Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

Started Jul 9, 2014 | Discussions thread
quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough

wansai wrote:

the problem with your interpretation is you seem to be quite against m4/3 by your wording.

No I am a fan of MFT. I am against the grandiose and false claims of MFT fanboys however.

here's the reality, no bs. that FF with the zoom is still BIGGER than having to carry a bunch of primes. you also cant dump your FF camera in a small bag. you either always neck strap the camera or you carry a larger bag.

There is no bias, you are simply wrong:

A7 with 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 474 g + 295 g = 769 g

A7 with 24-70/4 = 474 g + 430 g = 904 g

GH4 with 12-35/2.8 (equivalent to 24-70/5.6) = 560 + 305 g = 865 g

EM1 with 12-40/2.8 (equivalent to 24-80/5.6) = 497 + 382 g = 879 g

The A7 kit lens combo is 100g lighter. The A7 with fixed aperture zoom, equivalent to f2 lens on MFT (i.e. giving almost the same light as most MFT primes), is 25-40g heavier, a barely noticeable amount while being a stop faster. The kit lens combo is cheaper than either MFT pairing, while the fixed aperture zoom combo is a little bit more expensive... but consider that you can basically use it to replace a trio of MFT fast primes (12/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.8 - maybe not quite enough to replace the 45/1.8) as well as the zoom.

As I said, in the normal focal range, adjusted for equivalence, there is zero advantage. The advantage only comes into play for tele lenses. And meanwhile, neither of these zooms are pushing the FF camera to its limits in any way - instead of getting a manual-only Voigtlander 25/0.95 (which is pretty soft wide open), you could get the Zeiss FE 55/1.8 which is crisp straight from f1.8.

what you are taking away from that equivalence discussion is pretty 1 dimensional. regardless of which format i use, my settings would generally be the same. ppl arent using mirrorless because it somehow has an advantage, as you state. they use it because of size and weight advantage.

You can use ISO 6,400 straight out of camera with an A7. ISO 1,600 shots look like ISO 400 shots on MFT. The difference extends throughout the range, hence the equivalence article at DPR.

noone is claiming mirrorless is going to give superior performance but there ARE advantages to using the mirrorless format. size being one. weight being another.

For normal FL, size and weight is not a real advantage. And given the price of the f2.8 zooms and a trio of primes, not even cost.

there are also other technical advantages like an evf or flexible use of lcd.

You must be thinking of DSLRs.

your assertion that a mirrorless with lense on is somehow as big as a FF with a zoom lense is about as astonishingly absurd as can be. or that carrying a couple small primes is somehow a major negative point? my go to lense is a 12-40 on the em1. guess what? it is STILL smaller than an equivelant FF setup. even if i carry my 25 &45, it'sStill smaller and takes up less space/volume.

Look at the numbers above and pick your jaw off the floor.

P.S. You should thank DPR for their equivalence article.  In the long run, it may well bring the price of MFT lenses down to a more reasonable level for the light performance they give.  The whole f2=f2=f2 argument is what allowed them to get away with overcharging you for poorer performance for years.

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow