm is the dinner bell (only if you cook RAW food)
 
FF cameras will benefit most from this, when it comes to size as they can remove the huge mirror and pentaprism. Should help cut costs considerably.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
57 lenses of various types from most brands.
 
nickleback said:
Except that they still want EF-S lenses to be compatible with DSLRs.
So if you want the rear element closer to the sensor you can't do it.
Click to expand...
These lenses do do it insofar as they reach back further than they should, they cannot be mounted on non APS-C cameras as they would foul the mirror. Nothing like the gain of a m43 but it is something.
nickleback said:
nickleback said:
But both Nikon and Canon need to do a lot of homework on contrast AF
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt this is a problem for Canon, as they make digicams
with contrast AF. Nikon digicams are outsourced, so they may not
have the expertise in-house.
Click to expand...
I think everybody knows how to do it, it's manual focus done quickly :D I was reffering to the fact that actual contrast AF implementations on DSLR's are pretty pathetic, apparently due to they inefficiencies of the lens interfaces which were not designed with this kind of operation in mind.
 
MrRoger said:
nickleback said:
Except that they still want EF-S lenses to be compatible with DSLRs.
So if you want the rear element closer to the sensor you can't do it.
Click to expand...
These lenses do do it insofar as they reach back further than they
should, they cannot be mounted on non APS-C cameras as they would
foul the mirror. Nothing like the gain of a m43 but it is something.
Click to expand...
He said do do. Heh heh.

EF-S Gives you around 41mm backfocus. That's not even as short as non-micro 4/3rds (which is in the 38mm ballpark). If you are going to do an EVF system right, might as well do it right. Set it up so you can do 5mm backfocus, or whatever you need to ensure the lens doesn't hit the shutter. Micro 4/3rds gives you this, I'd expect all the other manufacturers to do something similar.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
Erik Magnuson said:
J1000 said:
14-140 mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S., which is 28-280mm in 35mm terms.
Click to expand...
But it's not "fairly bright". Of course no superzoom is -- which is
one reason why the OP will never get exactly the camera he wants.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
Panasonics existing 4/3 lineup includes, at least on paper, a 14-150 f3.5 lens.

m43 should make such lenses easier to make, so quite why there is not a brighter one I don't know, maybe they are being conservative with the estimate or want it to be low cost!

The 20mm f1.7 is potentially very useful, a bright normal lens. On APS-C we are talking 28mm to get that standard view, and these lenses are either very expensive or give pretty poor results when used wide open. Interesting to see how the m43 one will shape up.
 
MrRoger said:
Panasonics existing 4/3 lineup includes, at least on paper, a 14-150
f3.5 lens.
Click to expand...
3.5-5.6
MrRoger said:
m43 should make such lenses easier to make
Click to expand...
On the short end, yes. But it won't be any smaller, and won't change the max aperture on the long end.
MrRoger said:
The 20mm f1.7 is potentially very useful, a bright normal lens. On
APS-C we are talking 28mm to get that standard view, and these lenses
are either very expensive or give pretty poor results when used wide
open. Interesting to see how the m43 one will shape up.
Click to expand...
Define expensive...

Sigma 28mm f/1.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 28mm f/1.8

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
Erik Magnuson said:
J1000 said:
14-140 mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S., which is 28-280mm in 35mm terms.
Click to expand...
But it's not "fairly bright". Of course no superzoom is -- which is
one reason why the OP will never get exactly the camera he wants.
Click to expand...
There is also at least one other reason (other than cost) to design slower lenses on this camera:

Contrast detection AF (CD-AF), because slower lenses have a greater depth of field (DoF) than large aperture (fast) lenses and can "hide" sloppy focusing in the DoF.

A 14-140mm f1:2.8-3.2 lens (if it were possible) would have a DoF that is a quarter that of the proposed lens and place a (perhaps too much) greater demand on CD-AF accuracy and speed.
 
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
Leica style collapsible lenses. The camera has enough room so a short
portrait tele could store two sections of tube inside the camera, and
let you pull them out for shooting.
Click to expand...
I have an Olympus compact 35mm camera with a similar design. Though
it might be three sections, not two. And the camera has a leather
finished body.
Jay Turberville said:
Obviously, it should be brass...
Click to expand...
No. Chrome.
Click to expand...
Nickel plated brass would be best, with diamond knurling around the focus ring.

If you really wanted to go with a "classic" Leica-inspired collapsible lens design. ;-)
 
dj_nme said:
Contrast detection AF (CD-AF), because slower lenses have a greater
depth of field (DoF) than large aperture (fast) lenses and can
"hide" sloppy focusing in the DoF.
Click to expand...
Contrast AF is much more accurate than DSLR phase AF. There's nothing to go out of alignment with contrast AF off the sensor.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top