the silliness of small bodies and large lenses

[The_Traveler]

the main reason for transitioning from 'regular' dslrs to small body mirrorless is the SMALLness and all that brings in diminishing of rotational inertia in sports or street photography or just plain portability when dslrs get heavy.

Selling the Sony A series because it links, with adapters, to any lenses is a silly idea, imo. I want lenses that match the small bodies, not weigh them down.

If the Sony A series fixes its current defects and expands its FE line to include 3 or 4 more lenses that would fit my chosen 'kit', then that's my target system.

 

[71M]

The appeal of cameras like the NEX to many people is the sensor-to-flange distance, offering such a choice of older MF lenses.

 

[The_Traveler]

The appeal of cameras like the NEX to many people is the sensor-to-flange distance, offering such a choice of older MF lenses.

A FF mirrorless, but small, camera that functions equivalently to a conventional dslr with a decently complete set of lenses would be a complete market changer. - I think

 

[Derrel]

the main reason for transitioning from 'regular' dslrs to small body mirrorless is the SMALLness and all that brings in diminishing of rotational inertia in sports or street photography or just plain portability when dslrs get heavy.

Selling the Sony A series because it links, with adapters, to any lenses is a silly idea, imo. I want lenses that match the small bodies, not weigh them down.

If the Sony A series fixes its current defects and expands its FE line to include 3 or 4 more lenses that would fit my chosen 'kit', then that's my target system.

The same criticism could be leveled against the new Fuji X-series lenses--they tend to be rather large AND heavy, with all-metal barrels. I've been reading Thom Hogan's "Sansmirror.com" web site for the last couple of months, off and on, and the LENSES, or more specifically the LACK OF lenses is one of the most glaring weaknesses he continually points out as being the biggest problem area for all of the mirrorless systems, from all of the manufacturers. I would agree with you, the LACK of lenses from Sony is a real issue. And I'd agree- big lenses are a pain in the butt.

I dunno...Lew, have you looked into the amazing capabilities of the two new Sony "all-in-one" zoom lens cameras??? Because I have been reading Kirk Tuck's blog, The Visual Science Lab, and I have to say, he's been absolutely thrilled with the new Sony RX system...and I saw a series of pics shot at a Rolling Stones concert with one of the new SOny RX cameras--VERY good images. A good, Zeiss-branded ALL-in-ONE lens that is actually GOOD, no need to change lenses or carry lenses...f/2.8 all the way...large-ish sensor...great video...

 

[vipgraphx]

Problem I see with the RX series is that they IMO are overpriced for what your really get.

 

[JerryLove]

the main reason for transitioning from 'regular' dslrs to small body mirrorless is the SMALLness and all that brings in diminishing of rotational inertia in sports or street photography or just plain portability when dslrs get heavy.

The main reason for whom?

Certainly: the fact that DSLR-sized mirrorless cameras sell flies in the face of that claim.

Maybe what they like is the less expensive lenses afforded by the shorter flange length? Perhaps they like features like focus peeking which are not available on DSLRs? Perhaps they prefer the performance in, say, anti-aliasing? Perhaps they prefer sensor-based stabilization to reduce lens costs (only Sony has an image-stabilized SLR)?

Selling the Sony A series because it links, with adapters, to any lenses is a silly idea, imo. I want lenses that match the small bodies, not weigh them down.

I suspect they though of more people than just you.

Perhaps they thought "You know: some people have a big collection of other lenses making changing bodies a really big deal. If we make a compelling body that will work with existing lenses, as well as opening up new lenses to them, that might ease the fiscal and psychological burden of transitioning"?

Perhaps they thought "You know: there are a lot of specialty lenses which we don't have in our A lineup, and that may be costing us sales to lens line-ups that do have them. Perhaps if we made it possible to use those lenses, it would help us sell bodies and, in turn, our own lenses.

If the Sony A series fixes its current defects and expands its FE line to include 3 or 4 more lenses that would fit my chosen 'kit', then that's my target system.

See thought 2 above. You can adapt those 3-4 lenses from a current line-up in the mean time until sony does.

 

[sashbar]

I think the main driving factor behind mirrorless is the new cheaper technology, including EVF with all it's capabilities, like night vision, magnification, focus peaking, embedded info etc, which will trounce OVF in the near future. A mirrorless is cheaper to manufacture - this is the main factor. We do not feel it yet, because EVF is still cr*p and cameras are still not cheap compared to DSLRs. But it will change.

Size is a bonus but not a straightforward one. You can shrink a camera but you can not shrink photographers hands. As for the lenses, some dedicated mirrorless lenses are indeed much smaller, others are only slightly smaller, but I played with the Oly top mirrorless lately (OMD? - I do not remember the model, the expensive one) - and it's longer zoom was actually disproportionally long. Small in diameter but still very long. Ergonomically I am not impressed to be honest. And that is from the guy who thinks D7100 is ridiculously large and heavy...

so, I am not sure the small size is the valid reason to swap a DSLR for a mirrorless unless it is a really compact one with a fixed lense or a rangefinder kind like FUJI X100s. A "baby" Nikon like d3xxx or d5xxx is actually rather compact and not really expensive. It is not much larger than many mirrorless cameras. But baby DSLRs are not cool, so we swap it for a trendy mirrorless that needs the same bag to carry....

 

[The_Traveler]

And I don't worship my inventory of legacy lenses.

As much in love as I was with the Nikon FF and lenses, once I was faced with a better way to take the pictures I wanted by accepting a small trade-off in IQ, I made what seemed to be an obvious choice. This direction is so completely right for me and the future will determine whether the huge mass of people who would shoot either like I do or small size dSLRs will go that way as they start buying.

Since I have the 24-70 equivalent in an excellent lens and use it shoot 95% of the time, until a system comes along that offers me something more (in the IQ department) I'm set.

 

[Ron Evers]

the main reason for transitioning from 'regular' dslrs to small body mirrorless is the SMALLness and all that brings in diminishing of rotational inertia in sports or street photography or just plain portability when dslrs get heavy.

Selling the Sony A series because it links, with adapters, to any lenses is a silly idea, imo. I want lenses that match the small bodies, not weigh them down.

If the Sony A series fixes its current defects and expands its FE line to include 3 or 4 more lenses that would fit my chosen 'kit', then that's my target system.

The same criticism could be leveled against the new Fuji X-series lenses--they tend to be rather large AND heavy, with all-metal barrels. I've been reading Thom Hogan's "Sansmirror.com" web site for the last couple of months, off and on, and the LENSES, or more specifically the LACK OF lenses is one of the most glaring weaknesses he continually points out as being the biggest problem area for all of the mirrorless systems, from all of the manufacturers. I would agree with you, the LACK of lenses from Sony is a real issue. And I'd agree- big lenses are a pain in the butt.

I dunno...Lew, have you looked into the amazing capabilities of the two new Sony "all-in-one" zoom lens cameras??? Because I have been reading Kirk Tuck's blog, The Visual Science Lab, and I have to say, he's been absolutely thrilled with the new Sony RX system...and I saw a series of pics shot at a Rolling Stones concert with one of the new SOny RX cameras--VERY good images. A good, Zeiss-branded ALL-in-ONE lens that is actually GOOD, no need to change lenses or carry lenses...f/2.8 all the way...large-ish sensor...great video...

Wondering how many lenses he needs to chose from??? Look @ the line-up of native mount lenses for M4/3 cameras. See here:

Micro Four Thirds Lenses - HENNIGArts : Gear

 

[The_Traveler]

I don't know who the 'he' is that you're referring to but if it is me who is he, I use happily an M4/3 with a nice set of fairly fast, not excruciatingly expensive native lenses.
The only reason to ever switch is to get better IQ at the same weight size.

 

[Ron Evers]

I don't know who the 'he' is that you're referring to but if it is me who is he, I use happily an M4/3 with a nice set of fairly fast, not excruciatingly expensive native lenses.
The only reason to ever switch is to get better IQ at the same weight size.

Derrel is refering to Thom Hogan.

 

[sashbar]

The same criticism could be leveled against the new Fuji X-series lenses--they tend to be rather large AND heavy, with all-metal barrels. I've been reading Thom Hogan's "Sansmirror.com" web site for the last couple of months, off and on, and the LENSES, or more specifically the LACK OF lenses is one of the most glaring weaknesses he continually points out as being the biggest problem area for all of the mirrorless systems, from all of the manufacturers.

 

[jaomul]

I recently recommended the m4/3 system in a few threads recently exactly for that reason. Not because it's the best, not because I have one, but because of the performance vs size ratio. Bigger sensors will require bigger lenses relative to smaller sensors, irrelevant of the box it is housed in.

 

[brunerww]

Problem I see with the RX series is that they IMO are overpriced for what your really get.

This may be true for the $2798 RX1 and $698 RX100 point and shoots - but I think Derrel is talking about the $1298 RX10 superzoom - probably the best all-in-one fixed lens still/video camera on the market today.

Most manufacturers would charge $1000 for its 8.3x constant f2.8 Zeiss zoom lens alone. If you look at it that way, they're throwing the camera body in for 300 bucks

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Derrel]

Wondering how many lenses he needs to chose from??? Look @ the line-up of native mount lenses for M4/3 cameras. See here:

Micro Four Thirds Lenses - HENNIGArts : Gear

The lack of lens options is especially glaring in the longer focal lengths. Almost ALL are slow zooms, of f/4.5~5.6, or even worse, f/4.8~6.7 lenses. I see exactly TWO f/2.8 zooms, a Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, and a Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8. The great preponderance of the longer lenses are low-spec'd, very slow zooms. Not many telephoto primes,or is it no telephoto primes? No tilt/shift lenses, not many macro lenses, and of course, the list shown is a hodge-podge of manual focus and AF lenses. The list linked to above is for micro 4/3 format...there ARE other mirrorless formats.

Here's a recent column Thom wrote: The New State of Mirrorless | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

"

• Lenses — Every mount has a different weakness, but they all have a common weakness, too: good telephoto choices, especially performance telephoto.
  • Canon EOS M — Three lenses, not all available in the US. Overall rating: inadequate.
  • Fujifilm X — Nice lineup of primes up to 60mm. Work in progress with zooms. Overall rating: adequate.
  • Nikon 1 (CX) — Quickly gave us a small, basic set, then decided to start putting them in waterproof housings. Overall rating: barely adequate.
  • m4/3 — Plenty of options in primes and zooms and even third party lenses. But basically we're topped off at about 200mm equivalent for high performance optics for the time being. Yes, I know you can stick the old 4/3 lenses on the E-M1 and get reasonable focusing, but this isn't a solution for m4/3, it's a solution for people who have 4/3 lenses (e.g. buy an E-M1 and adapter). Overall rating: more than adequate. Could be great with more and better telephoto options.
  • Samsung — A very nice set of the basics, with promises for more. Overall rating: adequate.
  • Sony E — Hey, everyone took a break while trying to work on FE lenses. Basically Sony built a basic set of lenses, but now has moved on for the time being. Overall rating: adequate.
  • Sony FE — Two great lenses (35mm and 55mm), one mediocre lens (28-70mm f/3.5-5.6), one lens still not shipping everywhere yet (24-70mm f/4). Overall rating: inadequate.