A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Rick620 Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: A mistake...
3

Bob Janes 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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S [ 3.0 in. (76.0 mm) x 3.4 in. (86.5 mm) 14.7 oz. (415 g) ] %17 Wider / %55 Longer / %63 Heavier
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D [ 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) x 1.5 in. (39.0 mm) 5.5 oz. (155 g) ]

NIKON Z 7II [ 4.0 in. H x 5.3 in. W 21.7 oz. ] %19 Shorter / %9 Narrower / %33 Lighter
NIKON D850 [ 4.9 in. H x 5.8 in. W 32.3 oz. ]

[ NIKON Z 7II + NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S ] 36.4 oz. = %4 Lighter but %55 Longer
[ NIKON D850 + AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D ] 37.8 oz.

It is a mistake to think of DSLR vs Mirrorless, they are just types of camera.

Entirely agree. I have ditched my DSLRs for Z mount but that was nothing to do with supposed size/weight advantages - it was for specific reasons for my work which no DSLR can offer - even the mighty 850!

I certainly don’t think of ML as an ‘upgrade’ from DSLR - different tools offering different things - all this ‘DSLR v ML wars’ is infantile, schoolyard stuff.

-- hide signature --

The answer is 42.

 Rick620's gear list:Rick620's gear list
Nikon Z6 II Nikon Z fc Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Nikon 8-15mm F3.5-4.5 fisheye +9 more
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,850
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

thayes15 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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S [ 3.0 in. (76.0 mm) x 3.4 in. (86.5 mm) 14.7 oz. (415 g) ] %17 Wider / %55 Longer / %63 Heavier
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D [ 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) x 1.5 in. (39.0 mm) 5.5 oz. (155 g) ]

NIKON Z 7II [ 4.0 in. H x 5.3 in. W 21.7 oz. ] %19 Shorter / %9 Narrower / %33 Lighter
NIKON D850 [ 4.9 in. H x 5.8 in. W 32.3 oz. ]

[ NIKON Z 7II + NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S ] 36.4 oz. = %4 Lighter but %55 Longer
[ NIKON D850 + AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D ] 37.8 oz.

Yes it seems to be the more modern the lens the more complicated its design to account for various lens aberrations. I'm no expert but this seems to mean more glass elements and bigger lenses.

The reality I would say is a bit of both, the more recent S F/1,8 primes especially are clearly designed to a higher standard of performance than the F-mount F/1.8 primes were BUT the shorter flange distance does sometimes result in longer lenses as well.

The argument for smaller mirrorless lenses does tend to go back to the days of film were rangefinder lenses could be non retrosfocal and so a lot smaller. Film though could cope with light hitting it at an angle much more than digital so digital era lenses tend to need to be more telecentric anyway. Its a lot of the reason why the Z-mount is so large, often you have a large rear element directing the light onto the sensor as close to right angles as possible.

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

Unfortunately you may not be entirely up to date on this issue. Yes, if I recall correctly, in the beginning, years ago, mirrorless was marketed as a smaller and lighter alternative. I would call this bait and switch marketing, because it isn't. Well, if you stick with the APS-C size sensor, then the system like Fuji is indeed generally smaller and lighter. But anything with an FX size sensor will have lenses just as large as the DSLR lenses. The body might be indeed smaller and lighter, but with large lenses it is no advantage at all, the balance and handling are worse in my opinion.

Quiet it might be, but how quiet does it have to be for most uses? A D810 is pretty darn quiet too IMO.

There are a few things going for ML, sometimes it makes it easier to manually focus lenses, sometimes IBIS could be very helpful. But by and large you may spend a fortune "switching" and get the exact same pics you already get with the DSLR.

I do see real advantages of mirrorless on the supply side though. Purportedly ML is cheaper to make because of the dearth of moving parts and precision alignments compared to DSLR, but it doesn't mean at all that the sale price will be any lower. Getting people to re-buy the same lenses because, well, they are supposed to be better is another advantage for camera companies. Whether these lenses are better in a way that will make your pictures meaningfully and visibly better is another question altogether of course. And, of course, it is an opportunity to sell new bodies.

The way I look at it, this mirrorless transition is of most interest to those who prize being on the cutting edge of technology, because mirrorless is where all the buzz is now. If this isn't a high priority, there is no there there.

Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 4,745
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

yray 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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

Unfortunately you may not be entirely up to date on this issue. Yes, if I recall correctly, in the beginning, years ago, mirrorless was marketed as a smaller and lighter alternative. I would call this bait and switch marketing, because it isn't. Well, if you stick with the APS-C size sensor, then the system like Fuji is indeed generally smaller and lighter. But anything with an FX size sensor will have lenses just as large as the DSLR lenses. The body might be indeed smaller and lighter, but with large lenses it is no advantage at all, the balance and handling are worse in my opinion.

Body sizes of full frame mirror less cameras have returned to dimensions similar to their analogue equivalents. We got used to the depth of DSLR bodies, but it was never an advantage.

Quiet it might be, but how quiet does it have to be for most uses? A D810 is pretty darn quiet too IMO.

There are a few things going for ML, sometimes it makes it easier to manually focus lenses, sometimes IBIS could be very helpful.

You can, of course use IBIS on a DSLR - both Sony and Pentax have done this.

But by and large you may spend a fortune "switching" and get the exact same pics you already get with the DSLR.

I do see real advantages of mirrorless on the supply side though. Purportedly ML is cheaper to make because of the dearth of moving parts and precision alignments compared to DSLR, but it doesn't mean at all that the sale price will be any lower.

But it does mean that production is more likely to be profitable - anything that encourages development should be welcomed.

Getting people to re-buy the same lenses because, well, they are supposed to be better is another advantage for camera companies. Whether these lenses are better in a way that will make your pictures meaningfully and visibly better is another question altogether of course. And, of course, it is an opportunity to sell new bodies.

The way I look at it, this mirrorless transition is of most interest to those who prize being on the cutting edge of technology, because mirrorless is where all the buzz is now. If this isn't a high priority, there is no there there.

Not at all. I was drawn to mirrorless for exactly the opposite reason - I wanted to use my old film era MF lenses on digital - mirror less allows this in a way that is far more satisfactory than an SLR.

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Bob Janes wrote:

yray 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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

Unfortunately you may not be entirely up to date on this issue. Yes, if I recall correctly, in the beginning, years ago, mirrorless was marketed as a smaller and lighter alternative. I would call this bait and switch marketing, because it isn't. Well, if you stick with the APS-C size sensor, then the system like Fuji is indeed generally smaller and lighter. But anything with an FX size sensor will have lenses just as large as the DSLR lenses. The body might be indeed smaller and lighter, but with large lenses it is no advantage at all, the balance and handling are worse in my opinion.

Body sizes of full frame mirror less cameras have returned to dimensions similar to their analogue equivalents. We got used to the depth of DSLR bodies, but it was never an advantage.

Quiet it might be, but how quiet does it have to be for most uses? A D810 is pretty darn quiet too IMO.

There are a few things going for ML, sometimes it makes it easier to manually focus lenses, sometimes IBIS could be very helpful.

You can, of course use IBIS on a DSLR - both Sony and Pentax have done this.

But by and large you may spend a fortune "switching" and get the exact same pics you already get with the DSLR.

I do see real advantages of mirrorless on the supply side though. Purportedly ML is cheaper to make because of the dearth of moving parts and precision alignments compared to DSLR, but it doesn't mean at all that the sale price will be any lower.

But it does mean that production is more likely to be profitable - anything that encourages development should be welcomed.

Getting people to re-buy the same lenses because, well, they are supposed to be better is another advantage for camera companies. Whether these lenses are better in a way that will make your pictures meaningfully and visibly better is another question altogether of course. And, of course, it is an opportunity to sell new bodies.

The way I look at it, this mirrorless transition is of most interest to those who prize being on the cutting edge of technology, because mirrorless is where all the buzz is now. If this isn't a high priority, there is no there there.

Not at all. I was drawn to mirrorless for exactly the opposite reason - I wanted to use my old film era MF lenses on digital - mirror less allows this in a way that is far more satisfactory than an SLR.

Well, it so happens that I use old, film era MF lenses on ML too, only on a Fuji. Those retro-ish Fuji bodies fit well with the genuine retro lenses. Yes, APS-C sensor, but smaller, lighter, cheaper. I settled on X-T1 and X-H1 awhile back, and I don't see going any further in this direction, it is a corner case kind of use for me. Bought one Fuji lens, 18-55/2.8-4, a nice travel option, all other lenses I use on a Fuji are old Nikons. Works the same as on a Z, except it doesn't record the aperture, not a big deal.

lickity split
lickity split Veteran Member • Posts: 6,170
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

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.

-- hide signature --

“Perhaps if you removed some clothing . “
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lickitysplit11111/

 lickity split's gear list:lickity split's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +11 more
briantilley
briantilley Veteran Member • Posts: 6,410
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
4

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

 briantilley's gear list:briantilley's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z fc Nikon Z9 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 +17 more
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

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.

briantilley
briantilley Veteran Member • Posts: 6,410
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
5

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

 briantilley's gear list:briantilley's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z fc Nikon Z9 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 +17 more
anotherMike Forum Pro • Posts: 10,323
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
7

Bingo. What you said.

I owned the 24-70/2.8G for a decade, at one point I owned two of them because it was so critical a lens. Know that lens real well.

Evaluated a colleagues 24-70/2.8 E VR, a minor to moderate improvement over the G, but not enough of one that I considered it.

I'm pretty much a prime shooter who runs blind print tests to see if lens differences matter, and once I got the 24-70/2.8S on my Z7, the difference between it and the prior F mount 24-70's was a hell of a lot more than subtle. The new lens can essentially match a couple of 1.8G primes in performance (in some cases bettering) them at a focal length or two, and even when it doesn't, it's a hell of a lot more balanced across the frame and has more bite/microcontrast in a very broad center too.

These days I'd grade the original 24-70G about 3 stars - good enough for average image quality work, the 24-70E VR about 3.5, a better lens, and the new 24-70/2.8S would be close to 4 to 4.5 stars - it is not perfect (and I didn't expect it to be) for a high image quality standard prime shooter like myself, but man, Nikon got so much closer to a "prime replacer" with that one than the previous iterations, and I'd have to *seriously* question anyone who has shot them all who doesn't see it that way. The difference is flat out obvious in even reasonable print sizes.

-m

TITCHY Senior Member • Posts: 1,364
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
1

anotherMike wrote:

Bingo. What you said.

I owned the 24-70/2.8G for a decade, at one point I owned two of them because it was so critical a lens. Know that lens real well.

Evaluated a colleagues 24-70/2.8 E VR, a minor to moderate improvement over the G, but not enough of one that I considered it.

I'm pretty much a prime shooter who runs blind print tests to see if lens differences matter, and once I got the 24-70/2.8S on my Z7, the difference between it and the prior F mount 24-70's was a hell of a lot more than subtle. The new lens can essentially match a couple of 1.8G primes in performance (in some cases bettering) them at a focal length or two, and even when it doesn't, it's a hell of a lot more balanced across the frame and has more bite/microcontrast in a very broad center too.

These days I'd grade the original 24-70G about 3 stars - good enough for average image quality work, the 24-70E VR about 3.5, a better lens, and the new 24-70/2.8S would be close to 4 to 4.5 stars - it is not perfect (and I didn't expect it to be) for a high image quality standard prime shooter like myself, but man, Nikon got so much closer to a "prime replacer" with that one than the previous iterations, and I'd have to *seriously* question anyone who has shot them all who doesn't see it that way. The difference is flat out obvious in even reasonable print sizes.

-m

bang on the money, I still have the latter 24-70-E and it was the bees knees when I was using it on my D810 , but the Z mount version is so much better, and it's not marginal, it isn't even close.

but  that's pretty much Par for the course with Z mount lenses, with just about all of them comfortably beating their F mount equivalents, in most cases by a easily noticeable amount , I think the only lens that is closer in performance to F mount version, is the 70-200 f2.8S , but we already Knew the likelihood of that even before it was announced.

 TITCHY's gear list:TITCHY's gear list
Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 +65 more
yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
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.

BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 9,419
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
7

yray wrote:

briantilley wrote:

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.

That's a straw man. Nobody made that claim.

yray
yray Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

BasilG wrote:

yray wrote:

briantilley wrote:

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.

That's a straw man. Nobody made that claim.

Nobody might have made this claim explicitly because it is patently absurd, but every time one upgrades beyond certain gear quality level, one makes this assumption implicitly, perhaps not for the entire world, but for one's own particular case. I have no problem with that, I just advocate for doing that with one's eyes wide open.

Personally, when I'm buying a piece of gear, I'm doing this more out of curiosity than with an expectation of an extraordinary transformation, and because I might be a gear collector at heart. Well, F mount gear collector, Z mount is a bridge too far, for me.

NCB Senior Member • Posts: 2,065
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
3

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. This is not a scientific analysis but this is a 30k/ft comparison using a 50mm lens which shows the differences are still minor.

Yes, mirrorless is quiet, I'll give it that.

NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S [ 3.0 in. (76.0 mm) x 3.4 in. (86.5 mm) 14.7 oz. (415 g) ] %17 Wider / %55 Longer / %63 Heavier
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D [ 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) x 1.5 in. (39.0 mm) 5.5 oz. (155 g) ]

NIKON Z 7II [ 4.0 in. H x 5.3 in. W 21.7 oz. ] %19 Shorter / %9 Narrower / %33 Lighter
NIKON D850 [ 4.9 in. H x 5.8 in. W 32.3 oz. ]

[ NIKON Z 7II + NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S ] 36.4 oz. = %4 Lighter but %55 Longer
[ NIKON D850 + AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D ] 37.8 oz.

So you want to believe that there is not much going for mirrorless. I'm afraid your "facts" don't add up.

No, not all mirrorless lenses are larger than their previous counterparts, rather the reverse. The one Z lens you've picked out is one which Nikon threw everything at to make it the best performing 50mm f1.8 they could, taking full advantage of the Z mount in the process. I have one; it is the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, right across the board. The 50mm f1.8 D isn't in the same league.

You need to compare like with like.

But as has been said before, it's not a question of DSLR versus Mirrorless. They are all cameras; it's a question of which suits you the most. It's not wrong to go for either. But anyone who can't see the positives from the Z system is sticking their head in the sand.

 NCB's gear list:NCB's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D3100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50 +2 more
BasilG Veteran Member • Posts: 9,419
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
4

yray wrote:

BasilG wrote:

yray wrote:

briantilley wrote:

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.

That's a straw man. Nobody made that claim.

Nobody might have made this claim explicitly because it is patently absurd...

Then why do you make it?

... but every time one upgrades beyond certain gear quality level, one makes this assumption implicitly, perhaps not for the entire world, but for one's own particular case.

That's clearly not true.

lickity split
lickity split Veteran Member • Posts: 6,170
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
2

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

Well if the two or three of you are happy switching systems or adding a Z to your DSLR that’s fine with me but my D850 does everything I need it to do and it’s capable of shooting moving subjects unlike the Z system, as long as your happy that’s all that matters

-- hide signature --

“Perhaps if you removed some clothing . “
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lickitysplit11111/

 lickity split's gear list:lickity split's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +11 more
Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 4,745
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

lickity split 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

Well if the two or three of you are happy switching systems or adding a Z to your DSLR that’s fine with me but my D850 does everything I need it to do and it’s capable of shooting moving subjects unlike the Z system, as long as your happy that’s all that matters

Let's face it, the D850 is about the apex of what could be expected from a full-frame Digital SLR - there is not much photography-wise that it is not excellent for.

In a similar way, there was not much scope for advancement from my Dynax 7 analogue film camera - I still use it and it is as good today as when it was made around 20 years ago. However, I do shoot other stuff as well (medium format, digital SLR and mirrorless) - it is all great kit.

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images

avalvo Senior Member • Posts: 1,678
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
1

It is a simple fact that high performing lenses in Z or F mount are large.  And, unless you are at the very wide wide end, the performance difference is not all the much.  A lens like the Sigma 40MM art in F mount proved out this point a while back.  It is big and perfect and costs no where near what a Z mount lens would.  The closest compare would be the 50MM 1.2 in Z.  Again, big, large and perfect.

Mirrorless has other benefits.  I would not count small FF bodies among them.  The large lenses need a proper body.   In time those bodies will grow.

The future is no doubt headed to MLC, but we are just now seeing the tech get to a place where it achieves all that a DSLR can and more.

Of all the formats, FF was the last that was ripe for MLC tech.  MLC worked well in M43 because the ground up development of the mount and smaller sensor lent itself to some unique advantages.  Among those where high quality lenses, a true balance of size between lenses and bodies,  some interesting tech for the sensors, and great IBIS.  Some of this still holds true today, especially at the long end.

MLC also worked good in MF where Fujj used it to reduce the size of large MF bodies and democratize the format for more mainstream use.  This has largely been a real success because the benefits are obvious.

 avalvo's gear list:avalvo's gear list
Nikon D850 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Fujifilm GFX 100
lickity split
lickity split Veteran Member • Posts: 6,170
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

VBLondon 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 ?

The Z is still lighter, and a little shorter. See below.

The Z package is 1500g, the G package 1900g, the E package 2075g. See

https://camerasize.com/compact/#861.901,718.327,718.479,ha,t

Thank you posting this

-- hide signature --

“Perhaps if you removed some clothing . “
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lickitysplit11111/

 lickity split's gear list:lickity split's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads