There is going to be a backlash against giant lenses

DiffractionLtd said:

If you think of it, how long will people who possibly bought into mirrorless FF for a weight and size reduction be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights." But two things mitigate against this: 1. The aging of hobbyists. Every hobby I know has an aging population base. Hobbies are not being taken up by the young the way they once were (all the young want to do is, play on their phones, play video games, watch Youtube and hang-out at cafes, with some minor exceptions). This has worked out well for people still in hobbies as it has pushed down prices of a lot of used gear. 2. Once people get their initial taste of compactness (small FF body, modest sized kit zoom) it's much harder to go back to the old DSLR-sized systems. The net result will likely be the emergence of smaller primes sometime down the line and the increased use of higher-quality zooms.

Click to expand...

I've already caused a one-man backlash, by not buying them.

You make an interesting point - once people have downsized, do they ever go back willingly to larger and heavier gear? Is it a one-way street? Of course, people still preoccupied with an 'upgrade path' will go the other way for a time.

Rolen said:

Any company that will be able to produce a pancake 70-200mm F2.8 that weighs as much as my iPhone is going to destroy the competition and revolutionize the optics industry. They say it is not possible due to limitations of physics or something, but they shouldn't stop trying.

Click to expand...

...and keep an eye out for unicorns too.

Kid Kurtz said:

There are going to be so few camera users in the future, that I wouldn't concern myself with what other people are using. I notice I'm seen as different for hauling around a FF dslr though. Good thing it's a small one.

Click to expand...

That's the interesting thing about camera equipment. Who sets the trends? Did consumers demand mirrorless compact cameras, or did the manufacturers convince consumers they needed them? And if they convinced enough people, those that didn't want it will have no choice but to adopt it.

DiffractionLtd said:

If you think of it, how long will people who possibly bought into mirrorless FF for a weight and size reduction be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights." But two things mitigate against this: 1. The aging of hobbyists. Every hobby I know has an aging population base. Hobbies are not being taken up by the young the way they once were (all the young want to do is, play on their phones, play video games, watch Youtube and hang-out at cafes, with some minor exceptions). This has worked out well for people still in hobbies as it has pushed down prices of a lot of used gear. 2. Once people get their initial taste of compactness (small FF body, modest sized kit zoom) it's much harder to go back to the old DSLR-sized systems. The net result will likely be the emergence of smaller primes sometime down the line and the increased use of higher-quality zooms.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how relevant your post is.

I'm 73 and have no problem whatsoever carrying a full sized FF camera and heavy FF lenses.

I own both Compact and full sized cameras and easily go from one to the other.

High quality FF primes are large and heavy for a reason. If they could be made smaller while maintaining the same quality and aperture speed combined with internal AF motors they would be.

Maybe I'm the exception but I point it out to demonstrate flaws in your hypothesis.

DiffractionLtd said:

... be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights."

Click to expand...

I have seen many people, including photographers, who must be about 20lb overweight on their own body-weight. If the difference in weight between mirrorless cameras with smaller lenses versus traditional DSLRs with their larger/heavier lenses is about 10lb (in a bagful of assorted gear) then they might be better served losing 20lb of body-weight and keeping the traditional heavier gear!

If you don't believe me, get a normal rucsac and fill a strong plastic bag with 20lb sand and place it inside the rucsac. Then go for a walk for a couple of miles (as you might when out shooting) including a few hills and steps, then come back and tell us it's no problem.

My name is Rob
Edited by moderator rule #9

Pontoneer said:

Our film SLRs were always more compact ( MX and LX series for example ) , and later all of our DSLRs .

Re lenses : just look at the Limited series of primes - best lenses on the planet aside of the ones we are born with .

Click to expand...

Best lenses on the Planet? A fanby comment if there ever was one. Also the lenses in our eyes are terrible like a magnifying glass with only a tiny area in the center being sharp.

Pontoneer said:

They all make the competition look rather , well , silly .

Click to expand...

Your comment is silly.

tbcass said:

DiffractionLtd said:

If you think of it, how long will people who possibly bought into mirrorless FF for a weight and size reduction be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights." But two things mitigate against this: 1. The aging of hobbyists. Every hobby I know has an aging population base. Hobbies are not being taken up by the young the way they once were (all the young want to do is, play on their phones, play video games, watch Youtube and hang-out at cafes, with some minor exceptions). This has worked out well for people still in hobbies as it has pushed down prices of a lot of used gear. 2. Once people get their initial taste of compactness (small FF body, modest sized kit zoom) it's much harder to go back to the old DSLR-sized systems. The net result will likely be the emergence of smaller primes sometime down the line and the increased use of higher-quality zooms.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how relevant your post is.

I'm 73 and have no problem whatsoever carrying a full sized FF camera and heavy FF lenses.

I own both Compact and full sized cameras and easily go from one to the other.

High quality FF primes are large and heavy for a reason. If they could be made smaller while maintaining the same quality and aperture speed combined with internal AF motors they would be.

Maybe I'm the exception but I point it out to demonstrate flaws in your hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Of course they could be made small and of the same or even better quality. But you wouldn't want to pay what it would cost. Hand-made aspherical elements, fluorite glas, etc. As for your example, you may or may not be an exception. But there have been enough posts in various forums over the last few years from people saying they wanted lighter gear so I think it was an important consideration for them.

While you are correct there's a lot more to what makes a good sensor than Dynamic Range. In fact other than extreme conditions it might be the least important.

DiffractionLtd said:

Of course they could be made small and of the same or even better quality. But you wouldn't want to pay what it would cost. Hand-made aspherical elements, fluorite glas, etc.

Click to expand...

Do you have any proof to back this up, that hand made elements made out of Fluorite glass could significantly reduce lens size? I have a 535mm f5.3 spotting scope with a 100mm Fluorite front element and a sealed nitrogen purged tube that costs $700.

West Wales Photographer said:

DiffractionLtd said:

... be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights."

Click to expand...

I have seen many people, including photographers, who must be about 20lb overweight on their own body-weight. If the difference in weight between mirrorless cameras with smaller lenses versus traditional DSLRs with their larger/heavier lenses is about 10lb (in a bagful of assorted gear) then they might be better served losing 20lb of body-weight and keeping the traditional heavier gear!

If you don't believe me, get a normal rucsac and fill a strong plastic bag with 20lb sand and place it inside the rucsac. Then go for a walk for a couple of miles (as you might when out shooting) including a few hills and steps, then come back and tell us it's no problem.

My name is Rob

Click to expand...

The point being, saying they'd be willing to carry a lot of weight for the sake of optical quality and actually doing it are two different things. I once (a long time ago) walked 15 miles with about 14lbs worth of camera gear and even at a young age, it was tough. But even carrying a bag with say 8lbs of gear can be a chore IF you know you could do 90% of the same job with 1/2 the weight.

john Clinch said:

Marty4650 said:

Lenses exist in a variety of sizes and speeds in order to provide something for everyone. So having more options certainly shouldn't evoke a "backlash." It should be welcomed by all because it helps draw more users into a system.

The truth is... lenses exist in a wide range of sizes because customers want them.

There was no "backlash" when Toyota started selling huge SUVs because they continued to make small economy cars too. You can buy whichever one suits your needs the best.

And if your argument is "these products I don't want are using valuable company resources that should be devoted to the products I do want" then perhaps Canon should stop making printers, Olympus should stop making medical devices, Panasonic should stop making rice cookers, and Sony should stop making video game consoles.

I just don't see any downside to having more buying choices. These are simply different products for different customers.

Click to expand...

I hate to query a wonderfully sensible and balanced post. But if you will indulge me with expressing a theory

You are basically correct across all the systems we have choice, You can assemble a wonderful light MFT system to cover a huge range of focal lengths. Why does it matter that some micro four thirds are heavy, It doesn't

I suppose Nikon mirror less stands out a system with less choice for light a system. I suppose that means that if you want a light mirror less system then Nikon isn't the way to go. No one promised it would be light but maybe that's what people were hoping for

Click to expand...

You raise an interesting question that deserves an answer.

"Small and light" are relative terms. It really should be "smaller and lighter" than some existing alternative.

A Nikon Z7 really IS quite a bit smaller and lighter than a Nikon D850, even if that difference shrinks a little once you add equivalent lenses to both. So Nikon has now given their customers another option.



The truth is... no full frame system is very small or very light. And this goes back to simple physics. Larger sensors require larger lenses, even if the camera body can be shrunk considerably. But a Z7 and a D850 will often serve the same purpose, with one being significantly larger and heavier than the other. And that is why it becomes an appealing alternative for some users.

Within each format there are choices available that vary in size and weight. Probably the most extreme example of this is M4/3, where bodies can range in weight from a 204 gram Panasonic GM1 to a 997 gram Olympus E-M1X.

And there are customers for both cameras. Each size has it's own proponents.

So, I would say that Nikon still offers their customers a reasonable choice. If some were hoping for a bigger difference in size, than perhaps they failed to understand the that larger sensors require larger lenses. Because the Z7 body certainly is smaller than D850.

If that customer really needs a smaller sized camera, then they might be better off switching to another system. But that would only achieve a marginal difference at a very high cost. Or, they could switch to a crop sensored system to achieve a bigger size difference, but that would come at a cost too. Not only in price, but in utility as well.



--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

DiffractionLtd said:

The point being, saying they'd be willing to carry a lot of weight for the sake of optical quality and actually doing it are two different things. I once (a long time ago) walked 15 miles with about 14lbs worth of camera gear and even at a young age, it was tough. But even carrying a bag with say 8lbs of gear can be a chore IF you know you could do 90% of the same job with 1/2 the weight.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on your physical condition. When I was in my 20s I was able to carry a 50 lb backpack for miles and miles on 8 hour hikes in mountainous terrain. Now that I'm 73 I couldn't do that but I can carry 10-15 lbs of camera gear for a few miles with no problem.

Marty4650 said:

And there are customers for both cameras. Each size has its own proponents.

Click to expand...

I have several cameras ranging from pocket size to full sized full frame cameras. I don't believe a one size fits all solution is possible for me.

tbcass said:

DiffractionLtd said:

The point being, saying they'd be willing to carry a lot of weight for the sake of optical quality and actually doing it are two different things. I once (a long time ago) walked 15 miles with about 14lbs worth of camera gear and even at a young age, it was tough. But even carrying a bag with say 8lbs of gear can be a chore IF you know you could do 90% of the same job with 1/2 the weight.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on your physical condition. When I was in my 20s I was able to carry a 50 lb backpack for miles and miles on 8 hour hikes in mountainous terrain. Now that I'm 73 I couldn't do that but I can carry 10-15 lbs of camera gear for a few miles with no problem.

Click to expand...

And it's not just about the weight to carry when walking. I do a lot of macro and it is very much easier to use a 4/3 camera with small Olympus macro lens because when you are crouched in a difficult position near the ground the last thing you want is a heavy camera and lens. Also, I often shoot one-handed when shooting flowers as my left hand is holding a flash which is remotely triggered. I don't think I'd get away with that using a heavy camera and lens.

I don't get it, when people review Lenses one of their preferable requirements is that the Lens is metal, and thus heavy... always reading up on how if it's lightweight and plastic then this is a deal breaker.

Each to their own I guess. Some people like to drive Big Truck 4x4 SUV's. Others, maybe the OP included, will most probably find a [miniature] 'Smart Car' more suitable?

One has to ask, what are some of the lesser discussed primary reasons for wanting a "tiny" Camera/Lens? Hmmm... don't like attracting attention to themselves?
---------------------------------------------------
Bringing to light, Exposing what is
---------------------------------------------------

EE-TV said:

I don't get it, when people review Lenses one of their preferable requirements is that the Lens is metal, and thus heavy... always reading up on how if it's lightweight and plastic then this is a deal breaker.

Click to expand...

We sometimes want things that are contradictory. Like wanting "small and light" coupled with "weather sealed, rugged and built like a tank." Like you, I don't get it either. We make choices for various reasons that make sense to us, then we whine about a small and light lens not being rugged enough, or a lens "built like a tank" being too heavy.

All the whining seems inappropriate to me. You get what you paid for. And you can't have everything in the same thing.

EE-TV said:

Each to their own I guess. Some people like to drive Big Truck 4x4 SUV's. Others, maybe the OP included, will most probably find a [miniature] 'Smart Car' more suitable?

Click to expand...

When I was young, cars were "all metal." And the net result was poor gas mileage, from even small six cylinder engines. And horrible fuel economy from larger eight cylinder engines.

But the car makers were forced to improve fuel economy, and one of their methods was to substitute lighter high quality plastics for metal wherever it was feasible. And the result is that a large truck today will get better fuel economy than my small car did 40 years ago.

EE-TV said:

One has to ask, what are some of the lesser discussed primary reasons for wanting a "tiny" Camera/Lens? Hmmm... don't like attracting attention to themselves?

Click to expand...

That certainly could be a factor for people who take candid photos.

I remember when this was a solution for them:



You really can't get more obvious than this. The ad even features a pretty girl wearing a bikini!

EE-TV said:

---------------------------------------------------
Bringing to light, Exposing what is
---------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

tbcass said:

DiffractionLtd said:

Of course they could be made small and of the same or even better quality. But you wouldn't want to pay what it would cost. Hand-made aspherical elements, fluorite glas, etc.

Click to expand...

Do you have any proof to back this up, that hand made elements made out of Fluorite glass could significantly reduce lens size?

Click to expand...

His statement is mental. The tolerances needed to make aspherical elements are not probable in hand grinding. We are talking .1 of a micron.

West Wales Photographer said:

DiffractionLtd said:

... be willing to slog around with 3-4 HUGE prime lenses and a camera in a bag? Most would say, "I want the best image quality, I don't care what it weights."

Click to expand...

I have seen many people, including photographers, who must be about 20lb overweight on their own body-weight. If the difference in weight between mirrorless cameras with smaller lenses versus traditional DSLRs with their larger/heavier lenses is about 10lb (in a bagful of assorted gear) then they might be better served losing 20lb of body-weight and keeping the traditional heavier gear!

Click to expand...

So, everyone who like lighter kit just needs to lose weight? There is no logic anywhere in what you've stated. If people only hiked broad trails and never took their gear out of their bags, it would be an understandable misconception. Still wrong, but more understandable.

lilBuddha said:

His statement is mental. The tolerances needed to make aspherical elements are not probable in hand grinding. We are talking .1 of a micron.

Click to expand...

Yes I didn't even address the hand ground issue because of the absurdity.

Marty4650 said:

That certainly could be a factor for people who take candid photos.

I remember when this was a solution for them:

You really can't get more obvious than this. The ad even features a pretty girl wearing a bikini!

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the good old days when being a pervert was an overt definition of being a man.