A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,416
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

briantilley wrote:

yray wrote:

briantilley wrote:

lickity split wrote:

BasilG wrote:

Droster wrote:

lickity split wrote:

briantilley wrote:

Bruce Ferjulian wrote:

So all the hype about mirrorless was for size and weight but so far all the mirrorless lenses are larger than their previous counterparts.

Not ALL of them.

The Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is 18% shorter and nearly 25% lighter than the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR. The Z 14-24mm is smaller and lighter, too.

The 24-70 E grew a lot over the G version ,how’s the Z compare in size to the G ?

Z:
126mm in length
805g

G:
133mm in length
900g

Still 5% shorter and 11% lighter.

Not to mention - all that at better optical quality.

I cant see it , can you tell the difference ? Thought not.

I can see a clear benefit in resolution from the Z lens compared with the G lens, especially away from the centre. I'm not the only one...

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s/3

Let me insert here Thom's point because I happen to agree with him on this issue entirely, https://bythom.com/newsviews/why-choose-brand-a-over.html:

We pretty much reached the "basically equivalent" point in film SLRs in the 90's, with DSLRs in the late aughts, and here we are with full frame mirrorless pretty much at that level now (or very, very soon if you need a top pro camera). I've re-iterated my point lately: if you aren't getting good photos with any current interchangeable lens camera at up to the size an inkjet printer can produce, it isn't the camera that's the problem.

Note that his point of "good enough" for DSLR is dated before D800 even appeared. His reference print size, I believe, is 13x19. I can attest that I printed many good 12x18 long before high MP cameras became widespread. I know some people print much larger than that, especially for art exhibits, but this is not my target.

Anyway, no one can stop you from seeing what you're seeing.

I'm not sure that an article about camera capabilities is relevant to the question of how the Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S stacks up against either of the F-mount equivalents.

It is relevant because of the referenced point in time when none of the S lenses yet existed, or had even been conceived. I find the notion that before the latest tech no one could take a decent pic ever so slightly on the preposterous side.

For me at least, the improved mid-frame and corner performance is both obvious (in normal-sized prints) and useful.

This is fine, we're all entitled to our opinions, and lately to our facts as well.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
NCB
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow