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:

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.

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.

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.

I don't even know how to respond to this. I don't know why you keep bringing up the size of a particular camera body when we are trying to discuss the size of lenses. Maybe you are just intentionally trying to confuse/frustrate me. It's working.

You will be frustrated if you can't respond logically. So, try the latter and explain to me why sensor size is not important. Are you unaware that APS-C lenses (for DSLRs) can be, and are being, made smaller compared to their FF equivalents?

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).

Are you aware that you can buy a camera that fits in your pocket and has a 24-1200mm (equivalent) zoom lens? How is that possible? (rhetorical question, of course)

Let us look at it the other way around. Sony has apparently filed patents for FF mirror-less lenses. Do you think Sony could make a lens for FF mirror-less in the same packaging as its APS-C lenses for mirror-less?

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.

One last time:

25mm on m4/3 gives a 44 degree angle of view. A 25mm f/1.4 lens has a 17.8mm aperture.

50mm on FF gives a 44 degree angle of view. A 50mm f/1.4 lens has a 35.7mm aperture.

In order to make a m4/3 lens truly equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame, you'd need a 25mm f/0.7. In order to have a FF lens equivalent to a 25mm f/1.4 lens on mirrorless, you'd need a 50mm f/2.8 lens.

1- You're assuming mirror-less camera cannot use FF sensor. It can only use smaller sensors.

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.

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.

Which do you think will be cheaper/smaller? For reference, 50/1.8 lenses for FF sell for $100-200 right now. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 is $500. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is about the same size and weight as the Panasonic.

There is a hell lot more that decides pricing than specs.

Comparing Leica to non-Leica, sure. The Leica name alone appears to be worth $1000-5000 depending on the lens. Looking at any mainstream offering or for the most part, comparing one Leica lens to another (save for the APO/ASPH version of the 50mm f/2), nothing determines a lens's price more than its aperture. I can show you example upon example of lenses skyrocketing in price solely due a one stop, or less, difference in aperture.

Perhaps you can show me examples of huge price differences between lenses where the aperture stays the same or gets smaller on the vastly more expensive lens (my one Leica example excluded).

 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