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

[ClaudiusTheGod]

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

Pentax Kmount is FF, so I think it’s a valid comparison despite KP being an APSC body, if we are comparibg camera+lens depth.

For camera bodies, APS-C can be smaller than FF even when they use a FF mount. Simply because what’s behind the Mount is smaller. Smaller mirror, mirror box, sensor, viewfinder prism/Penta mirror. Proof in the DX vs FX lines where the DX are all a little smaller even where other engineering features are aligned (e.g. D500 & D850) and when ergonomic design will be keeping things ‘hand’ size.

But flange distance do not change for APSC DSLR using an FF mount, hence depth of camera+FF lens combination would be similar between FF DSLR and APSC DSLR.

yeah the distance from the mount to the sensor is the same, and so mirror boxes and whatever is niether here nor there, but, it the size of the sensor means the lens can be a LITTLE bit smaller.

e g the Nikon DX 35 1.8 is smaller thane the FX 35 1.8

yes they dont have similar fields of view, but if you only had an apsc camera then those are the lenses for THAT field of view.

No doubt a DX 35 1.4 could be smaller than the FX 35 1.4

Look at the wide zooms like the 10mm-24mm 3.5-4.5, imagine how large they would be to cover full frame at those focal lengths.

So even though the distance remains the same, the smaller sensor could have led and does soemtimes lead to smaller lenses.

Why there aren't so many apsc dslr small lenses is another matter and something to do with the marketplace rather than impossibility.

Please note I qualified the combination for comparison as camera+FF lens. I’m a Pentax shooter, so I own both FF and APSC lenses and know some APSC lenses are indeed smaller, but that’s not basis of my support for OP’s comparison.

yes you are quite right and I completely agree with you, and, I was hasty to have written all that and shanghaing your post out of context.

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

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?

Let the customer decide what they prefer - an optically perfect, 400g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600, or a somewhat flawed 200g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $200.

If I need razor sharp corners at f/1.8 (e.g., astro photography, museum painting reproduction in low light, what else?), I would spend money for the larger and heavier, but better corrected lens.

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

 

[Bob A L]

[No message]

 

[Hasa]

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?

Let the customer decide what they prefer - an optically perfect, 400g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600, or a somewhat flawed 200g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $200.

If I need razor sharp corners at f/1.8 (e.g., astro photography, museum painting reproduction in low light, what else?), I would spend money for the larger and heavier, but better corrected lens.

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

But I agree that they are fine for landscapes, however for people or even for landscapes, sometimes I want to isolate a single branch or person from the background, so I "need" a sharp F1.8 and why not with stabilization for those moments at light night parties or late night landscapes. Got the TAmron 45mm F1.8 recently and it is brilliant BUT the Nikon is lighter, stabilized on a Z-body and same price, see THAT is progress from Nikon.

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

Let the customer decide what they prefer - an optically perfect, 400g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600, or a somewhat flawed 200g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $200.

If I need razor sharp corners at f/1.8 (e.g., astro photography, museum painting reproduction in low light, what else?), I would spend money for the larger and heavier, but better corrected lens.

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

But I agree that they are fine for landscapes, however for people or even for landscapes, sometimes I want to isolate a single branch or person from the background, so I "need" a sharp F1.8

I have Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 for just that...

 

[Holger Bargen]

Holger Bargen wrote: But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

People who aren't competent enough to use a DSLR like the "training wheels" of having a Live Histogram in the viewfinder.

It is normal for me to work with histograms - but I don't need them in the viewfinder!

The viewfinder is for finding the best crop, setting the focus correctly - and maybe communicating with the object - that's it!

Everything else is a source of distraction a photographer should avoid. A histogram is a very important tool for the photographer - and everybody should use it. But use the triple histogram with a signal for red, green and blue separately - everything else is of no important as you may cut a signal form one of those signals if you trust the general one.

The next thing is that the histograms display the signal for the JPGs - this is an information of limited use for a photographer. A photographer will shoot RAW - and he will make the final settings in post-processing. For this reason a processed signal in the EVF or wherever is almost useless.

Are you satisfied with the setting the JPG machine of a camera - no matter if DSLR or MILC offers? Why accepting this limit?

Everybody has the monitor at the back of the camera and immediately after the photo you get the processed signal of the photo - that's enough to get a rough idea what the RAW will offer. The rest is work at the computer.

A camera is not a toy but a tool. I hope you can turn off all these useless information in the EVF to find back to unbiased and undisturbed view on your object - to find back to photography (or find it for the first time(!

Best regards

Holger

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.

 

[Hasa]

Let the customer decide what they prefer - an optically perfect, 400g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600, or a somewhat flawed 200g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $200.

If I need razor sharp corners at f/1.8 (e.g., astro photography, museum painting reproduction in low light, what else?), I would spend money for the larger and heavier, but better corrected lens.

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

But I agree that they are fine for landscapes, however for people or even for landscapes, sometimes I want to isolate a single branch or person from the background, so I "need" a sharp F1.8

I have Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 for just that...

Sony/Zeiss @ 900 $ Amazing! I got the Tamron 45mm F1.8 that is stabilized @600$ Let us see if the Nikon Z 50mm is better or worse @ $600. We live in exciting times. More gadgets - more hope.

 

[Hasa]

Let the customer decide what they prefer - an optically perfect, 400g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600, or a somewhat flawed 200g 50mm f/1.8 lens for $200.

If I need razor sharp corners at f/1.8 (e.g., astro photography, museum painting reproduction in low light, what else?), I would spend money for the larger and heavier, but better corrected lens.

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

But I agree that they are fine for landscapes, however for people or even for landscapes, sometimes I want to isolate a single branch or person from the background, so I "need" a sharp F1.8

I have Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 for just that...

Sony/Zeiss @ 900 $ Amazing! I got the Tamron 45mm F1.8 that is stabilized @600$ Let us see if the Nikon Z 50mm is better or worse @ $600. We live in exciting times. More gadgets - more hope.

Just testing with the D7200 APS-C. The lens fits on both Nikon FF and APS-C.







--
Smile and the world smiles back!

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

Just testing with the D7200 APS-C. The lens fits on both Nikon FF and APS-C.

The color balance looks way off...

--
http://www.zodiacphoto.com

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.

Correct - and with landscapes, you have to choose between softness from diffraction vs. softness from limited DOF - or use focus stacking, if time allows.

 

[Hasa]

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.

The hard and fast rule is that diffration becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.

What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down and for this particular nice 55mm F1.8 Sony/Zeiss lens you will see decreasing sharpness in the middle already past F5.6, so good luck getting sharp images with that 50mm @ F16.

In the same line of facts I tend to shoot my Laowa 12mm @ F8 to get the best obtainable edge-to-edge sharpness for that particular lens.

Some F1.4 lenses will actually reach peak sharpness across the image @F4.

My Tamron 45mm F1.8 displays a small drop past F8 and a marked drop in sharpness past F11. Accordingly I should do some focus stacking if getting everything in focus is my objective for a landscape shot.













--
Smile and the world smiles back!

 

[Holger Bargen]

For my real needs (landscapes mostly), I close the lens to f/8 - f/16, and at these apertures those simple lenses become nearly perfect from corner to corner!

Splitting hairs maybe but diffraction sets in at F13 on a 50 mm and is significant at F16.

Actually, diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens. Its effect is minor compared to aberrations at wider apertures but is always there. The point at which the effect of diffraction becomes an important factor depends on many things - there is no hard and fast f-stop at which it becomes significant.

Correct - and with landscapes, you have to choose between softness from diffraction vs. softness from limited DOF - or use focus stacking, if time allows.

Softness from diffraction can be corrected easily (deconvolution) - missing DOF can't be created in post-processing. Where diffraction sets in to become a source of blur that influences IQ in an adverse way depends on the pixel density of the sensor. A small sensor has usually a higher pixel density than a FF or medium format sensor (but it depends). It is also important what' your object. Some objects live from wide areas as graphical structures where you don't need finest details but the entire range of this object within DOF. But maybe finest structures are just the aim of your photo and you will have to control any source of blur.

 

[Hasa]

Just testing with the D7200 APS-C. The lens fits on both Nikon FF and APS-C.

The color balance looks way off...

Yes it is patchy at best LOL But I blame the plant this time.

--
Smile and the world smiles back!

 

[Tom_N]

Just testing with the D7200 APS-C. The lens fits on both Nikon FF and APS-C.

The color balance looks way off...

Maybe it's a photo of an Easter egg or Jelly bean plant …

 

[Hasa]

Just testing with the D7200 APS-C. The lens fits on both Nikon FF and APS-C.

The color balance looks way off...

Maybe it's a photo of an Easter egg or Jelly bean plant …

Believe it or not: it is a climber my wife has planted in our garden. She is also blown away by the colors and decoration with the black dots. I have used it for testing stabilization with the 300mm F4 PF. It is very easy to see if the dots are sharp or there is shake. ooooohhh maybe she planted the climber in a bunny suit?

--
Smile and the world smiles back!

 

[Krav Maga]

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

Why? The size and weight of a camera with lenses is way down my list of concerns when talking about the general size and weight of your average FF ILC. Furthermore, the features inherent with ML is far more than the size of lenses or the camera itself.

Hell, I'd rather Nikon had sacrificed a few grams to add a second card slot.

But that's me.

 

[FrancoD]

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

Good points well made.

I would also add that IBIS on FF demands lenses project a larger image circle with high quality right out to the edges. Nikon would have been engineering around the limitations of the F Mount here with the image circles on its F Mount circles. This is probably why we hear that converted lenses will only have roll IBIS as this doesn’t need a bigger image circle. Z Mount removes these limitations and we should expect them to take full advantage of this in the optics they produce.

However lenses that have a larger image circle will inevitably have to be larger as well.

One step forward. One step back?

Something like that.

Or, rather, the association I get - but that’s more from the users than from the lens design - is more like “(When in doubt,) run in circles, scream and shout”.

Regards, Mike

You can't get 3D viewing from one ocular. That is why binos look more like what we see with our eyes compared to one VF.

 

[Paul Pasco]

1. Ynigelht wrote:

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.

Apparently.

 

[PhotoFactor]

Holger Bargen wrote: But what's the key point of mirrorless - if not size?

People who aren't competent enough to use a DSLR like the "training wheels" of having a Live Histogram in the viewfinder.

It is normal for me to work with histograms - but I don't need them in the viewfinder!

The viewfinder is for finding the best crop, setting the focus correctly - and maybe communicating with the object - that's it!

Everything else is a source of distraction a photographer should avoid. A histogram is a very important tool for the photographer - and everybody should use it. But use the triple histogram with a signal for red, green and blue separately - everything else is of no important as you may cut a signal form one of those signals if you trust the general one.

The next thing is that the histograms display the signal for the JPGs - this is an information of limited use for a photographer. A photographer will shoot RAW - and he will make the final settings in post-processing. For this reason a processed signal in the EVF or wherever is almost useless.

Are you satisfied with the setting the JPG machine of a camera - no matter if DSLR or MILC offers? Why accepting this limit?

Everybody has the monitor at the back of the camera and immediately after the photo you get the processed signal of the photo - that's enough to get a rough idea what the RAW will offer. The rest is work at the computer.

A camera is not a toy but a tool. I hope you can turn off all these useless information in the EVF to find back to unbiased and undisturbed view on your object - to find back to photography (or find it for the first time(!

Best regards

Holger

Your modes of operation are not everybody else's.