MFT vs Mirrorless

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Max Iso
Max Iso Senior Member • Posts: 6,374
Re: MFT vs Mirrorless

Paul Pasco wrote:

And that may be incorrect also; some of the first Sony NEX lenses were actually longer than their DSLR brothers because they had a built in tube to take up the space of the “missing” mirror box.

This is why a lot of people were saying ML wasn't actually a weight saver over the last couple years. You may save 300g on the body but if each lens has to add 100g and you have 4 of them in your bag, you actually gained 100g total, plus extra batteries many will pack along.

Some ML lenses are designed smaller and that's a benefit, relatively, if the DSLR counterpart is of a normally sized design. But this isn't always the case. And shrinking an optical path often ends up with poor correction. No free lunch.

-- hide signature --

"For a time, i considered sparing, your wretched little planet Cybertron. But now... you shall witness, it's dismemberment !" - Unicron

 Max Iso's gear list:Max Iso's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Panasonic GX850 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
sbu
sbu
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow