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

[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

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.

While that is true enough, I am not quite sure what prompted you to bring that up as a response to what I wrote?

Regards, Mike

 

[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.

While that is true enough, I am not quite sure what prompted you to bring that up as a response to what I wrote?

Regards, Mike

neither do I...

I probably had two pages open at the same time. On one thread someone mentioned that he prefered looking through his Swarowski binos than through a VF.

 

[Martin.au]

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.

While that is true enough, I am not quite sure what prompted you to bring that up as a response to what I wrote?

Regards, Mike

neither do I...

I probably had two pages open at the same time. On one thread someone mentioned that he prefered looking through his Swarowski binos than through a VF.

Cool. I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for the explanation. It was very random.

 

[beatboxa]

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.

Those "big lenses" have very high quality--higher quality than their DSLR equivalents.

Mirrorless gives you the option. The system can offer higher quality optics than DSLR, or smaller size than DSLR. Doesn't mean both concurrently always in every case. That's the point.

"The advantage of a ML" that you listed is your subjective opinion. That's not "the advantage" for everything and everyone. Don't try to oversimplify everything, and use a bit of logic.

 

[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

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.

While that is true enough, I am not quite sure what prompted you to bring that up as a response to what I wrote?

Regards, Mike

neither do I...

I probably had two pages open at the same time. On one thread someone mentioned that he prefered looking through his Swarowski binos than through a VF.

Ah - I see. I know which thread you mean; I was reading that, too, but didn’t quite make the connection - that’s why it didn’t look completely out of place to me

Regards, Mike

 

[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.

The hard and fast rule is that diffraction becomes more important as you close the diaphragm.

That's exactly what I said ...

Maybe you can show me a lens where it does not happen or the opposite is true? It would be interesting.

Of course I can't - to repeat what I wrote above "diffraction sets in a the widest aperture on any lens".

Diffraction is an effect caused by the edges of apertures; the smaller the aperture the greater the effect. So a perfectly corrected lens would have its peak resolution at maximum aperture. However, all lenses also suffer from aberrations of various types caused b the curvature of the glass. Curvature is steepest at the edges of the lens so aberrations are worst wide open.

The result is typically what these charts show - resolution wide open is reduced by aberrations and is (relatively) low; the effect of diffraction is tiny wide open and has negligible effect. On first stopping down the effect of aberrations reduces while the effect of diffraction is still small so resolution improves; but on stopping down further diffraction gets progressively stronger and resolution falls away.

What surprised me was that diffraction sets in so early while stopping down

As I said, it doesn't "cut in" there. The better corrected a lens is the less effect aberrations have so the effect of diffraction jut becomes visible earlier.

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.

Red Holger's post about that https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61557269

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.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com

[email protected]

 

[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

Your modes of operation are not everybody else's.

Maybe not. There good reasons to follow this way. RAW gives you much more options than you have with JPGs - and it is impossible to use all the options of a RAW file in an optimal way with the JPG machine of a camera in the field. JPG shooters will always come home with second best.

The reason for the explaination of my way of doint photography was the more or less hidden critisim that people who don't see advantages of mirrorless don't have knowledge about photography. My impression is the oposite: People who praise MILC over DSLR often don't even know the options DSLR cameras give to them and they praise their cameras for things that are not important or not even existing.

MILC may help you to leave the field with better JPGs - but if high end is your aim you will hardly use JPG and neglect the the options RAW give to you.

Of course I can shoot RAW with MILC cameras - but all the information you have in the display and that may distraction from your object and the true aim of your photography is useless if you shoot RAW and your general settings for a location were checked for a few test shoots at the camera monitor.

The discussion about DSLR or MILC has reached fan-boy niveau - and we all should try not to become hooligans ...

Best regards

Holger

 

[tassienick]

MILC may help you to leave the field with better JPGs - but if high end is your aim you will hardly use JPG and neglect the the options RAW give to you.

Of course I can shoot RAW with MILC cameras - but all the information you have in the display and that may distraction from your object and the true aim of your photography is useless if you shoot RAW and your general settings for a location were checked for a few test shoots at the camera monitor.

What are you even talking about? Countless mirrorless shooters use RAW exclusively, and to great effect. Have you ever actually shot RAW on a properly set up mirrorless body?

The discussion about DSLR or MILC has reached fan-boy niveau - and we all should try not to become hooligans ...

You're right...

 

[tbcass]

Your comparison is disingenuous because you are comparing a small APSC camera with a FF one. I will add that many people do not consider small size an advantage but actually may be a disadvantage.

The primary advantages of Mirrorless have little to do with size. The advantage is eliminating the flipping mirror which opens the door to on sensor PDAF with it's extremely wide coverage along with full time live view with an eye level EVF. It allows using an electronic shutter with very high frame rates while using the eye level viewfinder. It allows silent shooting. It is better suited for video. If none of those things matter to you than FF mirrorless is not for you.

--
Tom

 

[agukha]

Your comparison is disingenuous because you are comparing a small APSC camera with a FF one. I will add that many people do not consider small size an advantage but actually may be a disadvantage.

The primary advantages of Mirrorless have little to do with size. The advantage is eliminating the flipping mirror which opens the door to on sensor PDAF with it's extremely wide coverage along with full time live view with an eye level EVF. It allows using an electronic shutter with very high frame rates while using the eye level viewfinder. It allows silent shooting. It is better suited for video. If none of those things matter to you than FF mirrorless is not for you.

 

[Dr_Love]

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.

The point is to have both bigger and smaller lenses so that everyone can get what they need. Keep in mind you can't change the physics of measurement and light. So you can have fast, small, af but you generally only get to pick 2 out of the 3

 

[tbcass]

Your comparison is disingenuous because you are comparing a small APSC camera with a FF one. I will add that many people do not consider small size an advantage but actually may be a disadvantage.

The primary advantages of Mirrorless have little to do with size. The advantage is eliminating the flipping mirror which opens the door to on sensor PDAF with it's extremely wide coverage along with full time live view with an eye level EVF. It allows using an electronic shutter with very high frame rates while using the eye level viewfinder. It allows silent shooting and It is better suited for video with the [eye level viewfinder, implied]. If none of those things matter to you than FF mirrorless is not for you.

Why is it better for video ?

(and you didn't read the thread, reflex can do PDAF, fast electronic shutter (1/24000 on a KP for example) and silent shooting as well, using liveview)

And you didn't read my post thoroughly. I said with an Eye Level Viewfinder. For many people, myself included, we use the LCD rarely and only when absolutely necessary. The ability to use the eye level viewfinder is a make or break situation for a full sized camera IMO!!!!! No Viewfinder, I don't want it. The only camera I own without one is my pocket sized RX100 and that's not used for serious photography. For everything else it's EVF 95% of the time. I will add there are a lot of people who want an OVF so no mirrorless for them.

 

[Basket Case]

You can’t win. Here we have complaints of the sheer size of the lenses, yet in other posts we hear complaints that is truly not a system for serious photographers given the new lenses are f/1.8 and f/4 instead of f/1.4 and f/2.8.

D

WRONG.

f/1.4 lenses that are small and light would address both of those complaints.

However, Nikon CHOSE to make the lenses f/1.8 AND big & fat.

And to add insult to injury, released them with laughable prosumer bodies. Well, at least they have the shame to disclose that a pro body is in the works, so all is not lost.

 

[Tom_N]

Mirrorless … is better suited for video.

Why is it better for video ?

On a MILC, the viewfinder doesn't black out during recording.

You might also have IBIS with roll stabilization – something that technically could be in a DSLR body, but that seems unlikely to show up in Canon or Nikon DSLRs any time soon. Ability to use EVF (better handholding technique) + better stabilization (in that aspect) = handheld videos with less unwanted camera movement.

As far as video picture quality for a DSLR and MILC with the same sensor, both mounted on tripods – no, there is no reason to think that the MILC would perform better there.

 

[nuke12]

What's the point to mirrorless if it's only goal is to be small?

 

[mosswings]

You can’t win. Here we have complaints of the sheer size of the lenses, yet in other posts we hear complaints that is truly not a system for serious photographers given the new lenses are f/1.8 and f/4 instead of f/1.4 and f/2.8.

D

WRONG.

f/1.4 lenses that are small and light would address both of those complaints.

However, Nikon CHOSE to make the lenses f/1.8 AND big & fat.

And to add insult to injury, released them with laughable prosumer bodies. Well, at least they have the shame to disclose that a pro body is in the works, so all is not lost.

AND with extremely high levels of optical performance.

You can make extremely tiny lenses with impressive sounding f-numbers - that compensate for the optical compromises needed to do so with heavy software correction. u4/3 did that. Series 1 didn't do that, and the internet raked Nikon over the coals for the huge CX mount.

What Nikon didn't do is very clearly state why its "slow" lenses were so big and cost so much, and bang the you-tubers over the heads with it until they got it. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now we've got caffeinated bloggers making asine comments based on no information.

Take a closer look at what Nikon put into these first 3 lenses. All of their best technologies - nano-coating, ED, brand-new optical designs - these would be gold ring lenses if they were in f-mount.

Nikon's aiming at something different than small and light here. It's their marketing director that should be fired.

 

[robblackett]

You can’t win. Here we have complaints of the sheer size of the lenses, yet in other posts we hear complaints that is truly not a system for serious photographers given the new lenses are f/1.8 and f/4 instead of f/1.4 and f/2.8.

D

WRONG.

f/1.4 lenses that are small and light would address both of those complaints.

However, Nikon CHOSE to make the lenses f/1.8 AND big & fat.

And to add insult to injury, released them with laughable prosumer bodies. Well, at least they have the shame to disclose that a pro body is in the works, so all is not lost.

AND with extremely high levels of optical performance.

You can make extremely tiny lenses with impressive sounding f-numbers - that compensate for the optical compromises needed to do so with heavy software correction. u4/3 did that. Series 1 didn't do that, and the internet raked Nikon over the coals for the huge CX mount.

What Nikon didn't do is very clearly state why its "slow" lenses were so big and cost so much, and bang the you-tubers over the heads with it until they got it. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now we've got caffeinated bloggers making asine comments based on no information.

Take a closer look at what Nikon put into these first 3 lenses. All of their best technologies - nano-coating, ED, brand-new optical designs - these would be gold ring lenses if they were in f-mount.

Nikon's aiming at something different than small and light here. It's their marketing director that should be fired.

Could that be part of the problem with mirrorless - no one seems to agree what it's supposed to be? And of course it can be different things to different people but that just seems to p**s the others off.

 

[mosswings]

You can’t win. Here we have complaints of the sheer size of the lenses, yet in other posts we hear complaints that is truly not a system for serious photographers given the new lenses are f/1.8 and f/4 instead of f/1.4 and f/2.8.

D

WRONG.

f/1.4 lenses that are small and light would address both of those complaints.

However, Nikon CHOSE to make the lenses f/1.8 AND big & fat.

And to add insult to injury, released them with laughable prosumer bodies. Well, at least they have the shame to disclose that a pro body is in the works, so all is not lost.

AND with extremely high levels of optical performance.

You can make extremely tiny lenses with impressive sounding f-numbers - that compensate for the optical compromises needed to do so with heavy software correction. u4/3 did that. Series 1 didn't do that, and the internet raked Nikon over the coals for the huge CX mount.

What Nikon didn't do is very clearly state why its "slow" lenses were so big and cost so much, and bang the you-tubers over the heads with it until they got it. Unfortunately, they didn't, and now we've got caffeinated bloggers making asine comments based on no information.

Take a closer look at what Nikon put into these first 3 lenses. All of their best technologies - nano-coating, ED, brand-new optical designs - these would be gold ring lenses if they were in f-mount.

Nikon's aiming at something different than small and light here. It's their marketing director that should be fired.

Could that be part of the problem with mirrorless - no one seems to agree what it's supposed to be? And of course it can be different things to different people but that just seems to p**s the others off.

For that we can blame the u4/3 folks, who planted the mirrorless = small and light equation in people's heads. There were 4 components to that, in rough priority order: smaller sensor, software-corrected lenses, no mirror, and prioritize small physical size over operability.

What we've seen over the past few years is that if you want to push optical quality and operability higher, you have to give on size and weight - optically superior lenses require better and more glass, which is heavier - and operability requires properly-sized bodies that can handle that bigger glass.

Manufacturers haven't let on to that nasty little secret of physics. What Nikon screwed up is that its marketing didn't own this. They should have said "optical performance better than anything you've seen before".

On the other hand, the Z6/7 are about the size of a D5600. If that isn't small and light - especially for a FF camera - I don't know what is.

 

[Holger Bargen]

MILC may help you to leave the field with better JPGs - but if high end is your aim you will hardly use JPG and neglect the the options RAW give to you.

Of course I can shoot RAW with MILC cameras - but all the information you have in the display and that may distraction from your object and the true aim of your photography is useless if you shoot RAW and your general settings for a location were checked for a few test shoots at the camera monitor.

What are you even talking about? Countless mirrorless shooters use RAW exclusively, and to great effect. Have you ever actually shot RAW on a properly set up mirrorless body?

If you have a histogram in your EVF - is it based on JPG or based on RAW? Is it greyscales only or do you have the triple colour chanel information?

The discussion about DSLR or MILC has reached fan-boy niveau - and we all should try not to become hooligans ...

You're right...

 

[TeddyD]

Only? Wait a while there comes adapters soon and every FF and MF lens ever made anywhere for whatever brand or whatever mount for a camera with or without a mirror fit's to any of the Nikon Zzzz's

Teddy