Mirrorless cammakers are wrong and why we need MF mirrorless!

Started Jan 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 13,705
Mirrorless cammakers are wrong and why we need MF mirrorless!

Here is the point: why did all but one company (Nikon) just the APS-c sensor into a mirrorless body? Is that smart? Of course, one reason can be people remain familiar with it. But in the end, you are familiar with an aspect ratio mostly.

Why is it not so intelligent, at least at face value? I think it would be quite a coincidence that a sensor that works out fine in a FF or APS_c or 4/3 body would get you a nice overall system in a much smaller body.

Not to debunk any brand at all, but this is what happens and yes I mean it in a bad way:

What is the point of going down to mirrorless here?

Just compare the 18-200 Samsung, the 60 mm F2.8 and the 85 f1.4. Compare them too with the Panny and Oly's with a 12-35 F2.8 or 35-100 F2.8. These cna be used on anything of the GX1 in size and up. And they are much smaller then these lenes. The 60 mm F2.8 Oly macro weighs 185 gram. The similar Samsung weighs 450 gram!

What has gone wrong: all these Samsung high quality lenses are copies of APS-c lenses, just a lilttle difference here and there..And all are so large that there is no incentive to get them as an alternative to your DSLR. On top of that: they are totally out of balance on the NX300 and NX2000. So: do not just copy an existing system if that gets you little advantage.

I did a survey on various fora on reasons to chose for a mirrorless system. It was very clear a large majority want a SYSTEM that is smaller. Not just a body or lenses. Both need to be smaller to go from DSLR APS-c to mirrorless.

EOS-M faces the same faith btw. I think the decissions here are not the smartest ones.

Somehow I think the transport of the 4/3 sensor into m43 bodies was also a question of luck. It is sometimes bordering too large (sensor -> lenses). 40-150 F2.8 Oly...? Will it work out nicely on eben the EM1? I think it may well get too big and large for quite a few people. may be a 180 mm2 sensor would have been better. But that is not the main point. m43 isnot going ot change.

The only sensible company seems to have been Nikon. Just a new and smaller sensor that still has pretty good IQ. I know of their other reasons, but the choice for a truelly different sensor means much smaller lenses and body: a much smaller system. When the 1-sensor they use either IS the RX10-sensor or a new similarly performaing Aptina, who is going to complain about IQ? Not many, it is very close to mFT and APs-c. It is hampered in DOF. To get f1.8 45 mm mFT DOF you need to get very expensive f1.2 lenses. It is more difficult to get a wideangle. But all in all: very good system at a good price too in general.

My point: I think there are good reasons to consider what the SYSTEM will be used for and what sensor you should use to get there. So: you want a comparable but more compact version of a wellselling system? Taylor it in a way you get there and you know it will convince people. A difficult thing to do. But just porting a sensor from one system to a new one, I think, leads to failures if you don't watch out.

So..enter mirrorless FF. Are we going to see Oly and Panny, Fuji with a Me-Too A7? What is the rationale behind a FF sensor in a mirrorless body? When it comes to Sony: they produce them already. So costs come into play here. But if you are Toshiba, Panasonic/ Fuji or Aptina that is not the case. If you want to compete in the large sensor market, is just following an example the best option? Is that wise? May be, coincidentally, the FF sensor is just the right size. May be there is no such thing as a right size. But I think the latter is not true. I do know I do not find it smart as you are now in direct competition with an already existing system. Do you want that?

Make it different and start with a different sensor. I always thought of one option: the 600 mm 28,4 * 21,3 mm mFT. You are competing with APs-c and FF sensors. You are going to need zooms here. Smaller then FF ones, but larger than APS-c ones. And you can be even competiting with your very own m43 cams (in the case of Oly and Panny). May be it is smarter to do somethng so different, it is not easy for a customer to compare you with your competitor: make something unique an with a good selling point! That IS what mFT was: much smaller, very good IQ still. Also: what are your current strenghts, your current USPs? Let's keep this to Oly and Panny. Apart from the size, the current strenghts are very good and very accurate CDAF. A second point is IBIS. Especially Oly. So good, video needs not to be stablised (but very bad video IQ). Far less use of a tripod.....

Long story short: make a 40 * 30 mm 60 MP MediumFormat mirrorless! The MFT competes with the 1 and the APS-c cams. Anyway: no way back there.

Why 40* 30 mm?

1) size and weight gain now becomes significant a with the bodies. When it comes to MF camera's, you can win a lot on body size and weight. We already see this with the D800 vs A7.
APS-c vs mFt body wise: say 350 compared to 500-550 grams. The Leica S2 with a 45 * 30 mm sensor is 1260 gram. It is a light weight....You can bring this down to 550 gram or so I suspect. The 44*33 Pentax weighs 1500 gram. a very signficant gain.

2) You now directly make a move to that other holy grail. FF has come into reach of many shooters via D610 and A7. Now you leapfrog Sony (and Nikon) with stepping a gear up into an area very close to MF. Leica has 1350 mm2, this one has 1200 mm2. FF is 864 mm2.

3) You have a USP, certainly with Oly. to make this not too longwinded:
- 5 axis IBIS -> if good enough that is saving MF shooters a tripod
- 5- axis IBIS -> with an adapter and MF lenses can be put to very good use. System si immediately viable in spite of lacking native lenses.
- CDAF -> AF is very critical with such a sensor, CDAF ihas no B and F focussing issues and Oly and Panny are very good here
- EVF -> in combination with IBIS, you can magnify for MF, you can maginify and focuspeak or just do focuspeaking. No MF can do that I think.
4) Somewhat bigger body and good grip is no problem -> bigger battery can be used

5) How about Panny/Fuji supplying their sensor, if it turns out to be very good, and let Panny make its own body with incredible video. And 5 axis IBIS when possible

6) E-shutter etcetc. Good use in such a body

7) Much better high ISO than current MF
8) This is for landscape, portrait and architecture. May be some streetshooting. You can get away much more with primes and some short zooms. Like 30- 90 mm F4 lens as a max. Would weigh 800 gram to a kilo or so. A lot but MUCH less than current MF cams.

Frame rates could be to 2 frames per second or so. Especially when used with a 16 bit sensor for 4 tines the number of tones per cjhannel. Probably not more. But 36 MPixel FF can't do more currently as well....

Very essential would be the price. I can come up with somethign fantastic. I don't know. I think this should be kept a 3000 euro or so body only.

You can come uip with all sorts of variations, I know. But I think this is much better than Me-Too. You have mFTs for the low and midrange and in short while high end APS-c range for all sorts of shooting.

You have a cam that has the best IQ of all mirrorless cams in a very small package for such a cam. Nice for current FF shooters who wanted more than jiust mirrorless and MF shooters who again want to lose a lot of weight.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +8 more
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow