Mirrorless cameras part 2.

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Mirrorless cameras part 2.

joejack951 wrote:

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...

Irrelevant. You asked me to show mirror-less design allowing for a smaller, lighter lens design compared to their mirrored counterparts. Your turn to beat that spec with a lens designed for mirrored counterpart (and by counterpart, or "comparable", I would ALWAYS imply same format).

Being a 24mm f/1.8 lens it has a max aperture of 13.3mm (yielding a 36/13.3 = f2.7 equivalent).

Focal length doesn't change across format. For example, when I use my FF 200mm f/2.8 lens (Aperture size 71.4mm) on my old Minolta SLR, and then put it on my Sony A55 (300mm equivalent), the aperture size doesn't grow by 50%. It remains the same: 71.4mm.

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)...

Your idea about equivalence on aperture is misguided. Look above for a glimpse of it. The only argument you can make with it is regarding DoF, not with speed (16mm f/4 entails 4mm aperture, regardless of the format).

But, more importantly, you have demonstrated that you cannot find a comparable DSLR lens, designed for mirrored bodies that is as small and light as the mirror-less lens. Your entire argument hangs on this fact: You must disregard sensor size, because APS-C DSLRs (the vast majority of DSLR sales) sucks compared to APS-C mirrorless.

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.

And I can tell why.

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.

Zero, to respond to yet another straw man argument. As if, you personally are unaware if you actually own something. Right?

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.

No, I didn't forget to keep the same framing. I don't want a wider view when I am trying to maximize my reach. As I said above, your idea about aperture size is misguided. It would be more logical to argue that the 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C would be comparable to 300mm f/4 on FF, if depth of field is the criteria. Using that 200mm f/2.8 on FF would be better for what?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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