Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
joejack951 Senior Member • Posts: 2,682
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

So you are one of those who can only compare a mirror-less camera to a full frame DSLR, nothing else. I guess, the point then would be... have APS-C DSLRs been already defeated that mirror-less ought to be only compared to full frame cameras?

No, the discussion has been about ultra-fast wide angle lenses. To have any chance of making real comparisons across formats, we need to think in terms of equivalent field of views and apertures(otherwise compacts with ultra-ultra-wide angles kill everything we're discussing).

Why? Is it a religion to believe that mirror-less must follow smaller format? Why are you having trouble avoiding APS-C/DSLR to APS-C/Mirror-less comparison?

You seem to be missing my point. There's no use discussing lens size if you are going to ignore non-equivalent field of views and apertures. You can make a very tiny, fast, wide angle lens but if you put it in front of a tiny sensor it's no longer a wide angle and it's no longer considered fast (relative to a larger sensor camera).

APS-C has a lot of the same issues as current mirrorless cameras in that for an equivalent lens, the system isn't any smaller. It's only smaller when you live with smaller apertures. My 24-120/4 zoom lens would need to be a 16-80/2.8 lens on DX. I have a 17-55/2.8 lens for DX and it's already heavier and bigger than the FX lens. So much for DX making for a smaller kit.

APS-C DSLRs are currently not being targeted by manufacturers for true professional usage thus there is not much in the way of high end primes.

I couldn't care less about pros, who come in all shapes, sizes and form. Let us stick with attributes of cameras not people who may or may not be using them.

Wow, you can go off topic really quick. I'm referring to the lack of high end primes for APS-C DSLRs which makes any prime lens comparison with mirrorless futile. There simply aren't lenses available to compare. And as I mentioned above, APS-C suffers from the same size issues as mirrorless. So it makes sense to me to compare to full frame DSLRs, you know, those cameras that mirrorless people hate so much.

Mirrorless seems to be making more progress there but has a long way to go to catch Canon and Nikon's full frame lineups just in terms of breadth of focal lengths offered. What is offered is often times smaller than what's available for full frame but only because the apertures used are so much smaller.

Focal length is a lens attribute, not sensor size attribute.

Yes, I know. I never said anything different. Field of view for a given focal length does change depending on the sensor size of the camera though. Basing this discussion on focal lengths alone thus doesn't make any sense. Take your 35mm NEX lens. On your camera, the widest field of view you can get from that lens (without stitching) is 44 degrees. If you wanted a field of view of 63 degrees you'd have to use a 23-24mm lens. However, I can mount a full frame 35mm lens on a full frame camera and get a full 63 degree field of view. See why sensor size matters in this discussion?

If you look at aperture sizes, if you used a 24/1.4 to get same field of view as my 35/1.4, your max aperture is 24/1.4=17mm while mine is 35/1.4=25mm. That's a lot more light gathering capability.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "But, beyond this deflection you just attempted, wasn't your point independent of format?"

No, not at all. Format has to be considered because it plays a considerable part in how a lens is designed. Bigger formats need bigger glass so simply pointing out that a mirrorless lens for a crop format is smaller than the same exact focal length and aperture for full frame doesn't prove anything. If that mirrorless APS-C lens is 1.5X the focal length and is a stop faster than a full frame lens, then a real comparison can be made.

So your last straw is that you would only compare mirror-less technology to full frame DSLR. Right?

If you want to call it a last straw, go ahead. Full frame cameras have been around for a lot longer than mirrorless (think film). At this point in time, if you want the widest selection of lenses, full frame is where it's at. There are full frame mirrorless cameras too so I don't see what you're objection is.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "I don't think you know that with a 15mm f/2.8 on a FF camera, unless you keep your point to focus under 10 ft, you will be dealing with all-in-focus imagery. And you'd buy these lenses for their background blur characteristics (does anybody?)?"

I'm well aware of what it takes to get shallow depth of field with an ultra-wide angle. I never said I'd buy that specific lens for that reason but the sample images I've seen prove that it does a very nice job when used in that fashion (main point of focus near minimum focus distance). Both the Nikon 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are also known for how nicely they render backgrounds.

Well, now that you're increasing focal length to cover up your previous argument, perhaps it is a good time to ask you to show me these great images out of 15mm f/2.8 you'd mentioned. Can't wait to see, especially since you're not a fan of "everything in focus".

24mm on full frame is considered ultra-wide angle. 35mm on full frame is wide angle. I'm not covering up anything. We've been talking about wide angle lenses this whole time, haven't we? You brought up 35mm on a crop sensor which was the most out-of-line lens discussed so far.

Go search for Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 images and I'm sure you'll find some with considerable, and nicely rendered, background blur. Perhaps you don't quite understand how that can be given that you only use a crop sensor and smaller apertures. It should be enlightening for you.

EinsteinsGhost wrote: "Size wise we're talking about a substantial difference between NEX-6 with 10-18 versus Sony A580 w/10-20. And weight wise, "only" more than double: 570g versus 1200g.

PS. I picked Sigma 10-20 as it is closest thing in FoV to Sony 10-18. An 18-35 lens would be "normal" on APS-C."

Yes, the DSLR body is a lot thicker than a NEX body but that's also why they are more comfortable to hold for long periods of time.

Not IMO. There is a reason why manufacturers make efforts to make camera bodies lighter.

You think comfort is more directly related to weight than size/shape? Strange.

The NEX can be stored in a smaller bag but I'd rather use my camera than marvel at how small of a bag it fits in. Furthermore, we've been discussing lenses, not bodies so while you've pointed out a fact, it's not all that relevant.

Or, to be able to carry more in ANY bag.

Again, we've been discussing that for equivalent lenses, mirrorless doesn't add up to be any smaller than lenses for a larger format. If all you want is compact, there are plenty of pinky nail sized sensor cameras out there that make your NEX look like a pig.

An 18-35 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12-24 APS-C lens so fairly close to the 1.8X zoom of the Sony lens...

If you insist on comparing 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 on FF body to 10-18 f/4 OSS on NEX:

NEX-6 + 10-18/4 OSS: 570g

D600 + 18-35/3.5-4.5: 1200g

How many times do I have to remind you that we aren't discussing bodies? I couldn't care less how small a NEX body is. You're still trying to prove that mirrorless lenses offer some advantage over full frame lenses. Keep trying.

with a slightly shifted focal length range. The lens I pointed out is anywhere from 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster than the particular Sony but only 160 grams heavier.

Sony 10-18 f/4 is a constant aperture zoom, Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is not.

Look at the equivalent apertures. While the Nikon is variable, it's still faster throughout it's range then your constant f/4 NEX lens. I'll help.

10mm/4 = 2.5mm. 18mm/3.5 = 5.14mm --> Nikon wins!

18mm/4 = 4.5mm. 35mm/4.5 = 7.78mm --> Nikon wins!

Regardless, I wear normal pant sizes, so fitting Sony 10-18 in one pocket won't be an issue.

I can fit a compact camera is my pocket too.

 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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow