If Sony releases a FF Nex what will this do to X sales?

Started Aug 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 4,654
Re: FF is larger?

sgoldswo wrote:

But the M9 is considerably heavier than an X-pro1 as are its lenses. In addition all of the lenses are primes that aren't that big on FF DSLRs. Even if a FF body were to be tiny (RX1 sized) it would still have to have proportionately larger lenses than an APS-C camera to cover the sensor. Once the lenses get bigger you might as well have a larger body. Have you seen a Leica M240 with an R zoom mounted? It looks ridiculous.

I agree that the M9 is heavier than the XP1, but the fact remains that it's also slightly smaller. As is the RX1, though I acknowledge that it doesn't have a BIEVF. In practice I don't care a few millimetres either way - no-one does - but we're discussing a principle. What you're seeing is that the body designed around the sensor is as important in determining camera size as the sensor itself.

I'd agree that of two identical mirror-less cameras - one an APSC and the other adjusted only to take an FF sensor, the FF would be larger. However, the world isn't like that and manufacturers don't all choose to minimise size. I'll lay a friendly bet that the Sony FF NEX will be smaller and lighter than both the X Pro1 and the Leica.

I agree about the use of large DSLR lenses on mirror-less cameras. I can't see the point at all. I plan to use mirror-less primes for my WA lenses and for standard and up, my small DSLR lenses will be fine.

And there many FF lenses out there that are no bigger (and some are smaller) than similar APSC lenses. And that includes some AF lenses of reasonable speed - eg the Contax G lenses.

No. That simply isn't true. Lens designers still have to obey the laws of physics. So in a lens design that was otherwise identical but one version was designed to cover APS-C and one FF, the FF lens would be larger. It has to be, it's covering a larger sensor.

The only way to get FF lenses smaller will be to reduce the optical performance or to reduce the maximum aperture. See Voigtlanders SLII line of pancakes for FF DSLRs. They sacrifice corner performance at wider apertures and are generally slower in order to be smaller.

Sorry, but I mentioned the Contax G AF FF lenses...... In what way is it not true? I think your theoretical point is true - the laws of physics relate to the glass. However, a lot of lens design is also in the mechanics that surround the glass. Contax (and Pentax in relation to DSLRs) have shown that it's very possible to make some AF FF FLs quite small without sacrificing performance.

Yes there is a general slowing of maximum aperture as you go up in format size. But what's the reality? There are legions of wide AF FF lenses with f2.8, standard AF FF lenses with f1.4, and short tele AF FF lenses with f2, and all with 49mm filters and modest weight. I'm very happy with the combo of high res, large sensor, small size and those speeds. Others won't be. Slower and smaller doesn't mean poorer performance if they're high grade designs. And don't forget that other aspects of IQ are often sacrificed for a fast maximum aperture.

FF IS bigger - that's a fact. A FF lens on a non-DSLR camera can be smaller than a FF lens for a DSLR, but not by that much (it goes more to reducing width than length). Neither will be as small as a comparable lens for a non-DSLR camera with an APS-C sensor.

Like I said, FF may or may not be bigger. It depends whether a manufacturer chooses to build a small design or a larger one. I'd prefer an FF MILC over an APSC one the same physical size.

If you accept that FF delivers better IQ (and I don't feel the need to justify that here) I think the real issue is the size of the whole kit. I'm talking about a mirror-less body and, for me, a few prime lenses. I really don't believe that the difference between a small FF mirror-less and say three or four primes will be significantly greater than an APSC kit with equivalent lenses. The difference will be minor as long as the FLs and speeds aren't extreme.

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow