What's the point to have a ML with only big lenses ?

[tassienick]

I've checked the size of equivalent lense :

This is the focal equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for the Z mount, (and in real life in fact the lens is more closely mounted on the KP), and the hood is making it longer.

I have not found in the comparator the choice to put the 50mm 1.8, which is way smaller !

Yeah, try comparing the Z7 to the K1 + fast fifty though, in a comparison which actually makes sense...

 

[Paul Pasco]

Um, why are you comparing an APS-C body to a FF body?

 

[nigelht]

Um, why are you comparing an APS-C body to a FF body?

 

[nick779]

I suspect the reason the Z lenses are not smaller than they are is because Nikon designed them to uncompromising optical standards so they don’t require the massive amount of in-camera electronic lens corrections (vignetting, distortion, CA), that most m43 lenses rely on to keep them small.

There's only a few of the near hundred mFT lenses that require significant distortion correction and have extremely bad vignetting.

Have you looked at the vignetting and distortion of a few of Sony's lightweight FF primes?

 

[Badwater]

Not having the limitation of the mirror, AF sensor, prism, and fat body, allows for more features like IBIS, faster more accurate AF without the need to calibrate lenses, no black out when bursting, smoother burst panning with AF. Ability to boost the OVF for dark night photography, etc...


These are the things that DSLR shooters will never have because of the mirror system. And these are just a few reasons, people dump DSLR for mirrorless. Size does matter to some, but not all. And for those who like to carry huge heavy gear the options are still available.

 

[nick779]

Not having the limitation of the mirror, AF sensor, prism, and fat body, allows for more features like IBIS, faster more accurate AF without the need to calibrate lenses, no black out when bursting, smoother burst panning with AF. Ability to boost the OVF for dark night photography, etc...

These are the things that DSLR shooters will never have because of the mirror system. And these are just a few reasons, people dump DSLR for mirrorless. Size does matter to some, but not all. And for those who like to carry huge heavy gear the options are still available.

the only thing thats not 100% true is the faster and more accurate af. There isn't a camera on the market that surpasses the d500s caf speed and accuracy but I hope that changes in the coming years

 

[FrancoD]

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses, so why did Nikon offers absolutely none, who is going to buy it ?

Where did you get that from ?

 

[mamallama]

Getting rid of that Rube Goldberg mirror contraption was the main benefit, reducing the size of the camera was just a side benefit.

 

[LightBug]

The new Nikons Z6 and Z7 have only 3 lenses available,

So far

and of the 3, all are enormous lenses !

They are designed for optical excellence, like lenses such as Milvius and Otus from other makers, whereas many other lenses are designed to be smaller by accepting lower optical performance.

Note that the Z bodies themselves are not particularly small, here is a comparison with an APSC reflex, the KP :

That's a silly comparison - why not compare with a 1"-sensor model and make the FF model look huge? The only sensible comparison is like-for-like.

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses,

Why? The mirrorless body is smaller and lighter than the reflex equivalent; but why does that mean lenses should be?

so why did Nikon offers absolutely none, who is going to buy it ?

People who want the perceived advantages of the mirrorless type of camera plus the very high quality of the new glass.

Or people with a set of Nikkor lenses already but want to mount them on a mirrorless boy.

Ok you can use the smaller lenses already existing... but with a mount adapter, making it longer, so putting the same pancake on an reflex, but without adapter is still better.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

It's valid comparison because Kmount is FF mount. K1+lens or Kp+lens will have similar depth.

 

[LightBug]

The new Nikons Z6 and Z7 have only 3 lenses availables, and of the 3, all are enormous lenses !

Note that the Z bodies themselves are not particularly small, here is a comparison with an APSC reflex, the KP :

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses, so why did Nikon offers absolutely none, who is going to buy it ?

Ok you can use the smaller lenses already existing... but with a mount adapter, making it longer, so putting the same pancake on an reflex, but without adapter is still better.

From what I learned in following thread:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Seems like lens design trend is towards well corrected, bigger sized lenses, so given the largish new lens designs, most cameras+new lens designs will be trending bigger.

So if one needs smaller camera+lens combo, then one needs to settle for older/simpler lens designs that are not as well corrected. In that case, DSLR + simpler design lens and MILC + simpler design lens are actually pretty similar in size. Example:

Pentax K-1 + FA 50mm F1.4 => Flange distance + Lens depth = 83.56mm

Sony A7riii + FE 50mm F1.8 => Flange distance + Lens depth = 77.5mm

 

[Tom_N]

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses

Should it?

A shorter registration distance might simplify the design of a wide-angle lens.

There is no reason to expect that normal and telephoto MILC lenses will be much smaller than DSLR ones. Once you get out past a certain point, you don't have to play games in the lens to deal with a long registration distance. The driving factors for lens size become (sensor size, focal length, widest aperture) – factors for which it doesn't matter much whether the body is a DSLR or a MILC.

 

[Mike CH]

Um, why are you comparing an APS-C body to a FF body?

Because it is an imperative to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I thought he expected molehills instead of mountains?

Regards, Mike

 

[Mike CH]

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

 

[Holger Bargen]

Just maybe, size isn't the main reason Nikon is putting out mirrorless.

How about that?

But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

Maybe as everybody wants it as it is hip at the moment?

There are two big ones.

First is a catch all - camera capabilities. Mirrorless has many feature advantages over DSLRs.

At the moment I don't see these advantages. Regarding IQ it should be the same as the process of taking the photo itself is not touched by the technology of the viewfinder - except of mirror-flapping efects that seem to be good controlled by companies that have lots of experience with DSLR.

The viewfinder directly effects my photo at:

The signal I get for my eye. Here we have the difference between the optical system that allows me a direct view on reality itself and the EVF that gives me a picture of the reality in a processed way.

The OVF will always have higher resolution, be true and exact, reflects the realtime situation with out even a tiny time lag.

The EVF misses the advantages of the OVF - but it gives me the option to watch the processed photo I would have after I pressed the shutter. It can lighten dark situations, it can optimize contrast and gives me a more realistic idea about the result I will get after pressing the shutter - as this result is not "real world" but a picture of the real world processed in a defined way.

Not having the mirror is an option I can have at a DSLR, too. It's called LiveView. I don't have the signal at my viewfinder but on the monitor - and there are ways to make a viewfinder signal out of it. These ways are not offered by the camera makers so far but you can buy them as clunky thrid party equipment.

If it comes to AF under good light conditions the processing without the mirror will be faster and more precisely. But it light is sparse the way DSLR cameras do the AF measurements are of advantage.

Watching the scenery through an EVF is much more energy consumeing than looking through an OVF. For the same time of shooting I need more batteries for the mirrorless system and if I don't use a battery grip I will have to do the process of changeing the battery much more often.

These all are technical aspects. But lets look at the process of taking photos and the joy we have with it.

If I am out in the field - let's say I am bird watching - I can sit there, my camera on the tripod and watch the birds for hours through my viewfinder like through a spotting scope if I have a high quality lens and a very good OVF (love my K1!). If I would have a mirrorless camera it would be not like sitting in the nature watching the nature - it would be like sitting in the nature watching TV! That's a huge difference - at least to me. It's same if you shoot people or landscape.

For me photography has a real world part and a virtual computer part. For me both worlds have a clear seperation in time and space. If I am out in the field I am within the reality taking photos of the reality (I am right within at a 100% level). The thoughts are not at the phtos or the things I am going to make out of the photos I am taking - my mind and my body is right within nature - and if the camera takes me out of it I would reagrd it as a bad camera. A good camera becomes part of you and this si something people don't test if they test new equipment and it is maybe a reason why I am still Pentaxian after decades of being a photographer.

The second part is the virtual part at the computer. It is as important to me as taking the photos and it is a same level of joy doing the work - but the situation is clear - at my computer I am within a virtual world giving me pictures of the real world I try to make more beautiful from the RAWs I took home.

I think that many people who argue pro mirrorless don't even have an idea about these almost philosophically concepts that are to me core and essence of photography itself.

Second is a big one. Mirrorless cameras are simpler, and can be more economical to develop and make, which is a huge business advantage for manufacturers.

Yes, that is true. If the system is desgned it allows a cheap way of producing it. A camera with OVVF has to be a precision product with lots of complicated machanical parts close to a 100% level. For an EVF camera it is just important to keep the way between lens and sensor stable and to avoid light to come into this system except through the lens. That's it - for the rest you can put cheap parts together in a very cheap way.

The problem I see as consumer at the moment is: These cheap cameras with cheap design cost as new models about twice of my technically high end Pentax K1!

Thus, at the moment mirrorless is no option. And if you think about my "philosophy of photography" it maybe never will be a way ...

Best regards

Holger

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Not having the limitation of the mirror, AF sensor, prism, and fat body, allows for more features like IBIS, faster more accurate AF without the need to calibrate lenses, no black out when bursting, smoother burst panning with AF. Ability to boost the OVF for dark night photography, etc...

These are the things that DSLR shooters will never have because of the mirror system.

Even though using APS-C was a mistake the DSLR in the OP does, in fact have 5-axis IBIS. And, of course, you mean EVF, not OVF.

And these are just a few reasons, people dump DSLR for mirrorless. Size does matter to some, but not all. And for those who like to carry huge heavy gear the options are still available.

 

[LightBug]

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

 

[D Cox]

Just maybe, size isn't the main reason Nikon is putting out mirrorless.

How about that?

But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

Being able to adapt an enormous variety of lenses. Easy manual focus.

Electronic first curtain shutter and no mirror -- less vibration.

Maybe as everybody wants it as it is hip at the moment?

 

[agukha]

Not having the limitation of the mirror, AF sensor, prism, and fat body, allows for more features like IBIS, faster more accurate AF without the need to calibrate lenses, no black out when bursting, smoother burst panning with AF. Ability to boost the OVF for dark night photography, etc...

These are the things that DSLR shooters will never have because of the mirror system. And these are just a few reasons, people dump DSLR for mirrorless. Size does matter to some, but not all. And for those who like to carry huge heavy gear the options are still available.

It is already said in previous posts, one can use liveview on a reflex to achieve this, IBIS is not new on reflex... Pentax had it since a long time, now with 5-axis stabilisation, some DSLR like the D500 have better AF.

But in liveview reflex can use the same AF mecanism as ML, best of both worlds

No blackout and ability to boost are the only true advantages in your list, but at the cost of delay in the image you see, delay that is no constant by the way, and more limited in resolution than real view.

The advantage of a ML should be to use smaller and lighter lenses, so why did Nikon offers absolutely none, who is going to buy it ?

Where did you get that from ?

It's the number one reason I read from people buying them

"I'm older, I have pain in my back, I don't want to carry big and heavy camera, I don't have enough muscles, etc"

And because I don't see any other big advantages of it, as we saw there are very few decisive advantages on evf over evf.

Ok my example with a APSC camera is not perfect but the difference in size isn't that much. Where the ML cameras can gain a lot is in making smaller lenses (as they already have in Sony systems maybe ?), this is the only case where I see a clear advantage in the philosophy of ML to have smaller/lighter cam.

 

[Richard B99]

You’re frustrated for two reasons.

First, you’ve chosen to compare lens sizes betwee APS-C and FF cameras. Not a good idea...

Second, you’ve bought into the senseless claim that ML must by necessity make everything smaller. This is a baseless claim. ML can make bodies smaller due to the abscence of the mirror box. The absence of the mirror box enables a shorter flange distance, which means that lenses shorter than say 40mm can potentially be made smaller. All other lenses are hardly affected.

Additionally, one driver of lens size that isn’t going away is that (many) photographers expect better and better corrected lenses. This means more complicated designs, meaning larger lenses.

Regards, Mike

 

[Holger Bargen]

Just maybe, size isn't the main reason Nikon is putting out mirrorless.

How about that?

But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

Being able to adapt an enormous variety of lenses. Easy manual focus.

This is true at the moment. The first Sonys were of interest as they brought back life to a lot of old but good lenses.

If every company has their own mount with the short flange the variety of lenses that fit will become sparse, again. And after a long period of stagnation there seem to be a new wave of new lens constructions and designs that are superior to the old ones - not just for mirrorless design.

Electronic first curtain shutter and no mirror -- less vibration.

This was a problem for the first Sony FF cameras - but most camera makers found ways to solve the problem.

If I fear that mirror could have an influence on my photo I work in Live View mode.

Maybe as everybody wants it as it is hip at the moment?