What's the point to have a ML with only big lenses ?

Richard B99 said:

Richard B99 said:

One step forward. One step back?

Click to expand...

Depends on your point of view. It’s all a compromise one way or another. If you want great IBIS, great optical and image quality, expect the real world engineering to bite you somewhere else!

Click to expand...

Probably in the size of the - ahem - glass

Regards, Mike

robblackett said:

davidedric said:

A very impassioned plea, making some fair points, and I don't want to even try to comment on your spirituality. However, it does come from someone who, so far as I an tell, has not seriously used a mirrorless camera.

There is one point I do want to make, though.

You remark that the pentaprism gives a real world view, and the evf a processed one. True, but the camera also produces a processed view and so the eve can, and should, show better how the camera image will look, and for me that's a big plus.

Incidentally, my 600mm equivalent zoom gives me 12x magnification, but out in the field it will never replace my 8x Swarovski binoculars. Down to personal preference, I guess.

Dave

Click to expand...

Perhaps because your 8x Swarovski binoculars offer a very high quality optical image as opposed to the EVF version from your 600mm? Or perhaps that's the point you were making?

Click to expand...

True, though not the point I was making. Good birdwatching technique, for example, would be nigh impossible with a long telephoto, whatever the view finder. I doubt there's much interest here in birdwatching technique, though.

Dave

agukha said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

agukha said:

this is the only case where I see a clear advantage in the philosophy of ML to have smaller/lighter cam.

Click to expand...

But just because that's all you can see doesn't mean that's all there is.

Click to expand...

Rather because most of the arguments for ML pointed here are false, some says it permits stabilisation (Minolta, Pentax and others didn't knew it was impossible, so they have used IBIS in their reflex ^^)

Click to expand...

That particular one is false, as I've already said elsewhere in the thread.

agukha said:

some seems to believe that reflex can't work with mirror up like ML, wrong too,

Click to expand...

That's not the point; just because a reflex camera can work in live view doesn't mean it can be held to the eye and use the features that an electronic viewfinder offers.

I haven't counted all the suggested advantages of mirrorless but two doesn't constitute most of them.

agukha said:

others tell that lenses are big because they are better, maybe so not much gain in overall size then, etc

Click to expand...

This makes no sense - if they are in fact better then that is a gain in itself, and you are the only one saying that mirrorless ought to give a gain in size.

Obviously Nikon has decided they want to compete with Sigma ART and lenses like the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 that are huge and heavy and excellent glass.

My wild guess is somebody at Nikon is not too happy about Nikon customers resorting to Sigma and Tamron for extremely high quality.

They also question whether customers really need F1.4 or whether F1.8 is an acceptable compromise for high quality glass. Tamron thinks this is the way to go and brought out their excellent F1.8 primes - and I just got the 45mm F1.8 and it really is excellent.

Tamron 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD Lens19.2 oz(544g) about $400

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G AF-S 6.6 oz./185g - about $200

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art 815g/28.7oz - about $1000

NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S 14.7 oz. (415 g) about 600$

So Z is not an el-cheepo effort from Nikon. They want to grab sales from Tamron and Sigma and if somebody insists on using a tiny, $100 50mm f1.8 or a $400 Nikon 50mm F1.4 they are free to do so with the 150$ converter and the Z6-7 will add stabilization.

I think they are doing the right thing

"The sharpness achieved by this 50mm is nothing short of staggering. Z Mount delivers even lighting from the center of the frame to the far edges. No need to stop it down—it's equally sharp at f/1.8 as it is at f/2.8." ref Nikon

-
Smile and the world smiles back!

Though it can be important to many.

The other reasons are:

1. Faster Auto focus in Live view.
2. Better for video
3. Excellent WYSIWYG view from the EVF (esp. with the higher end cameras)
4. Quieter

These reasons are equally important in my mind over the DSLR. I think the size & weight argument is relied upon too heavily at times. Nikon's Z cameras aren't perfect, they are clearly 1st gen. But they are fairly decent, even so. I expect they will become fairly popular in 6 months to a year or so when all those willing to pay list price have bought one, and the street price drops to a more manageable level.

Am I going to buy one? I'm in no hurry. I like my m43s camera fairly well, though I can see advantages of FF for landscapes. I'm going to wait for Canon to show their hand and then decide, I might just stay with Oly. There is a strong economic reason to do so.

On-sensor AF was the #1 reason I went to mirrorless. Far better focus accuracy with no microadjustment, more focus points in mid-range cameras, with a wider spread, and the ability to manual focus through the viewfinder. Now if they can just get CAF working as well as dSLRs in the same price range, I will be golden.

I consider the smaller size is benefit compared with full-size dSLRs (I just can't use a 5D-sized camera), but really even small full frame dSLRs are not that bad (I had a 6D, and that wasn't too bad...).

Richard B99 said:

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

Click to expand...

For camera bodies, APS-C can be smaller than FF even when they use a FF mount. Simply because what’s behind the Mount is smaller. Smaller mirror, mirror box, sensor, viewfinder prism/Penta mirror. Proof in the DX vs FX lines where the DX are all a little smaller even where other engineering features are aligned (e.g. D500 & D850) and when ergonomic design will be keeping things ‘hand’ size.

Click to expand...

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount, hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

Mike CH said:

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, both are round - so comparing diameters should be ok, no?

No, valid comparions need to be same to same. Anything else is balderdash.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount, hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

agukha said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

agukha said:

this is the only case where I see a clear advantage in the philosophy of ML to have smaller/lighter cam.

Click to expand...

But just because that's all you can see doesn't mean that's all there is.

Click to expand...

Rather because most of the arguments for ML pointed here are false, some says it permits stabilisation (Minolta, Pentax and others didn't knew it was impossible, so they have used IBIS in their reflex ^^)

Click to expand...

That particular one is false, as I've already said elsewhere in the thread.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless allows for a stabilized finder/screen though.

Glen Barrington said:

Though it can be important to many.

The other reasons are:

1. Faster Auto focus in Live view.
2. Better for video
3. Excellent WYSIWYG view from the EVF (esp. with the higher end cameras)
4. Quieter

Click to expand...

As already said :

1. no reason to be faster than a reflex using same method in liveview, the evf itself does not add AF speed over a reflex working in live view
(and someone said a D500 was still better without being in liveview mode)

2. why ? for the same reason than 1. an evf does not make a better video quality capability to a camera

3. yes, that is what I liked on the first electronic camera I bought in 2001 (but with the disadvantage of not realtime and not as precise as... reality

4. no more quieter than a reflex in live view.

Erick L said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

agukha said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

agukha said:

this is the only case where I see a clear advantage in the philosophy of ML to have smaller/lighter cam.

Click to expand...

But just because that's all you can see doesn't mean that's all there is.

Click to expand...

Rather because most of the arguments for ML pointed here are false, some says it permits stabilisation (Minolta, Pentax and others didn't knew it was impossible, so they have used IBIS in their reflex ^^)

Click to expand...

That particular one is false, as I've already said elsewhere in the thread.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless allows for a stabilized finder/screen though.

Click to expand...

If you have a stabilized lens, you get a stabilized viewfinder image as well. DSLRs have had stabilized viewfinder images for years. That image is not coming from the sensor, however.

When the image is captured, in-lens stabilization systems return the moving lens element to the center of frame to ensure maximal image quality. This happens during the blackout period.

LightBug said:

Richard B99 said:

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

Click to expand...

For camera bodies, APS-C can be smaller than FF even when they use a FF mount. Simply because what’s behind the Mount is smaller. Smaller mirror, mirror box, sensor, viewfinder prism/Penta mirror. Proof in the DX vs FX lines where the DX are all a little smaller even where other engineering features are aligned (e.g. D500 & D850) and when ergonomic design will be keeping things ‘hand’ size.

Click to expand...

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount, hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

Click to expand...

yeah the distance from the mount to the sensor is the same, and so mirror boxes and whatever is niether here nor there, but, it the size of the sensor means the lens can be a LITTLE bit smaller.

e g the Nikon DX 35 1.8 is smaller thane the FX 35 1.8

yes they dont have similar fields of view, but if you only had an apsc camera then those are the lenses for THAT field of view.

No doubt a DX 35 1.4 could be smaller than the FX 35 1.4

Look at the wide zooms like the 10mm-24mm 3.5-4.5, imagine how large they would be to cover full frame at those focal lengths.

So even though the distance remains the same, the smaller sensor could have led and does soemtimes lead to smaller lenses.

Why there aren't so many apsc dslr small lenses is another matter and something to do with the marketplace rather than impossibility.

Glen Barrington said:

1. Faster Auto focus in Live view.

Click to expand...

That doesn't have to be the case. Any on-sensor AF system that can be used in a mirrorless camera can also be used in DSLR Live View. If Nikon were to put their Z-sensor in a future DSLR, Live View would be as fast as their mirrorless camera.

Holger Bargen said:

Holger Bargen wrote: But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

Click to expand...

People who aren't competent enough to use a DSLR like the "training wheels" of having a Live Histogram in the viewfinder.

ClaudiusTheGod said:

LightBug said:

Richard B99 said:

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

Click to expand...

For camera bodies, APS-C can be smaller than FF even when they use a FF mount. Simply because what’s behind the Mount is smaller. Smaller mirror, mirror box, sensor, viewfinder prism/Penta mirror. Proof in the DX vs FX lines where the DX are all a little smaller even where other engineering features are aligned (e.g. D500 & D850) and when ergonomic design will be keeping things ‘hand’ size.

Click to expand...

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount, hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

Click to expand...

yeah the distance from the mount to the sensor is the same, and so mirror boxes and whatever is niether here nor there, but, it the size of the sensor means the lens can be a LITTLE bit smaller.

e g the Nikon DX 35 1.8 is smaller thane the FX 35 1.8

yes they dont have similar fields of view, but if you only had an apsc camera then those are the lenses for THAT field of view.

No doubt a DX 35 1.4 could be smaller than the FX 35 1.4

Look at the wide zooms like the 10mm-24mm 3.5-4.5, imagine how large they would be to cover full frame at those focal lengths.

So even though the distance remains the same, the smaller sensor could have led and does soemtimes lead to smaller lenses.

Why there aren't so many apsc dslr small lenses is another matter and something to do with the marketplace rather than impossibility.

Click to expand...

Please note I qualified the combination for comparison as camera+FF lens. I’m a Pentax shooter, so I own both FF and APSC lenses and know some APSC lenses are indeed smaller, but that’s not basis of my support for OP’s comparison.

agukha said:

Glen Barrington said:

Though it can be important to many.

The other reasons are:

1. Faster Auto focus in Live view.
2. Better for video
3. Excellent WYSIWYG view from the EVF (esp. with the higher end cameras)
4. Quieter

Click to expand...

As already said :

1. no reason to be faster than a reflex using same method in liveview, the evf itself does not add AF speed over a reflex working in live view
(and someone said a D500 was still better without being in liveview mode)

2. why ? for the same reason than 1. an evf does not make a better video quality capability to a camera

3. yes, that is what I liked on the first electronic camera I bought in 2001 (but with the disadvantage of not realtime and not as precise as... reality

4. no more quieter than a reflex in live view.

Click to expand...

To each, their own, I guess! I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. These are the reasons I like mirrorless. It's fine to have a different opinion!

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

LightBug said:

Mike CH said:

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, both are round - so comparing diameters should be ok, no?

No, valid comparions need to be same to same. Anything else is balderdash.

Regards, Mike

Click to expand...

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount,

Click to expand...

EF-S lenses protrude further into the body than EF lenses do. So they effectively (can) have a shorter flange distance than their FF counterparts, even though it’s the same mount. Canon wants against using EF-S on EF bodies because there is a chance of mirror damage due to the lens extension into the body.

LightBug said:

hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

Click to expand...

But only to a certain degree.

Better compare like with like from the beginning.

Regards, Mike

agukha said:

The new Nikons Z6 and Z7 have only 3 lenses availables, and of the 3, all are enormous lenses !

Note that the Z bodies themselves are not particularly small, here is a comparison with an APSC reflex, the KP :

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses, so why did Nikon offers absolutely none, who is going to buy it ?

Click to expand...

The new Nikkor Z lenses are lighter and same price as comparable Tamron / Sigma lenses that FF enthusiasts buy because they are less worried about weight and cost than about image quality. Hence the huge F1.4 primes from Sigma and the somewhat lighter and cheaper F1.8 primes from Tamron.

Nikkor Z is same price, lighter and presumably even better image quality than Tamron. But we will see about that when the testing begins!

Sony has realized the same craving for quality lenses and has made some heavy and pricey masterpieces. Only the Z-mount opens up possibilities that Sony people will never have because of the largest diameter FF mount in the business.

Nikon NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S 13.1 oz. 370g $600
Zeiss 35mm F2 ZF2 Nikon Weight: 530g
ZEISS Milvus 35mm f/2 ZF.2 Weight 1.43 lb / 649 g $1100
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art 23.46 oz / 665 g $900
Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC 15.9 oz / 450.77 g $600

As for the bodies: they must be able to carry all Nikon lenses up to 800mm F4, so making them smaller is counterproductive to ergonomics. Just the same way micro SD is insane, because if you drop a card in the lawn you will never find it. With SD you have at least a chance.

To sum up: yes, lenses are lighter and cheaper compared to quality than the competition, Nikon wants us to believe.

agukha said:

Ok you can use the smaller lenses already existing... but with a mount adapter, making it longer, so putting the same pancake on an reflex, but without adapter is still better.

Click to expand...

--
Smile and the world smiles back!

So how does LV on the monitor work out for you holding a 2+ pound camera with a 1-2 pound lens out in front of you like a phone?

For me personally, not so well. It's fine if you are on a tripod, but I don't really shoot still lifes or landscapes much, so pretty useless to me personally.

Comparing lens dimensions is the most intellectually dishonest comparison one can make. For the same focal length and max aperture you can have different lenses of vastly different dimensions and weights. They aren't all built the same, don't all use the same number of elements, don't all use the same materials, don't all have the same motors, and just don't all share enough in common to make any sort of comparison even close to valid.