MFT vs Mirrorless

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,230
Re: MFT vs Mirrorless

Paul Pasco wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

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.

I was only referring to some Sony NEX lenses, not m4/3.

No problem. I was just curious so I took a look. My suspicion is Sony are reworking old DSLR designs. None of my Oly’s lens designs have an obvious dslr ancestor, so that could explain the differences.

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

not sure.

 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