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:

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.

"Lens" isn't mirrored versus mirror-less.

No clue what you are talking about here.

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.

It is the point I have been. It is also the point of these threads: Mirror-less cameras (not mirror-less lenses).

Clearly this whole discussion has been a waste of time then since you seem to ignore half of what I type.

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.

Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8: 225g

On a crop sensor, that lens gives a field of view of 36mm on FF. Being a 24mm f/1.8 lens it has a max aperture of 13.3mm (yielding a 36/13.3 = f2.7 equivalent). Comparing the Sony to a Canon 35mm f/2 we have:

Sony size: 63 x 65.5 mm, Canon size: 68.6x 43.2 mm. The Canon has a slightly larger OD but is fairly shorter. We'll call it a draw.

Sony aperture: 13.3mm, Canon aperture: 17.5mm. Clear win for the Canon lens.

Sony weight: 225g, Canon weight: 210g. Another draw.

Sony price: $1098, Canon price: $289. LANDSLIDE win for the full frame lens here.

Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS: 225g

I've discussed this lens already. There's no full frame lens with that focal length range and such a slow equivalent aperture (about f/5.6). The Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 is the closest I can think of and it weighs 160g more and is a bigger in both length and diameter, but it costs $100 lens and is 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster over its repsective range.

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).

Sony 24-70 f/2.8 SSM: 955g

Sony 16-50 f/2.8 SSM: 577g

The Sony 16-50 would need to be an f/2 lens to be a true equivalent to a full framr 24-70/2.8. The math is simple..

FWIW, Olympus tried making a 14-35mm f/2 lens to try and compete with a standard full frame zoom. For a lens that's still a stop slower than a f/2.8 full frame lens, that lens costs as much, weighs as much, and is big as those full frame standard zooms.

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.

Equivalence is a useless term. One could argue that 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C can be matched by 300mm f/2.8 on FF for similar FoV.

Not worth discussing any more.

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.

Objective: They are smaller.

Subjective: They are not much smaller.

How many Leica lenses do you own then? Since they are the only place mirrorless currently has a size advantage I'm assuming you've stocked up.

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.

You're proving my point. You could make a point on DoF. Don't try to sell it on exposure. When I'm using 200mm f/2.8 on NEX, the lens offers two primary advantage: 300mm FoV equivalence to FF and low light capability with larger aperture (aperture size is identical regardless of the size of sensor behind it). DoF? Well, at 50 ft with this lens:

APS-C: 2.1 ft

Full Frame: 3.2 ft

You forgot to keep the same framing on full frame. Either use a 300mm f/2.8 on full frame for the comparison or move 2/3's closer with the full frame camera and 200mm lens to get the same field of view. Now do the DOF calculation.

As I said, a hell lot more decides pricing than the very limited idea you have of it.

One example of an APO designation amongst hundreds of examples of aperture increases doesn't prove your point. You can keep trying though if you'd like.

 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