ILC cameras are getting pretty huge

[Smaug01]

[...]

Nikon made a 24-120 f/4, it is not so big for what it is..

It IS big, I had the 24-120 f/4G before for Nikon F, and now I have the 24-120 f/4S for Nikon Z. I consider them both big and heavy, but as you say, when you consider what they can do, they're amazing.

There would a big difference between a 24-120 f3.5-5.6 and a 24-120f/4, it can be made really smaller/lighter. The aperture size does make a big difference.

You're wrong here. Before the f/4G lens, Nikon made a couple other 24-120s that topped out at f/5.6, and they were still big (not AS big) and not good lenses.

They made the D version from 1996-2002: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120af.htm

...then the follow-up, which was also not good: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm

On topic with this thread, the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6 (124-120 eq.) would have been a great lens for Rambow to have, and on M43, that lens is pretty compact. (not as compact as the 25/1.8 he had, though) It is excellent optically, too.

Here's the pancake zoom I mentioned earlier:

Loading…

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[Supisiche]

[...]

Nikon made a 24-120 f/4, it is not so big for what it is..

It IS big, I had the 24-120 f/4G before for Nikon F, and now I have the 24-120 f/4S for Nikon Z. I consider them both big and heavy, but as you say, when you consider what they can do, they're amazing.

There would a big difference between a 24-120 f3.5-5.6 and a 24-120f/4, it can be made really smaller/lighter. The aperture size does make a big difference.

You're wrong here. Before the f/4G lens, Nikon made a couple other 24-120s that topped out at f/5.6, and they were still big (not AS big) and not good lenses.

They made the D version from 1996-2002: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120af.htm

...then the follow-up, which was also not good: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm

On topic with this thread, the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6 (124-120 eq.) would have been a great lens for Rambow to have, and on M43, that lens is pretty compact. (not as compact as the 25/1.8 he had, though) It is excellent optically, too.

Here's the pancake zoom I mentioned earlier:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used...JmCzMs9bZsNFCRdGewEu9SzaF3IQgm9RoCOlgQAvD_BwE

"the Panasonic 12-60/3.5-5.6 (124-120 eq.)" xD

 

[Smaug01]

[snip]

Sigma fpL with 24mm f/3.5 lens ?

That camera has 61 Megapixels and is quite small. You do need high resolution for architecture. I don't think a phone would do.

Don

Typical phone cams now are 10-12 MP, I believe.

I took some architecture shots the other day with my Nikon Z5 and the 24-120/4S lens at Small resolution, which is (I think) 6 MP. The detail in them is pretty amazing.

If I shot in Large resolution (24 MP) I don't see that anything is lacking unless a fellow is REALLY using too short of a lens for the job.

I wish I had a 24 MP architecture shot handy, but here's a 6 MP one on which to pixel-peep.




Fine architecture, at least for breakfast! Kenosha, WI






Eagles Club, Kenosha, WI



--
-Jeremy
*********
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
-Eric Hofer

 

[pidera]

I recently tried a lot of APS-C and FF mirrorless ILCs in a store (Canon Niko, Panasonic, Sony) and in general found them all just a bit too small, cramped, fiddly. Fwiw, I'm used to Nikon D800 and Fuji X-Pro2. The best ergonomics I ever experienced was on an Olympus E-10 (4/3, not micro 4/3) some 20 yeas ago (never owned one though). I'm not that demanding, I really like the Canon rebel DSLR ergonomics for example. Just my opinion.

Regards, P.

 

[sybersitizen]

There is a need for smaller cameras and the only format that can still do the job with enough IQ is either M43 or the advanced pocket camera.

Sounds like the need is covered. It's also covered by some other options. In my case, it's covered by an advanced pocket camera and a Nikon 1 system. Both have 1" sensors, and both are great for travel.

The RX100M3 with 24-70mm equivalent lens is 10 ounces. If that's not going to be enough, the V3 with 27-270mm equivalent lens is about a pound and a half. Or I could go with an ultrawide zoom or a small, fast prime lens. I have no complaints about size or versatility.

--
PLEASE NOTE: The system causes delays in the timing of my posts and prevents me from replying to private messages.

 

[Bradrobb]

I have 5 Sony cameras I can use.

If I want to go small I can use my RX100 but I find it hard to use because it is small and hard to hold. I did buy it for my wife but she uses her phone now.

I bought the NEX 3 when it first came out and after using DLSR's I thought this is nice and small and light to carry.

I then bought the A5000 and I have to say this is the camera I carry the most for street photography. I have the pancake lens on it. It has WiFi and all the Sony camera apps on it. It also fits in most coat pockets.

I also have my A6000 with 18-105 lens that I carry when I want better photos on the street and for when I am car travelling.

I can also use my A3000 that I bought for my daughter that she does not use. I can carry it when I want to look like I am carrying a DSLR. The screen and viewfinder are bad but it does have a nice sensor in it.

--
I go through life shooting Snap Shots.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradrobb/
2 Million Views on Flickr

 

[Bob A L]

I tend to agree. I recently bought a Nikon Zfc as I finally decided that the only way I would ever know how I feel about mirrorless was to try one. And as I am a died in the wool apsc addict, and that I absolutely loved the controls arrangement added to Nikon having a refurb sale so fell for it.

The physical size of the body is not too bad, and the weight is good, the size of the 16-50mm kit lens is ridiculous. Diameter is big enough to be a f2.8 or better and it is only 3.5-6.3 aperture. The Z mount diameter is also huge I suppose because of the short distance to the sensor, but was a surprise to me when I got it. In comparison to F mount lenses the size difference is amazing. Sure am glad I am using my F mount lenses on the FTZ and wish I had not bought the 16-50.

I much prefer my smaller bodied D models like the D3xxx and D5xxx series's.

But even then I do not carry even the smallest ILC combo's for typical travel and normal day to day use. I only use my dslr's for specific purposes usually dealing with sports with fast movement or action and wildlife. And am sure I would not get along well with the largest of the new mirrorless (I thought small size was one of the main points for mirrorless when they first were proposed)

But used to carry a D1h without even a thought. But that was when I was much younger, and times were so much different. Back then I could pack anything, and was never second guessed as to my intentions if out in public taking photos with a huge camera.

 

[richarddd]

My sense is that there are ILCs in m43, aps-c and FF that are about the same size. Lenses that cover the same angle of view and have the same aperture (not the same f-number) are usually about the same size/weight (although lenses such as the m43 12-100/4 is about the same weight as the Nikon FF 24-200/4-6.3, which has a larger aperture).

It's not clear to me how to get a camera and lens with the same aperture and field of view as the ILCs at a drastically reduced weight.

If you don't need the larger apertures in these formats (for DOF and light-gathering ability), then a non-ILC camera, including a phone, may be the way to go.

 

[BackToNature1]

Some are, some are clearly not. Certainly some of the mirrorless lens are getting smaller. So I am not buying this Story. There has never been a greater selection for everyone concerning Mirrorless. Far better specs also. For that growing number of Hybrid shooters. One can pick small, medium, or large. Mirrorless ILC have you covered.

 

[pidera]

I would happily carry larger ILC's than those generally being made today(don't think that this would necessarily impact their weight that much) but would like them to perform better too. I sometimes wonder how a 5x crop smartphone manages to often do nearly as well as my 24 MP APS-C ILC (a Fujifilm X-Pro2 fwiw), especially in low light conditions requiring some depth of field. So yes there is competition.

Kr, P.

 

[Djehuty]

My understanding is to deal with higher data, you need bigger heatsinks or use fans.

It is inevitable.

 

[pidera]

Fwiw, my Samsung A52 phone has the following camera specs :

1) a 64/16 MP 5.2mm f/1.8 lens with an iso25 sensor (crop factor 5)

2) a 12 MP 1.7mm f/1.8 lens with an iso50 sensor (crop factor 7.65)

Given the crop factor, the respective FF equivalent settings are :

1) 26mm f/9 iso 625

2) 13mm f/17 iso 2925

And the respective equivalent APS-C settings are :

1) 17.33 mm f/6 iso 275

2) 8.66 mm f/11 iso 1300

For fun, I compared the shots taken with my smartphone to those on APS-C with 16mm, 14mm and (defished) 8mm fisheye lenses and with ISO slightly raised (as often happens)... well well, the smartphone comes close in IQ and often delivers a generally more pleasing image. Of course, when out shooting, a 'real' camera is often more fun to use and generally delivers better images when paired to the right lens for the right purpose. But sometimes the Smartphone is simply more convenient.

Kr, P.

Edit : there is also a 2x crop setting on the 5.2mm camera where only the central 16 MP are used. So 52 mm FF equivalent. It also holds up well to, for example, my APS-C with 27mm lens (40 mm FF eq) when iso is raised ...

 

[Mika Y.]

Went to downtown Vienna the other day during my visit and entered a electronics store where they had the most popular formats and models(mostly sony, canon and nikon). Picked up the cameras, played around with them. While the dslrs felt as "traditional" as they ever were, the mirorless bodies, whether apsc or FF all seemed rather huge to me for what they are. The lenses on display were also huge, and i'm not even talking about tele.

From my point of view, the last APS-C DSLR I've had (Canon 40D) seems to weight 822 grams. The APS-C mirrorless (R7) I bought to complement my FF DSLR weights 612 grams.

To me it seems that the trend is not towards huge. Volume-wise there's less difference, but again the newer is somewhat smaller in that way too.

 

[Smaug01]

Went to downtown Vienna the other day during my visit and entered a electronics store where they had the most popular formats and models(mostly sony, canon and nikon). Picked up the cameras, played around with them. While the dslrs felt as "traditional" as they ever were, the mirorless bodies, whether apsc or FF all seemed rather huge to me for what they are. The lenses on display were also huge, and i'm not even talking about tele.

From my point of view, the last APS-C DSLR I've had (Canon 40D) seems to weight 822 grams. The APS-C mirrorless (R7) I bought to complement my FF DSLR weights 612 grams.

To me it seems that the trend is not towards huge. Volume-wise there's less difference, but again the newer is somewhat smaller in that way too.

The lenses seem to be trending differently, though. The trend I'm seeing is this:

• Fast lenses were always huge; still are.
• Now, slow lenses are getting bigger too, since they have to be optically better to not be out-resolved by the ever-bigger sensors

I'm thinking too of small-but-fast primes:

The D-series Nikkors, like a 35/2 or 50/1.8 were pretty compact in the past.

The G-series Nikkors of the same speed got a lot bigger. They were sharper across the frame, but with less distortion correction, since that can easily be done in software. They used better glass too. (ED in places and more APO elements all the time)

The S-series Nikkors are even bigger. (due to the bigger mounts, I guess?)

On the other hand, mfrs are realizing that there's still a market for slow, compact lenses. I think M43 taught them this.

 

[Aaron801]

It seems to me that there are so many differnt types of cameras on the market that the whole "getting huge" doesn't really apply. I shoot m43 as well and I certainly have noticed that there are some really large camera bodies that rival the size of FF ones available. There are really big fast lenses too, but there are bodies and lenses that are also compact. Since the whole mirrorless revolution, full frame camera bodes have of course gotten smaller and because of that and some other innovations the larger format has gotten more popular and has taken more of the market share, which is kind of understandable whether or not it's your own preferred flavor. If course the lenses for this larger format, having to honor the laws of physical haven't really gotten any smaller so the overall size of a kit with lenses is still going to be pretty large and heavy... which is why it's nice the that the m43 format exists for the rest of us who are more interested in traveling light. Maybe this store that you went to caters more to the kind of crowd that is into longer focal length, faster full frame lenses and bodies to match..? That isn't going to be an accurate reflection of what's available though...

 

[Mackiesback]

Went to downtown Vienna the other day during my visit and entered a electronics store where they had the most popular formats and models(mostly sony, canon and nikon). Picked up the cameras, played around with them. While the dslrs felt as "traditional" as they ever were, the mirorless bodies, whether apsc or FF all seemed rather huge to me for what they are. The lenses on display were also huge, and i'm not even talking about tele.

From my point of view, the last APS-C DSLR I've had (Canon 40D) seems to weight 822 grams. The APS-C mirrorless (R7) I bought to complement my FF DSLR weights 612 grams.

To me it seems that the trend is not towards huge. Volume-wise there's less difference, but again the newer is somewhat smaller in that way too.

The lenses seem to be trending differently, though. The trend I'm seeing is this:

• Fast lenses were always huge; still are.
• Now, slow lenses are getting bigger too, since they have to be optically better to not be out-resolved by the ever-bigger sensors

I'm thinking too of small-but-fast primes:

The D-series Nikkors, like a 35/2 or 50/1.8 were pretty compact in the past.

The G-series Nikkors of the same speed got a lot bigger. They were sharper across the frame, but with less distortion correction, since that can easily be done in software. They used better glass too. (ED in places and more APO elements all the time)

The S-series Nikkors are even bigger. (due to the bigger mounts, I guess?)

On the other hand, mfrs are realizing that there's still a market for slow, compact lenses. I think M43 taught them this.

Correct, and the headline is not accurate. Nothing is getting bigger and in many cases bodies are getting smaller. Its the lenses that are getting bigger, mostly in the chase of better performance. Now that you are a Z owner, you have probably researched the S series 1.8 primes. They are all pretty big compared to the D series lenses you listed, but man are they better. For many the trade off is worth it.

A 24mm prime is perfect for car shows for me. I used to lug a D810 with a Sigma 1.4 prime. The I got a Df body and lost some weight there. Then I got a Z6 and lost even more. Then I got the 24mm 1.8 S and lost even more. Now I use a wrist strap, so even though the 24mm Z prime is big, its not that heavy. Nice to be done with neck straps, do not like them.

 

[Smaug01]

(snip)

Then I got a Z6 and lost even more. Then I got the 24mm 1.8 S and lost even more. Now I use a wrist strap, so even though the 24mm Z prime is big, its not that heavy. Nice to be done with neck straps, do not like them.

...but you lost the use of one hand. I tried that with my E-M10.3 and a 35 mm eq. prime, and it gets old after awhile, not being able to use the right hand...

Next step in the weight loss regimen is the upcoming 26/2.8!

 

[PHAER]

Nice shots, Rambow!

That's an interesting point. I remember around 2015 I influenced (helped? Who knows haha) a friend to buy an E-M10 mark 1! She wanted a capable camera for trips and for her work with artisanal soaps. It was on a sale with 3 lenses, including that nice 45mm f1.8. I borrowed it for some weeks and until this day, that camera remains one of the nicest ones I've had in hands, for the ensemble: ergonomics, weight, feeling, IQ. The newer ones must be even better on the IQ and focus.

But I have to agree: even considering that big part of the camera has its sizes not necessarily proportional to the sensor size, it is expected that an ILC camera with a sensor half the size of a FF would be much much, much smaller. Even if that still shows big time on the size of the lenses, it's something that I also notice.

With the advent of the denoising softwares like the ones from dxo, I'm loving to have the rx100 on my pocket, as a daily/short trip camera as alternative to the bulk of the RP with the f2.8 and the telephoto lenses. But that m10 was such a joyyyy to use!

 

[Konrad Hoelzl]

I think they could make cameras quite a bit smaller - but where would you put a normal sized grip on ? - where would you place all these programable functionbuttons ? - where would you put all those fancy scroll wheels?

if you want a camera with a certain number of buttons and wheels and "holdability" its very difficult to make it a lot smaller.

i dont like taking pictures with my smartphone - not only because of the IQ but also because of the handling.

Konrad

 

[Robert Salton]

That's why people prefer their phones, the average person will not carry a 1 kg camera around all day just to take pictures of old buildings and stuff.

Most of these average persons also won't carry a 500g camera around all day long as they usually have a much more lightweight phone already with them thats 'good enough' for taking pictures of their vacation.

If a dedicated camera is to be carried on a trip, it has to provide a significant advantage over a phone thats there anyway and with ever increasing performance of phone cameras it will get ever harder for small sensor platforms to provide that.

Also, miniaturization comes with increasing challenges in ergonomics and is limited by what can be comfortably used by the average human. For me something like the OM-1 is the very minimum but I'd much prefer a larger body. For prolonged use, a well sized and fitting grip is way more important than shaving the last gram or mm off the body.

Again, even with excellent public tranzit, imagine walking around 10-15 km carrying your huge ILC camera just to be able to photograph the landmarks, like any tourist would to.

Don't need to imagine as I did that regularly with so called "Pro" DSLRs, way before mirrorless was even a thing. Compared to them, todays 'huge' ILC cameras really are light and small.

It's not so much the weight of equipment but the means by what it is carried around that has the biggest impact on what can be taken on a trip comfortably.