APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

Started Jul 11, 2014 | Discussions
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
1

T3 wrote:

Mid range APS-C camera: Sony A6000 is lighter than equivalent D5300 DSLR. Difference is 136g (4.8oz) A smallish apple is already 6oz for comparison.

You seem hell-bent on convincing yourself that it's all about weight. But for many of us who use mirrorless (in addition to DSLRs), it's not simply about weight. It's about size. I don't know why people think they have to use one or the other. Mirrorless and DSLRs both have their pros and cons. Sometimes, you want to use your DSLR, other times you want to use your mirrorless.

You also have to consider that because mirrorless bodies have such short back lens registration distances, lenses don't have to be of retrofocus design, which means lenses of wider angles can be made much smaller than their equivalent DSLR/retrofocus counterparts. For example, that's why Canon's 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless, APS-C) is so much more compact than their 10-22 EF-M (for DSLR). Here's the Canon 10-22 EF-S (for DSLR, APS-C) on the left, next to the Canon 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless) in the middle (with Oly 9-18..which equates to 18-38...for m4/3). As you can see, the size differential is significant:

The Canon mirrrorless wide angle zoom is very compact. It has a filter diameter of only 55mm (compared to 77mm on the DSLR lens). And not only is it much more compact, it also weighs a lot less too (220g vs 386g). On top of that, the lens hood is much more compact, too. The hood for the DSLR lens is rather huge. Here's the DSLR lens with its hood mounted (below).

The hood for the mirrorless lens is very compact by any standard. Both the hood and the lens can fit in your pants pocket. The same can not be said for the equivalent DSLR lens and hood!

So, as you can see, it's not just about the weight difference. It's also a matter of SIZE (Canon EOS M vs Canon SL1 comparison below, with equivalent wide angle zooms mounted):

Even though I am a Canon DSLR user (FF and APS-C), I also use Canon's mirrorless EOS M, too (as well as m4/3). Why? Because I don't always want to lug around the bulk of a DSLR and its bulky lenses. My EOS M is very compact, its mirrorless lenses are very compact, and still packs an APS-C sensor. It's a fraction of the size of my DSLR and DSLR lenses.

This is another post that is going to cause confusion for some people. First two pictures are fine, APS-C Sony a6000 is thinner than APS-C Nikon DSLR. As mentioned before, weight difference is that of a small apple. The mirror box on Nikon D5300 is mostly air, so has more bulk.

Third picture is where slight problem starts. You are comparing 16-50mm mirrorless lens with 18-55mm DSLR lens. Different focal length. Sony does make an identical 18-55 APS-C mirrorless lens that you could have used to compare with Nikon. That would have been exact focus length and exact aperture. Do that, and you will find Sony APS-C mirrorless is heavier than APS-C Nikon DSLR by a slight 19g. It is curious that 2mm makes so much difference, but as we have all mentioned before, with wide angle, mirrorless has advantage.

The rest of the EOS M pictures are also problematic if you are making a fair comparison on size. Note that I picked APS-C mirrorless camera that has a view finder for one to one comparison. Canon EOS M does not have a viewfinder, so by design will be smaller. Sony makes plenty of APS-C mirrorless camera that do not have a viewfinder, and they are also much smaller. But you are loosing a valuable feature to many people. Trying to keep a fair comparison as possible to make some sense of the discussion. This is why I insist keeping to APS-C. Otherwise, many people instantly bring in M4/3, and post after post until forum limit explaining why smaller sensors are so great.

BTW, I am not hell bent on weight, but I do see many people say that APS-C mirrorless will save weight, and that is why they switched. Before spending over a thousand dollars to switch, is fair to get the fact out. What exactly is the advantage. How much are you saving, and is that worth it. Is also why I ask what other advantages are there. After a lot of digging, it turns out for what I want, a fast zoom lens, weight would not be much of a factor. That is good for other people to know as well who are in the same situation.

T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,276
Re: mirrorless systems still growing
1

wombat661 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Canon 70-200/4L

Fuji 50-140/2.8

So, all in all, I think you're being a bit naive and premature in assuming that mirrorless systems won't have fast zooms, and that mirrorless users will always be "forced to use prime lens". We're still in the very early days of mirrorless systems...especially compared to SLR/DSLR systems! Mirrorless systems need time to grow.

This is where you are going to cause confusion. You are holding a full frame Canon zoom lens, and comparing that with an APS-C zoom lens. You cannot make a statement that DSLR lens is bigger when you are holding a full frame DSLR lens. This is very confusing, and many people will be confused by your post.

Yes, that's exactly the point.  When lenses can be made specifically for a particular format, they can be smaller.  But Canon isn't going to make an APS-C-only 70-200/2.8L, or an APS-C-only 70-200/4L!  After all, if you're going to be using the Canon SL1 you constantly use as an example, ask yourself which "fast zoom lens" you're going to use with it!  If you're talking about telephoto zooms, you'll likely choose the 70-200/2.8L or the 70-200/4L.

If Canon makes a tele zoom lens for APS-C format, which they currently don't, it will be much smaller. Base on all the numbers I looked at, chances are a DSLR tele zoom will be exactly the same weight as APS-C mirrorless tele zoom you are holding.

Canon won't make an APS-C format tele zoom. Certainly not a fast one.  Why?  Because they already have zooms to cover this range, and the size differential would be marginal for a DSLR lens in the tele focal range.  There have been copious discussions regarding the size differential of making APS-C specific tele lenses for DSLRs.  The conclusion is that the size differential would not be significant, and therefore not worth the cost.  Better to make a FF tele that can be used throughout their DSLR system, especially one that includes APS-C and FF DSLRs.  The size differential diminishes beyond a certain focal length, i.e. the size differential is most pronounced at shorter focal lengths.  So it's just not worth the additional cost of designing and manufacturing an entirely new tele lens just for APS-C.  They can do that with lower-cost lenses for the lower end market.  But it's not as worthwhile to do so with higher-end constant aperture teles, partially do to cost, and partially do to the lower likelihood that a user would want to spend that much on a constant aperture lens with marginal size difference that couldn't also be used on a future FF body they might purchase.  After all, would you want to spend a lot of money on an Canon f/2.8 tele that could only be used on their APS-C bodies?

But manufacturers designing lenses specifically for mirrorless systems of a particular format don't have to deal with this issue, because they are starting their systems from scratch...not adding additional lenses to an already crowded lens roster.  That's the nice thing about starting with a clean slate.

BTW, if you want to see how little of a difference in size Canon's EF-S (APS-C) telephotos are from their EF (FF) telephotos, compare Canon's 55-200 consumer tele zooms.  They can be found in EF (FF) and EF-S (APS-C) versions.  You'll find the size differential is marginal, at best.

Also, when Fujifilm comes out with their fast normal zoom lens, I would not expect that to be much lighter than Canon or Nikon if is the same quality. Will have to wait and see.

*Sigh*, your narrow-minded, hell-bent thinking that it is entirely about weight really is getting to be rather humorous.  As I and others have stated, it's not just about the weight.  Size is a significant factor for us.  But, smaller lenses do tend to weigh less-- assuming we're talking about the same quality if construction, materials, etc.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
T3 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,276
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
3

wombat661 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Mid range APS-C camera: Sony A6000 is lighter than equivalent D5300 DSLR. Difference is 136g (4.8oz) A smallish apple is already 6oz for comparison.

You seem hell-bent on convincing yourself that it's all about weight. But for many of us who use mirrorless (in addition to DSLRs), it's not simply about weight. It's about size. I don't know why people think they have to use one or the other. Mirrorless and DSLRs both have their pros and cons. Sometimes, you want to use your DSLR, other times you want to use your mirrorless.

You also have to consider that because mirrorless bodies have such short back lens registration distances, lenses don't have to be of retrofocus design, which means lenses of wider angles can be made much smaller than their equivalent DSLR/retrofocus counterparts. For example, that's why Canon's 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless, APS-C) is so much more compact than their 10-22 EF-M (for DSLR). Here's the Canon 10-22 EF-S (for DSLR, APS-C) on the left, next to the Canon 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless) in the middle (with Oly 9-18..which equates to 18-38...for m4/3). As you can see, the size differential is significant:

The Canon mirrrorless wide angle zoom is very compact. It has a filter diameter of only 55mm (compared to 77mm on the DSLR lens). And not only is it much more compact, it also weighs a lot less too (220g vs 386g). On top of that, the lens hood is much more compact, too. The hood for the DSLR lens is rather huge. Here's the DSLR lens with its hood mounted (below).

The hood for the mirrorless lens is very compact by any standard. Both the hood and the lens can fit in your pants pocket. The same can not be said for the equivalent DSLR lens and hood!

So, as you can see, it's not just about the weight difference. It's also a matter of SIZE (Canon EOS M vs Canon SL1 comparison below, with equivalent wide angle zooms mounted):

Even though I am a Canon DSLR user (FF and APS-C), I also use Canon's mirrorless EOS M, too (as well as m4/3). Why? Because I don't always want to lug around the bulk of a DSLR and its bulky lenses. My EOS M is very compact, its mirrorless lenses are very compact, and still packs an APS-C sensor. It's a fraction of the size of my DSLR and DSLR lenses.

This is another post that is going to cause confusion for some people. First two pictures are fine, APS-C Sony a6000 is thinner than APS-C Nikon DSLR. As mentioned before, weight difference is that of a small apple. The mirror box on Nikon D5300 is mostly air, so has more bulk.

Size, size, size. What don't you get about that?

Third picture is where slight problem starts. You are comparing 16-50mm mirrorless lens with 18-55mm DSLR lens. Different focal length. Sony does make an identical 18-55 APS-C mirrorless lens that you could have used to compare with Nikon. That would have been exact focus length and exact aperture. Do that, and you will find Sony APS-C mirrorless is heavier than APS-C Nikon DSLR by a slight 19g. It is curious that 2mm makes so much difference, but as we have all mentioned before, with wide angle, mirrorless has advantage.

The point of that example is that you can't make a pancake zoom (starting at a shorter focal length) for a DSLR because DSLR lenses need to have a retrofocus design.

>The rest of the EOS M pictures are also problematic if you are making a fair comparison on size. Note that I picked APS-C mirrorless camera that has a view finder for one to one comparison. Canon EOS M does not have a viewfinder, so by design will be smaller. Sony makes plenty of APS-C mirrorless camera that do not have a viewfinder, and they are also much smaller. But you are loosing a valuable feature to many people. Trying to keep a fair comparison as possible to make some sense of the discussion. This is why I insist keeping to APS-C. Otherwise, many people instantly bring in M4/3, and post after post until forum limit explaining why smaller sensors are so great.

Doesn't matter. Even if the EOS M did have a viewfinder, it'd still have the same short lens registration distance, which would still yield a significantly narrower body than any Canon DSLR. EOS M's lens registration distance is only 18mm. An EOS DSLR's lens registration distance is 44mm! More than double the lens registration distance of an EOS M! That stays the same regardless of whether you add an EVF to the EOS M or not! An EVF would only add to the height of the EOS M, but it would still have a slim profile.

And the lenses designed for mirrorless would still benefit from the very short backfocus distance, allowing them to be designed more compactly.

BTW, I am not hell bent on weight, but I do see many people say that APS-C mirrorless will save weight, and that is why they switched. Before spending over a thousand dollars to switch, is fair to get the fact out. What exactly is the advantage. How much are you saving, and is that worth it. Is also why I ask what other advantages are there. After a lot of digging, it turns out for what I want, a fast zoom lens, weight would not be much of a factor. That is good for other people to know as well who are in the same situation.

I don't say "switch". I say "add". Just add a mirrorless system to your camera equipment collection, like many of us have. Sometimes, I use my DSLR (mainly for work), and other times I use my mirrorless (mainly for personal, and travel). There are pros and cons to each. It's like having both a laptop and a tablet. Sometimes, you want to use the laptop, and other times you want to just use your iPad. The same goes for camera equipment. For street shooting, travel shooting, and personal casual shooting, I much prefer to use my mirrorless gear because its more compact, it's lighter, it's less obtrusive, etc. But the point is that when you actually have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, that's when you'll have a better chance of understanding the difference! Once you use mirrorless, going back to a DSLR makes you realize how fat and bloated DSLR equipment seems.  And having both to use makes the difference even more obvious!  I always say, first hand experience-- practical, real world experience-- is a lot more valuable than just reading about something on the web.  Hopefully, that's the point of these threads you've started: to get people's FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE on the topic, rather than just trying to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what we're sharing with you from our first hand experience.  Otherwise, you're just trolling.

 T3's gear list:T3's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Olympus PEN E-PL3 Canon EOS M Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a6000 +17 more
nzmacro
nzmacro Forum Pro • Posts: 15,939
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
1

T3 wrote:

wombat661 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Mid range APS-C camera: Sony A6000 is lighter than equivalent D5300 DSLR. Difference is 136g (4.8oz) A smallish apple is already 6oz for comparison.

You seem hell-bent on convincing yourself that it's all about weight. But for many of us who use mirrorless (in addition to DSLRs), it's not simply about weight. It's about size. I don't know why people think they have to use one or the other. Mirrorless and DSLRs both have their pros and cons. Sometimes, you want to use your DSLR, other times you want to use your mirrorless.

You also have to consider that because mirrorless bodies have such short back lens registration distances, lenses don't have to be of retrofocus design, which means lenses of wider angles can be made much smaller than their equivalent DSLR/retrofocus counterparts. For example, that's why Canon's 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless, APS-C) is so much more compact than their 10-22 EF-M (for DSLR). Here's the Canon 10-22 EF-S (for DSLR, APS-C) on the left, next to the Canon 11-22 EF-M (for mirrorless) in the middle (with Oly 9-18..which equates to 18-38...for m4/3). As you can see, the size differential is significant:

The Canon mirrrorless wide angle zoom is very compact. It has a filter diameter of only 55mm (compared to 77mm on the DSLR lens). And not only is it much more compact, it also weighs a lot less too (220g vs 386g). On top of that, the lens hood is much more compact, too. The hood for the DSLR lens is rather huge. Here's the DSLR lens with its hood mounted (below).

The hood for the mirrorless lens is very compact by any standard. Both the hood and the lens can fit in your pants pocket. The same can not be said for the equivalent DSLR lens and hood!

So, as you can see, it's not just about the weight difference. It's also a matter of SIZE (Canon EOS M vs Canon SL1 comparison below, with equivalent wide angle zooms mounted):

Even though I am a Canon DSLR user (FF and APS-C), I also use Canon's mirrorless EOS M, too (as well as m4/3). Why? Because I don't always want to lug around the bulk of a DSLR and its bulky lenses. My EOS M is very compact, its mirrorless lenses are very compact, and still packs an APS-C sensor. It's a fraction of the size of my DSLR and DSLR lenses.

This is another post that is going to cause confusion for some people. First two pictures are fine, APS-C Sony a6000 is thinner than APS-C Nikon DSLR. As mentioned before, weight difference is that of a small apple. The mirror box on Nikon D5300 is mostly air, so has more bulk.

Size, size, size. What don't you get about that?

Third picture is where slight problem starts. You are comparing 16-50mm mirrorless lens with 18-55mm DSLR lens. Different focal length. Sony does make an identical 18-55 APS-C mirrorless lens that you could have used to compare with Nikon. That would have been exact focus length and exact aperture. Do that, and you will find Sony APS-C mirrorless is heavier than APS-C Nikon DSLR by a slight 19g. It is curious that 2mm makes so much difference, but as we have all mentioned before, with wide angle, mirrorless has advantage.

The point of that example is that you can't make a pancake zoom (starting at a shorter focal length) for a DSLR because DSLR lenses need to have a retrofocus design.

>The rest of the EOS M pictures are also problematic if you are making a fair comparison on size. Note that I picked APS-C mirrorless camera that has a view finder for one to one comparison. Canon EOS M does not have a viewfinder, so by design will be smaller. Sony makes plenty of APS-C mirrorless camera that do not have a viewfinder, and they are also much smaller. But you are loosing a valuable feature to many people. Trying to keep a fair comparison as possible to make some sense of the discussion. This is why I insist keeping to APS-C. Otherwise, many people instantly bring in M4/3, and post after post until forum limit explaining why smaller sensors are so great.

Doesn't matter. Even if the EOS M did have a viewfinder, it'd still have the same short lens registration distance, which would still yield a significantly narrower body than any Canon DSLR. EOS M's lens registration distance is only 18mm. An EOS DSLR's lens registration distance is 44mm! More than double the lens registration distance of an EOS M! That stays the same regardless of whether you add an EVF to the EOS M or not! An EVF would only add to the height of the EOS M, but it would still have a slim profile.

And the lenses designed for mirrorless would still benefit from the very short backfocus distance, allowing them to be designed more compactly.

BTW, I am not hell bent on weight, but I do see many people say that APS-C mirrorless will save weight, and that is why they switched. Before spending over a thousand dollars to switch, is fair to get the fact out. What exactly is the advantage. How much are you saving, and is that worth it. Is also why I ask what other advantages are there. After a lot of digging, it turns out for what I want, a fast zoom lens, weight would not be much of a factor. That is good for other people to know as well who are in the same situation.

I don't say "switch". I say "add". Just add a mirrorless system to your camera equipment collection, like many of us have. Sometimes, I use my DSLR (mainly for work), and other times I use my mirrorless (mainly for personal, and travel). There are pros and cons to each. It's like having both a laptop and a tablet. Sometimes, you want to use the laptop, and other times you want to just use your iPad. The same goes for camera equipment. For street shooting, travel shooting, and personal casual shooting, I much prefer to use my mirrorless gear because its more compact, it's lighter, it's less obtrusive, etc. But the point is that when you actually have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE, that's when you'll have a better chance of understanding the difference! Once you use mirrorless, going back to a DSLR makes you realize how fat and bloated DSLR equipment seems. And having both to use makes the difference even more obvious! I always say, first hand experience-- practical, real world experience-- is a lot more valuable than just reading about something on the web. Hopefully, that's the point of these threads you've started: to get people's FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE on the topic, rather than just trying to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what we're sharing with you from our first hand experience. Otherwise, you're just trolling.

T3, you are right !! Also what he doesn't seem to realise, is that the first comparison shots with the Sony and Nikon, is that the Sony does have a viewfinder in that comparison, an EVF, but he will come back with something

All the best T3, and correct.

Danny.

-- hide signature --

Birds, macro, motor sports.... http://www.birdsinaction.com

Just Kingfisher ..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/96361462@N06/

 nzmacro's gear list:nzmacro's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 +6 more
quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

wombat661 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Third picture is where slight problem starts. You are comparing 16-50mm mirrorless lens with 18-55mm DSLR lens. Different focal length. Sony does make an identical 18-55 APS-C mirrorless lens that you could have used to compare with Nikon. That would have been exact focus length and exact aperture. Do that, and you will find Sony APS-C mirrorless is heavier than APS-C Nikon DSLR by a slight 19g. It is curious that 2mm makes so much difference, but as we have all mentioned before, with wide angle, mirrorless has advantage.

Your numbers are wrong. Here they are:

Canon SL1: 607g

A6000: 538g

D5300: 745g

Difference is 200g in alike models, and the tiniest DSLR ever made is still 40g heavier. Meanwhile, you will never have the option of putting a pancake lens on the DSLR to shrink it to pocketable size because the one or two pancake lenses out there can never compress the bulk of the hump and mirror.

Meanwhile mirrorless cameras are flush with pancake lens options because minimal size and weight was part of the design philosophy from day 1.

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
jonathanj
jonathanj Contributing Member • Posts: 957
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

wombat661 wrote:

jonathanj wrote:

OK, I'll bite. I use a Samsung NX kit, the actual lenses I use on this are: 3 primes: 16mm, 30mm, 60mm, and wide angle zoom. Let's look at replicating that setup with Canon. (Weights and list prices from B&H, for reference)

NX 30 13.23 oz (375 g) $799
16mm 2.54 oz (72 g) $299
30mm 2.86 oz (81 g) $299
60mm macro 5.87 oz (450 g) $599
12-24mm 7.34 oz (208 g) $599
TOTAL: 1,186g $2,595

canon 700d 18.52 oz (525 g ) $849
Tokina 12-28 1.17 lb (530 g) $489
canon 60mm mac 11.8 oz (335 g) $469
sigma 30mm 15.34 oz (435 g) $499
rokinon 16mm 1.28 lb (583 g) $379
TOTAL: 2,408g $2,685

Less than half the weight. I haven't included dimensions, but the NX lenses other than the 60mm are significantly smaller too.

Of course, it's not that simple. I don't use fast zooms like you, so my weight saving is more substantial that yours would be. (The Samsung 16-50 f2-2.8 is roughly the same size and weight as the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8) Also, some of the lenses I selected are not entirely equivalent. What this demonstrates though is that for *some* people, using *certain* combinations of lenses in *some* systems, the weight and size savings are substantial. This may not be the case for you (and no-one is forcing you to move from a DSLR to mirrorless if you don't want to), but it is undeniably a fact for some of us.

Something else I find interesting is that Canon and Nikon don't seem to put much effort into their APS-C lenses. The best lenses are designed for full frame cameras, which means inconvenient focal lengths and even bigger and bulkier lenses. The rokinon I selected above is manual focus, for example. I had a hard time finding any prime of roughly 16mm for a canon.

I noticed the same thing also, with wide angle prime lens, you will have substantial weight saving. From your numbers, at 60mm, there is no weight savings. If you were to put together a kit with 60mm and above prime, then weight savings would be much less.

Wide angle, mirrorless has advantage, fast zoom and long focal length, not as much.

Yes, you're right. For someone who is only interested in long, fast zooms, the saving in weight is marginal.

I read your initial post as asking why anyone would switch to mirrorless because of weight (or buy mirrorless rather than DSLR), and my answer (one of several) is that people who use more wide lenses than long lenses will see significant weight savings. Whether that answers your question or not, I don't know, but that's my real world experience

Incidentally, I suspect more people who want long lenses will be prepared to compromise on sensor size to get lightweight long zooms (I have a Nikon V1 with the 10-100, the smallest and lightest 270mm equivalent lens I can find) but that's straying from the point.

 jonathanj's gear list:jonathanj's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +10 more
Erick L Senior Member • Posts: 1,244
Re: mirrorless systems still growing

wombat661 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Canon 70-200/4L

Fuji 50-140/2.8

So, all in all, I think you're being a bit naive and premature in assuming that mirrorless systems won't have fast zooms, and that mirrorless users will always be "forced to use prime lens". We're still in the very early days of mirrorless systems...especially compared to SLR/DSLR systems! Mirrorless systems need time to grow.

This is where you are going to cause confusion. You are holding a full frame Canon zoom lens, and comparing that with an APS-C zoom lens. You cannot make a statement that DSLR lens is bigger when you are holding a full frame DSLR lens. This is very confusing, and many people will be confused by your post.

Sigma makes a similar lens to the Fuji and it's much bigger.

-- hide signature --

Erick - www.borealphoto.com

Erick L Senior Member • Posts: 1,244
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
2

wombat661 wrote:

Third picture is where slight problem starts. You are comparing 16-50mm mirrorless lens with 18-55mm DSLR lens. Different focal length. Sony does make an identical 18-55 APS-C mirrorless lens that you could have used to compare with Nikon.

Nobody in the real world would choose the 18-55 over the 16-50, especially since the 16-50 is the default kit lens. All you're doing here is measurbating.

-- hide signature --

Erick - www.borealphoto.com

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 14,024
Point is gone
1

T3 wrote:

wombat661 wrote:

PVCdroid wrote:

You have included an A-mount APS-C Sony lens which isn't designed for E-mount, the Sony 16-50/2.8. You could use this lens with an adapter on e-mount but it would be an exception to what most would purchase for mirrorless use. Just thought I would point this out. There isn't another fast zoom to replace what you selected in your analysis that I can think of unless you want to include the SEL1670Z which is a stabilized constant f/4 and 308 grams.

Yes, thanks for the catch. Sony 16-50 f2.8 is for alpha mount. Don't see any f2.8 midrange zoom lens. Too bad because f2.8 lens is the one I like to use most. Guess the reason Sony don't offer fast zoom lens is because the NEX camera is to cater to those who are weight/bulk conscious, therefore, Sony does not offer any fast zoom lens because they tend to be larger. For fast lens, you are forced to use prime lens. Find the same to be true for Sony full frame NEX camera. Sony does not offer any fast zoom lens.

So is a trade off, either bring a few prime lens for APS-C mirrorless or one fast zoom lens with DSLR.

You have to keep in mind that mirrorless systems are still very young. These systems are still growing. It's only a matter of time before there are a range of f/2.8 zooms for mirrorless. For example, Fuji is going to be releasing the XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R OIS WR and the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R OIS WR soon for their mirrorless system:

Left to right: XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R OIS WR, XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R OIS WR, XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R OIS WR

They all have image stabilization, they are all weather sealed, and yes, these lenses are fairly compact compared to their DSLR equivalents. For example, a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS has a front filter diameter of 77mm, but the Fuji XF 50-140/2.8's filter diameter is only 67mm. From the looks if it, the Fuji XF 50-140/2.8 OIS looks like it will be the same size as the Canon 70-200/4L IS (yes, the Canon f/4 lens!) because the Fuji is specifically made for APS-C. Both these lenses have 67mm filter diameters. But the Fuji is f/2.8, while the Canon is only f/4. And the Fuji XF 16-55/2.8 looks like it will be a bit smaller than the Canon 17-55/2.8 EF-S. Both have 77mm filter diameters, but the Fuji lens appears to be shorter.

Canon 17-55/2.8

Fuji XF 16-55/2.8

Canon 70-200/4L

Fuji 50-140/2.8

So, all in all, I think you're being a bit naive and premature in assuming that mirrorless systems won't have fast zooms, and that mirrorless users will always be "forced to use prime lens". We're still in the very early days of mirrorless systems...especially compared to SLR/DSLR systems! Mirrorless systems need time to grow.

These lenses are big. As soon as you go over a certain size you get better ergonomics with the grip of a DSLR.

Sante Patate Veteran Member • Posts: 5,908
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
1

wombat661 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Wider primes for mirrorless can be made smaller, and they are smaller, indeed. Just not that fast. You have to decide what performance you want first, and then start worrying about size and weight.

Forgot to post the prime lens table. I try to keep the same focal length and aperture. 20mm are all f2.8. 35mm are all f1.4 and two f1.8. 45-50mm is f1.8. 85mm is f1.4. Just added Pentax as Wheatfield7 noted. Unfortunately, Pentax have different prime focal length, so only two can compare.

Full Frame DSLR Prime Lens vs APS-C Mirrorless Prime Lens

Mirrorless designs will have smaller and lighter lenses in the gap between the flange focus distance of the SLRs (roughly, 45-50mm) and their flange focal distance (roughly, 18-20mm), because in that range SLRs need a retrofocus design and mirrorless do not.

Once the actual focal length gets below the mirrorless flange focal length both sorts of camera need a retrofocus design, so the mirrorless lens weight goes up again (you can pinch a couple of mm but it is no accident that there are no mirrorless lenses below 16mm).

An APS-C SLR could have a smaller diameter mount and a smaller flange focal distance than a full frame SLR, but then you could not use all the legacy lenses.  The decision that an APS-C SLR had to have the same flange focal distance as the full frame SLR means that it loses a lot of the potential advantage of the smaller sensor. The implication is that if you like 20mm focal length lenses, you are a natural full frame user.

That ought to make the Sony A& the obvious choice.  But, the other issue with short focal lengths and mirrorless designs for larger sensors is that the short flange focal distance causes problems with peripheral light fall off. This is very clear with the Sony A7 lenses, which have extreme light fall off, despite small apertures and allowing severe distortion in order to limit light fall off. The other way to manage light fall off is a very large front element, but that has size and weight penalties that Sony has so far chosen to avoid.  If Sony release a 20mm lens for the A7 we will see what compromises they make - but my personal prediction is that they will not make the lens at all.

OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

quezra wrote:

Your numbers are wrong. Here they are:

Canon SL1: 607g

A6000: 538g

D5300: 745g

Difference is 200g in alike models, and the tiniest DSLR ever made is still 40g heavier. Meanwhile, you will never have the option of putting a pancake lens on the DSLR to shrink it to pocketable size because the one or two pancake lenses out there can never compress the bulk of the hump and mirror.

Meanwhile mirrorless cameras are flush with pancake lens options because minimal size and weight was part of the design philosophy from day 1.

A forum member, Wheatfield7 said I left out Pentax. Looking thru the page, Pentax makes a few pancake lens for their DSLR. Their pancake lens includes 21mm f3.2, 40mm f2.8, and 70mm f2.4.

Size wise, overall is not as thin, but camera does not look bulky either. Interstingly camerasize webpage chose to skip all the Pentax pancake lens from their comparison menu, so I can't see a visual comparison. Picture above is the best I can do.

So what is going with camerasize website, here you have the smallest pancake lens DSLR has to offer, and so happen camerasize decide not to compare that. They do show other larger Pentax, just not the pancake lens. If size is a concern, I would expect camerasize to show the Pentax first. You do have to wonder who bankroll that camerasize.com site.

quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight
1

wombat661 wrote:

quezra wrote:

Your numbers are wrong. Here they are:

Canon SL1: 607g

A6000: 538g

D5300: 745g

Difference is 200g in alike models, and the tiniest DSLR ever made is still 40g heavier. Meanwhile, you will never have the option of putting a pancake lens on the DSLR to shrink it to pocketable size because the one or two pancake lenses out there can never compress the bulk of the hump and mirror.

Meanwhile mirrorless cameras are flush with pancake lens options because minimal size and weight was part of the design philosophy from day 1.

A forum member, Wheatfield7 said I left out Pentax. Looking thru the page, Pentax makes a few pancake lens for their DSLR. Their pancake lens includes 21mm f3.2, 40mm f2.8, and 70mm f2.4.

Size wise, overall is not as thin, but camera does not look bulky either. Interstingly camerasize webpage chose to skip all the Pentax pancake lens from their comparison menu, so I can't see a visual comparison. Picture above is the best I can do.

So what is going with camerasize website, here you have the smallest pancake lens DSLR has to offer, and so happen camerasize decide not to compare that. They do show other larger Pentax, just not the pancake lens. If size is a concern, I would expect camerasize to show the Pentax first. You do have to wonder who bankroll that camerasize.com site.

Yes, that is nice, but still heavier than a A6000.

40/2.8 = 159g

Pentax K-5 II = 760g

Total = 919g

And it's bulkier any way you look at it. So it still loses.

Anyway it's clear you are trying to get the result you want.  So why waste time with all these numbers? Get yourself a DSLR and be done with it.  No one's going to cry that you didn't pick a mirrorless camera.

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

Pentax is nice, indeed - they have a few very good dedicated primes for APS-C.

One of the problems with Canon/Nikon APS-C dSLRs is that they are basically FF dSLRs with a small sensor. Since they have to be compatible with FF lenses, the mount and the registration distance are not as small as one would expect. This poses a restriction on how small the lenses can be. Also, Canon and Nikon do not see this segment as so important - their message is - if you want better, go FF (and they are right ).

IMO, APS-C makes sense for mirrorless mostly - it can really offer size advantage. Short flange distance comes with its problems for WA or fast lenses, but if you want better, go FF.

It makes sense to get an APS-C dSLR if you prefer the functionality of a dSLR, if you intend to use some of the many FF lenses, and/or if some day you intend to go FF with the same brand. If all you need is a small camera with a decent zoom and maybe 1-2 extra lenses, no sports shooting, etc., I would get EOS-M/Fuji, etc.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

quezra wrote:

A forum member, Wheatfield7 said I left out Pentax. Looking thru the page, Pentax makes a few pancake lens for their DSLR. Their pancake lens includes 21mm f3.2, 40mm f2.8, and 70mm f2.4.

Size wise, overall is not as thin, but camera does not look bulky either. Interstingly camerasize webpage chose to skip all the Pentax pancake lens from their comparison menu, so I can't see a visual comparison. Picture above is the best I can do.

So what is going with camerasize website, here you have the smallest pancake lens DSLR has to offer, and so happen camerasize decide not to compare that. They do show other larger Pentax, just not the pancake lens. If size is a concern, I would expect camerasize to show the Pentax first. You do have to wonder who bankroll that camerasize.com site.

Yes, that is nice, but still heavier than a A6000.

40/2.8 = 159g

Pentax K-5 II = 760g

Total = 919g

And it's bulkier any way you look at it. So it still loses.

Anyway it's clear you are trying to get the result you want. So why waste time with all these numbers? Get yourself a DSLR and be done with it. No one's going to cry that you didn't pick a mirrorless camera.

Wow, what is your problem. Can't do comparison shopping? Are you uncomfortable I am showing a DSLR with a pancake lens when someone said there are no pancake lens for DSLR. DSLR offer focus tracking. APC-S mirrorless as several posters said are less bulky with pancake lens. Here looks like a compromise. You don't get everything you want, but you get some of each. I see nothing wrong with that.

This is not religion. I don't have to believe one or the other. The discussion has been very helpful. I and many people who are looking will not have to spend $600 plus hundreds more on a system to see if they like it. I didn't think much about Pentax until now. Don't know about you, but I am no Bill Gates. Dropping another thousand on a system to see if you like it is not that appealing. Even if cost is not an issue, now a days, I often ask myself if I really need another piece of plastic junk rather than if I can afford it. There is a cost in pollution. Somebody somewhere has to make it, and they dump the unused plastics and chemical into the ocean.

cplunk Senior Member • Posts: 1,834
Re: In short...

If there's "room to spare", an A330 might fit?

width is almost identical.

2 inches longer with similar 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens

And 1 inch taller

And, it's a 1/2 pound heavier, which doesn't sound like a lot but without battery that's almost 50% more.  And the batteries are about the same sizes, this is one of Sony's old compact DSLRs that didn't use the "standard" battery that fits all their other DSLRs.

As for ergonomics, they are both about the same feel in my hands. I hardly ever use the viewfinder on the Nex and do not feel it's too comfortable when I do, whereas I only use the viewfinder on the A330 and find the live view on the LCD worthless.

The Nex is really a much more capable camera in just about every way.  And with the 16-50 on it will fit in a jacket pocket or the "saddle" pocket on some of my cargo pants (I'm not a small person and have large pants), it'll also fit with the 16mm or 20mm primes, and almost with the 35mm.  With the Sony DT 35mm and 50mm primes, the A330 is also pretty small, and still very comparable with the Nex with similar focal length primes, but there's no tiny 16 mm for the A330, and even body only it's never going to fit in my pocket. But, "pocketability" at this point is also based on your pant's size, and my wife could never pocket the Nex so going back to a needing a bag, there's really very little difference for most people.

 cplunk's gear list:cplunk's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A330 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a6300 +19 more
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Pentax is nice, indeed - they have a few very good dedicated primes for APS-C.

I was thinking the same thing when I found that picture. Didn't know such a lens existed.

quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

wombat661 wrote:

quezra wrote:

A forum member, Wheatfield7 said I left out Pentax. Looking thru the page, Pentax makes a few pancake lens for their DSLR. Their pancake lens includes 21mm f3.2, 40mm f2.8, and 70mm f2.4.

Size wise, overall is not as thin, but camera does not look bulky either. Interstingly camerasize webpage chose to skip all the Pentax pancake lens from their comparison menu, so I can't see a visual comparison. Picture above is the best I can do.

So what is going with camerasize website, here you have the smallest pancake lens DSLR has to offer, and so happen camerasize decide not to compare that. They do show other larger Pentax, just not the pancake lens. If size is a concern, I would expect camerasize to show the Pentax first. You do have to wonder who bankroll that camerasize.com site.

Yes, that is nice, but still heavier than a A6000.

40/2.8 = 159g

Pentax K-5 II = 760g

Total = 919g

And it's bulkier any way you look at it. So it still loses.

Anyway it's clear you are trying to get the result you want. So why waste time with all these numbers? Get yourself a DSLR and be done with it. No one's going to cry that you didn't pick a mirrorless camera.

Wow, what is your problem. Can't do comparison shopping?

Sure you can. But then you should be assessing things objectively, rather than handwaving away anything you don't like. Without contorting numbers, there's a 200g and considerable bulk gap between D5300 and A6000 with 18-55 kit lenses on. While these numbers look small, try converting them into percentages and then see whether they look like a big deal then. With its actual kit lens the A6000 is even further ahead. But you are keen to handwave all this stuff away. I suggest you go into a store and try the two out side by side for yourself. The difference will be much clearer then.

Are you uncomfortable I am showing a DSLR with a pancake lens when someone said there are no pancake lens for DSLR. DSLR offer focus tracking. APC-S mirrorless as several posters said are less bulky with pancake lens. Here looks like a compromise. You don't get everything you want, but you get some of each. I see nothing wrong with that.

Did anyone say there were no pancakes? Quite obviously there are a few, but firstly, they a very limited range - a limited lens lineup like Samsung's has more pancake lenses than Canon despite its hundreds of lenses for example. But the bigger point is that a pancake doesn't solve the bulk issue: a mirror box and and OVF hump. The space needed for these two things means a DSLR will never be pocketable, even with only a body cap on it. Whereas the rangefinder designs on MILCs basically means it can slip in your pocket with a pancake lens. The benefit of pancake on DSLR for reducing bulk is minimal.

Meanwhile a top end MILC like A6000/NEX-7 is miles ahead of the top end APS-C DSLRs which just keep getting bigger and bigger. Try comparing NEX-7, X-Pro1, and 7D, D7100, A77, etc.

As for focus tracking, if you really need it then there is no point discussing weight - just get the DSLR. If you don't really need it then the A6000 will more than exceed focus tracking needs. As reviews have shown, it is only marginally worse than the extremely huge and expensive D4s.

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
NowHearThis
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,771
Re: In short...

cplunk wrote:

If there's "room to spare", an A330 might fit?

maybe not... I'm mainly talking about the front and side pockets.

width is almost identical.

that's not the problem.

2 inches longer with similar 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens

This is the problem.  the bag is only 5.25 inches deep, the A230 with the 18-55 is 6" long, stretching the bag a bit. Stack a filter or two on the front of the lens and you're really out of luck.  The NEX7 + 18-200 is just under 5.5 inches.  That 1/2" will make a difference when it comes to fitting it in the bag.  The fact that the NEX body is so much slimmer too helps the grip to not stick out too far while still being comfortable (IMO) and allowing a lens like a 50mm prime to sit just below it in the bag. (again something that can't be accomplished with a larger kit.)

...

And, it's a 1/2 pound heavier, which doesn't sound like a lot but without battery that's almost 50% more. And the batteries are about the same sizes, this is one of Sony's old compact DSLRs that didn't use the "standard" battery that fits all their other DSLRs.

As for ergonomics, they are both about the same feel in my hands. I hardly ever use the viewfinder on the Nex and do not feel it's too comfortable when I do, whereas I only use the viewfinder on the A330 and find the live view on the LCD worthless.

The Nex is really a much more capable camera in just about every way. And with the 16-50 on it will fit in a jacket pocket or the "saddle" pocket on some of my cargo pants (I'm not a small person and have large pants), it'll also fit with the 16mm or 20mm primes, and almost with the 35mm. With the Sony DT 35mm and 50mm primes, the A330 is also pretty small, and still very comparable with the Nex with similar focal length primes, but there's no tiny 16 mm for the A330, and even body only it's never going to fit in my pocket. But, "pocketability" at this point is also based on your pant's size, and my wife could never pocket the Nex so going back to a needing a bag, there's really very little difference for most people.

But the size of the bag will matter to many.  Since moving back to mirrorless from an A65, I'll be able to get a smaller, less bulky bag for travel, hiking, etc.  I might get the Tamrac Aero 36 again, or I might get the Lowepro Format 120, both are small and slim, dirt cheap ($25 new), and are fantastic bags for mirrorless.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH
GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,791
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

Most of the weight difference will ultimately boil down to the lens (or lenses) you use.  Mirrorless lenses will be slightly smaller and lighter than their DSLR equivalents, but not by much (have to cover the same sensor size).

If reducing size and weight is really important to you, then MFT (Micro Four Thirds) really does have an advantage.  You could also go the Nikon 1 route for even more size/weight advantage.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Nikon D800E Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
OceanFroggie Contributing Member • Posts: 642
Re: APS-C DSLR vs APS-C Mirrorless Weight

Thanks for interesting post.

The importance is total weight of camera + lens. Personally I find APS-C sensors are just too big in that respect because of the resultant body and lens size systems that accompany same. MILC with APS-C needs much the same weight in lens, so only way to get much smaller lens systems is much smaller sensors. Both DSLR & MILC are handicapped with APS-C sized sensors. 16mp in a camera+telezoom lens with less total weight than <500g seems more consumer friendly.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads