Do large lenses make mirrorless cameras pointless?

Started Jul 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
The Skipper Contributing Member • Posts: 872
Re: DSLR -> mirrorless vs smaller sensors

That is in fact one of the problems with the equivalence argument - you bring more & more variables into the discussion. Whereas before we had ISO-shutter-fstop, now we are talking ISO-shutter-fstop-sensor-baseISO. And within just one of those variables, sensor, we are futher breaking it down in to sensor size & sensor sophistication.

And sensors are improving at an amazing rate for the smaller & mirrorless cameras (whereas they had always been sufficiently good for the larger sensors). For example, I just got an RX100 (realizing that is not a mirrorless camera, but just to make a point), and I get usable photos at ISO 3,200, whereas on my m4/3 E-PL2, I am not happy with ISO 800.

Johan Borg wrote:

The Skipper wrote:

Personally I don't buy the equivalence argument. From an exposure perspective, both of them will have idential ISO-shutter-fstop settings under identical conditions, so we are comparing a lens that is 2.5 stops slower. Of course there are differences (dof), but for 90% of users, they approach it from an exposure perspective.

Even in bright sunlight those 90% hit equivalence in practice: The base ISO of a Nikon 1 is 100, on a m4/3 or larger it's usually 200 so P and S should give equivalent values out of the box. Add Auto-ISO to the mix and equivalence starts to make a lot of sense.

But you're right: People aren't trained to think that a f/4.0 on m4/3 is just as good as a f/2.8 on Nikon 1. That's good for Nikon sales, possibly the best argument there is for using a smaller sensor


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow