Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
tt321 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,247
Re: If I wanted a large camera I would have gone FF already (nt)

ultimitsu wrote:

tt321 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

I could do the same with Sony APSC vs. FF Canon when you asked me to (see below), and I am surprised I did not have to cherry-pick so much. Just used your examples and voila.

I still have no idea what you are on about. My point is, and has been repeated several times now, larger sensor does not mean larger lens. What exactly did you prove with sony example? that I am right?

You specifically asked which Sony lens was larger and disappointingly so than Canon SLR equivalent lenses. I gave examples.

Now I know why you are so lost and confused. Let's review what was said by whom:

Unnecessary labelling of discussion partner noted again

ultimitsu wrote: There is no reason why sony cannot make lenses the same size or smaller than these Canon SLR lenses.

Here I was referring to lenses for the same sensor size - Sony FF lens (if they are to be made to match an FF NEX), after giving Canon FF lens as examples of FF lenses are not bigger than M43 lenses.

Then you responded:

tt321 wrote: Using the same line of reasoning, there was no reason why most of the current APSC NEX lenses have to be so big, and yet in fact they are, disappointingly.

Two things need to be said.

1, you were the person who gone on about "disappointingly big", not me.

True. My bad.

2, in the context of this particular point, you probably did not realise but you were arguing that Sony NEX APS-C is disappointing larger than Canon APS-C, because the statement you are responding to was discussing sensors of the same size.

Not at all. I was saying that the APSC lenses, similar to the examples you set up with CV vs. Canon FF, are larger than Canon FF. I kept saying that I used your examples. You set up your examples in FF, not APSC.

Which is why I asked:

Ultimitsu: what are you on about? which sony NEX APS-C lens is disappointing larger than comparable Canon?

I was waiting for your APS-C vs APS-C example. instead, you gave me an APS-C vs FF example. which was completely irrelevant to this particular point, but was a proof to the other point that I was making - smaller sensor does not mean smaller lens.

I don't agree. The point I was making is that we have to wait until the implementations are out to decide. Waiting for the implementation has been emphasized by me a number of times.

They have not made APSC NEX the same size as Canon FF, let alone smaller. Expecting them to change suddenly in FF and effectively produce an FF NEX system smaller than their APSC NEX system seems quite questionable. Remember that this thread is about NEX FF and implicitly how it might impact on M43 (given that it's living here), so this is a more relevant topic of consideration.

More locally, manip16 was saying that the NEX would be a larger system because of larger lenses. This has happened in APSC NEX and if we want to see this trend to end with FF NEX we need to wait and see the implementation.

"Past behaviour should not be used to expect future performance". I hope this is especially true for Sony in this case, but I'm quite sceptical.

Fundamental engineering principles would indicate that everything else being equal, a lens that covers a smaller image circle should not be larger than another covering a larger one, if we are talking about what's objectively possible. There may exist multiple counter-examples in the marketplace, but these have nothing to do with what's objectively possible.

There is difficulty in defining what exactly do you mean by "everything else being equal". because there are two possibilities.

1, final image being equal, which means equal aperture diameter, equal light passed, equal DOF. that is the case with 42.5/0.95 vs 85/1.8. the 0.95 lens will be larger because it has to have the same aperture size while also has to have far more complex optical design to refocus light from such larger opening onto the sensor.


2, F ratio being equal, in which case, a m43 lens would be smaller because its actual aperture is also smaller.

This might have something to do with extending below F1.0. For instance, the 45/1.8 is smaller than almost all 50/1.8 lenses in existence. And can you make a 100/3.6 of that size and cover the FF sensor? Note it's your desire to discuss what's objectively possible, not what they, including and especially a small boutique lens maker, have done.

I'm all for great advancements in FF mirrorless and the eradication of SLR dinosaurs this could bring,

Why do you care if SLR is eradicated? LOL do their emotionally hurt you or something?

I used to count the number of statements in a dialog up to the point where one conversation partner starts psycho-analysing the other. This one has come respectably late

But to answer your question of why: the shorter each technology node lives on the average, along a line of development, the more progressive that line of development is. I like photographic technologies and want to see them progress at a faster pace. SLRs have flourished for too long. Hopefully it will not be as long as battleships or steam engines or, indeed, dinosaurs.

I cannot follow this logic. I do not see how SLR's longevity has anything to do with technology not progressing. I do not necessarily notice this alleged phenomenon in any other technological sector either.

Mirrorless s actually been around for a very long time, - the very first non-DSLR digital cameras was a mirrorless, it just wasnt a system camera. So it would be a falsity to say DSLR hindered the development of mirrorless. the only obstacles Mirror-less faced was those inherent in its very nature - LCD lag, battery drain, in-consequential size saving, etc.

The "falsity", if any, is not mine. I am not saying that SLRs hindered the development of mirrorless. I have not studied if they did and don't understand why I should be expected to care.

I am saying, however, this longevity of SLRs, or a potential future longevity of mirrorless/M43/NEX, is an indication that the industry is not moving forward fast. Not as fast as I'd like, subjectively. Hence if Sony comes up with an overwhelmingly good FF NEX solution that forces everyone to follow, causing the elimination of SLRs, that would be welcome news to me. I am anti-dinosaur, if I can be said to be anti anything, in the context of technological progress. The identity of the dinosaur does not matter.

Other sector examples? In 1983, SLRs were the normal tools for most working pro photographers and keen hobbyists, same as 30 years later. Compare that with ICT. Or more closer to home, with videography.

That SLRs will prosper for another 20 years - your prediction - would indicate a kind of "standing still" in a rapidly changing technological landscape, especially in the electronics/ICT sector to which photography is more and more closely related.

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