MFT vs Mirrorless

Started Apr 7, 2018 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,247
Re: MFT vs Mirrorless

Max Iso wrote:

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.

Just had a look at 9 M4/3s lenses, and all of them except the 40-150 pro have glass pretty well up to the back of the lens. The 40-150 has a TC that goes into the lens.

How many Sony lenses have the tube. Do those lenses have a heritage from A-mount & Minolta?

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 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