-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
?
I would have thought that's due to marketing and a lack of general knowledge....
Osvaldo Cristo
Veteran Member
NC
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
What exactly makes for a "mirror-less camera lens"?
Osvaldo Cristo
Veteran Member
TrojMacReady
Veteran Member
I quickly scanned the article from Thom, but I didn't see a source for his numbers.
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,633
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
I think best retrofocus wides have gotten pretty good these days. For example, Hubert Nasse went even so far to describe Distagon 21mm as a lens that rivals best symmetric lenses with regards to resolution..
Last edited:
They are lenses for the Leica M system.
joejack951
Veteran Member
The Pentax 15mm f/4 is only a little bigger than the 21/4 Voigtlander and it has autofocus (yes, I know it doesn't cover a full frame sensor). The Nikon 24/1.4 is three stops faster making it a far more complicated lens design so no way to compare to a MF f/4 lens. The Leica 24/1.4 is considerably smaller than the Nikon but again it has no AF and no built-in AF motor either, of course.
While they may be inherently simpler designs, the SLR lenses (currently at least) offer more functionality for not much of a size penalty.
Any lens test data for that Leica to compare to the Nikon? I'm not seeing anything online. 11 aperture blades is pretty cool though.
What wide angle lenses rival the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor? I don't know of any...
Nikon-1 series shoots 60 frames per second. Try to flap mirror at that rate. And that is only today. In the future the difference will be larger as mechanical parts don't get much faster while electronic ones do.
Regarding lenses - you oviously ignored my earlier reply to you: plenty of Laica's and other M-mount lenses. They not only rival that Nikkor but are far superior to it.
Sorry, I should have said, "What mirrorless cameras are faster frame rate than 11 when shooting RAW?'
Next, I didn't ask about non-native primes. I want to know what native zoom is available in a mirrorless mount without an adapter that's equal or superior to the 14-24? Name one please.
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
You can use ANY of those lenses on mirrorless cameras, as long as those lenses allow for aperture control one way or the other.
Copy Mentor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 25
I believe viewfinder quality is the long-term issue, rather than mirror vs. no mirror -- or even big vs. small. What DSLRs, Leica and Fuji have in common is an optical viewing system that lets the photographer see the world directly when composing and capturing the picture.
Most (not all) pros and serious enthusiasts gravitate toward Leica/Fuji as their non-DSLR alternative because they can live without the mirror, but they can't live without the window. Sony would sell twice as many DSC-RX1s if it had even a simple OVF with focus indicator and exposure data -- no need for Fuji's flash hybrid.
The game-changer will be a generation of EVFs with such high resolution and refresh rates and such faultless contrast control that they will be virtually impossible to tell from an OVF in virtually all lighting conditions.
The much-maligned Canon EOS-M actually shows the path to the future, because it's a mirrorless body that can use existing DSLR lenses with full automation and information transfer. That it can also be used with its own dedicated, much smaller lenses, is just icing on the cake.
Imagine an EOS-M with full-frame sensor, dual processors, 15fps speed, weather-sealed body with optional battery grip and a huge and absolutely faultless EVF. I believe this is what the next generation of pros and enthusiasts will be using.
The basic body could be about the size of a Leica M/Fuji X-Pro. To cover the market from sports pros and bird-shooters to landscapers and street people, manufacturers could offer several options of grip/battery -- like the Pentax and Olympus SLRs of the 1980s had a choice of power winders and motor drives. But it wouldn't amaze me to see mirrorless pro bodies with integral battery grips, which would be almost as big as a Canon DX-1, though somewhat lighter.
Assuming on-sensor phase-detect AF keeps up, it all hinges on the viewfinder. Once tomorrow's EVF is as realistic and reliable as today's OVF, there will be no need for the mirror, the mirror-box and the pentaprism. Relatively big, weather-sealed, high-speed mirrorless bodies, taking "legacy" DSLR lenses with full-communication adapters, will be the go.
Most (not all) pros and serious enthusiasts gravitate toward Leica/Fuji as their non-DSLR alternative because they can live without the mirror, but they can't live without the window. Sony would sell twice as many DSC-RX1s if it had even a simple OVF with focus indicator and exposure data -- no need for Fuji's flash hybrid.
The game-changer will be a generation of EVFs with such high resolution and refresh rates and such faultless contrast control that they will be virtually impossible to tell from an OVF in virtually all lighting conditions.
The much-maligned Canon EOS-M actually shows the path to the future, because it's a mirrorless body that can use existing DSLR lenses with full automation and information transfer. That it can also be used with its own dedicated, much smaller lenses, is just icing on the cake.
Imagine an EOS-M with full-frame sensor, dual processors, 15fps speed, weather-sealed body with optional battery grip and a huge and absolutely faultless EVF. I believe this is what the next generation of pros and enthusiasts will be using.
The basic body could be about the size of a Leica M/Fuji X-Pro. To cover the market from sports pros and bird-shooters to landscapers and street people, manufacturers could offer several options of grip/battery -- like the Pentax and Olympus SLRs of the 1980s had a choice of power winders and motor drives. But it wouldn't amaze me to see mirrorless pro bodies with integral battery grips, which would be almost as big as a Canon DX-1, though somewhat lighter.
Assuming on-sensor phase-detect AF keeps up, it all hinges on the viewfinder. Once tomorrow's EVF is as realistic and reliable as today's OVF, there will be no need for the mirror, the mirror-box and the pentaprism. Relatively big, weather-sealed, high-speed mirrorless bodies, taking "legacy" DSLR lenses with full-communication adapters, will be the go.
I think they are like Spock in Wrath of Kahn, "he's dead already" They exist but they are not the best.
Because they need a good lens just as any dslr, they are going to be big, not small enought to pocket (sure with a pancake but if you want to shoot more advance, it is big
If I have to carry around a brick, I want a good one and DSLRs are good, better than mirrorless.
This is where I live, US. I see the market splitting. Better phone cameras which I have to carry around my phone anyway, it is good for snapshots, I don't need a DSLR or a mirrorless.
The other split is. I am going out to specifically take photos and make them the best I can make them, I am an enthusiast, I am going to choose DSLR, if I have to carry around something big, make it worth while amd a mirroless is a downgrade (which is why you will see mirrorless people constantly comparing and justifying their purchase against a DSLR. If you want the best, DSLR is it, mirrorless is like the light version, everyone wants the full version, people who have to or want to own the light version will always be justifying there purchase against the better technology, the DSLR.
Will mirrorless totally die? no because there will always be people who are fanboys to mirrorless, there will always be people that must have lighter and smaller due to inability to carry a dslr.
Martin.au
Forum Pro
There is another candidate.
People who are doing other things, and taking a sidetrip to include photography. This is something I do often. I'll have a trip somewhere for work, or to Uni, and I'll take the mirrorless along because it's small enough to fit into my iPad bag.
I think the versatility is the best advantage about mirrorless. You can run a full kit when you want to "do photography", then strip it back to a pancake for pocketing, or take a small kit that can fit in whatever space you have available.
The small kit fits into the outside pocket of my iPad case, and gives me coverage from 24-120mm (FF FOV), a fisheye if I want, a flash and macro at 1:1 (17x13mm).
This is how the majority of my photography is done these days, as finding an hour or two break, or finding macro subjects opportunistically is easier than putting aside a day for photography.
Sidetrip=DSLR
Or you can carry your DSLR to "do photography" and use your camera phone for a pancake camera.
The problem is that the advantage cost you more money than a camera phone, and it costs you almost as much money and close to the weight when you "do photography"
I camera fits in my pocket, I dont' need an Ipad case nor do I want to carry one around, and if I do, I might as well carry a small camera bag with a better camera then the mirrorless.
I don't think so, I think that here in the US we found that out already which is why there is a decline in mirrorless. So what I think is the majority of photography done in the US is with a smart phone which is one split and we KNOW this is a fact. The second is debatable but I would say that due to the number of DSLRs I would say the second is DSLRs (pocketabe point and shoot may have this position, if so then DSLR is 3rd) Mirrorless is a niche market and is getting smaller in the US
DSLR is better for this, the only think it has as a disadvantage is weight, and if you want to get a good image, it is worth it. IMHO
Martin.au
Forum Pro
DSLR won't fit in my bag.
So, DSLR for good photos, and a camera phone for "everything else". What if you want good photos for some of that "everything else"? It seems for this argument, phone = DSLR quality, but later arguments Mirrorless ≠ DSLR quality.
What costs more? A DSLR that is at home and a camera phone, or a mirrorless that's with you, and a camera phone. Really don't get this cost argument. Perhaps you're under the impression that a DSLR is required, and the mirrorless is just support. False premise in that case.
So, your rebuttal to my example of carrying a small kit that fits into whatever space you have available, is to carry a bigger kit. Nice solution.
What part of "My photography" did you not understand?
A DSLR won't fit in my bag, so it's a no go. Image quality between my OM-D and a DSLR is marginal, IMO.
Last edited:
Very well said. I don't understand why those who favor mirrorless (or think they do thus far) are so wound up waiting for their choice to finish off the DSLR. Why?
Anyone who is ranting about mirrorless being the end of the DSLR must not be using their mirrorless camera to shoot action or other more demanding things at which the DSLR excels. A mirrorless is of basically no use to me - so I'm supposed to resign myself that the mirrorless camera is going to 'finish off' my DSLR? Not hardly. I'm not so anxious for a slightly smaller camera that I'm willing to give up the very reasons I bought my DSLR. Really now.
Most of the people blabbing about how mirrorless will kill the dslr don't have a clue about shooting much more than landscapes and flowers, I think.
And then they post pictures of their beloved new 'compact' toys with a big honkin' lens and a big flower-petal lens hood - the net effect looks like a dwarf who took an overdose of Viagra.
Perfectly put.
One thing is certain - an EVF will always use electricity from your camera's battery; an OVF will not. An EVF also keeps the sensor on, raising its temperature and contributing to at least a tiny increase in the noise level. And no EVF will ever be as 'real time' and smooth as the reality of, well, reality - the OVF.
Similar threads
