Why are FF Mirrorless, bigger, heavier and cost more than DSLRs?

[beagle100]

hahahaha .. right, yup.

I ran across this article which shows just that with FF cameras with a video !!

from the above link:

so flame away !!

Ha ha ... yup .... the big heavy mirrorless ... !!!

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[petrochemist]

I'm sure the actual figures will depend significantly on what options are used to build up the kit. the title doesn't exactly suggest the budget options where being considered!
Even sticking with the choices they've made Mirrorless (Sony A) comes out lightest.

Actually, if you watched/listened to the video you would find out that they did use budget options.

From the bit of the video I have seen (I got bored with it) He claimed to selected the best in each range except for the odd ones which were too big/expensive. Nikons latest 70-200 being an example where the older model was considerably cheaper & 'good enough'. If it's not PURELY the best/most expensive it shows bias in selecting which ones to drop down on.
The choice of a 5 lens kit seemed excessive top me especially when the 85mm 1.4 was an option not present for Canon or Pentax, and alternatives had to be substituted.

The cheapest FF kit appeared to be as a separate video done earlier. In any event a simple comparison of DSLR vs Mirrorless doesn't work if based on mostly the most expensive kit.

 

[astroNikon]

I'm sure the actual figures will depend significantly on what options are used to build up the kit. the title doesn't exactly suggest the budget options where being considered!
Even sticking with the choices they've made Mirrorless (Sony A) comes out lightest.

Actually, if you watched/listened to the video you would find out that they did use budget options.

From the bit of the video I have seen (I got bored with it) He claimed to selected the best in each range except for the odd ones which were too big/expensive. Nikons latest 70-200 being an example where the older model was considerably cheaper & 'good enough'. If it's not PURELY the best/most expensive it shows bias in selecting which ones to drop down on.
The choice of a 5 lens kit seemed excessive top me especially when the 85mm 1.4 was an option not present for Canon or Pentax, and alternatives had to be substituted.

The cheapest FF kit appeared to be as a separate video done earlier. In any event a simple comparison of DSLR vs Mirrorless doesn't work if based on mostly the most expensive kit.

That's true
that's why we're waiting on your truly unbiased video analysis of this.

that's why I said "flame away" in the original post.
any analysis & result will get bashed by someone no matter what.

 

[petrochemist]

That's true
that's why we're waiting on your truly unbiased video analysis of this.

that's why I said "flame away" in the original post.
any analysis & result will get bashed by someone no matter what.

I believe I detect a hint of sarcasm, but I have no real axe to grind in this. I don't have a FF digital, and don't expect one on the horizon either.
I do find the idea of doing a video entitled 'What is the most expensive full frame camera set?' and then EXCLUDING options because they are too expensive to be totally bizarre.
I personally don't see why a photographer would be interested in the most expensive model instead expecting a preference for the best kit available within budget. I'd think the video was aimed more at those who like to have the flashiest gear hanging round their neck yet never actually use it.
Having the data from the video presented tabulated in a blog so that more realistic subset of the listed kit (or with items replaced where appropriate) can be compared would I think make it much more practical to make comparisons.

I'm not surprised Pentax worked out the cheapest, but don't really see any other conclusions that can be draw n from this flawed data set.

If I was to be buying a set-up along the lines of his set, I'd consider using Canon lenses on the Sony A body, which I'm sure would reduce the price considerably even with the added purchase of an all electronic adapter. (Unfortunately I don't think those are available for Nikon lenses)

 

[fmw]

Have opinions gotten more expensive than a dime a dozen?

 

[Gary A.]

Since "FF" is not necessary for great photography, it seems silly to put it in a big, heavy mirrorless. It defeats the advantages of mirrorless.

As a general rule/assumption, weight equals better build (typically metal over plastic). For what I shoot, (mainly candid people, action, low light, (little architecture and little landscapes), and how I shoot. (crop in-camera no or very little cropping in post), there is no magic or advantages in FF. For me the, the differences between FF and APS-C is merely lens selection.

Additionally, weight and size are not the only advantages of mirrorless. I find the EVF wonderful, far more useful than an optical viewfinder and the ability to adapt nearly any lens ever made is also a significant advantage.

All else being equal, I would pick mirrorless over mirror.

 

[fmw]

I agree with all of that, Gary. There is a low light advantage to FF but I don't think it is all that big a deal. I know how to do low light photography and it doesn't require a special camera or lens. My last FF camera used 35mm film. I started the digital age with Nikon DX and never once had the motivation to go larger. A 12mp or denser APS-C sensor will do ANYTHING an amateur needs to do and anything most pros do as well. For those interested in what a pro can do with an APS-C sensor on a mirroless camera click here.

 

[tim.bennett]

Well this turmed into FF vs APS-C discussion fast.

I love my DD camera and I'm happy I made the choice. Have shot great images on m43 and APS-C but FF has a lens selection advantage for me. If APS-S was a option for me it would be a dedicated system like Fuji.

Back to the main event, I don't think the mirrorless cameras are that much smaller for full frame. That's not the argument to having a full frame mirror less is it?

My d610 with 35mm isn't big and like the a7 doesn't fit in my pocket.

 

[jaomul]

I think that the micro four thirds system which originally took the sensor size from an established dslr range is the only set up that has the size advantage, the m zuiko lenses are tidy even in comparison to the original four thirds options. Olympus took a mirror camera and gave similar image quality without the mirror, and reduced overall size without sacrificing quality.

All other manufacturers done something similar, but if you reduce a small four thirds lens by 50g and 15mm it can make it real small and there is a noticeable advantage. Reduce a large ff lens by 50g and in real use it doesn't make you think how much more convenient it is over its ff dslr lens set

 

[fmw]

Nobody is suggesting that a full frame camera can't deliver a slightly better image. My issue is that of size and weight. When you reach your 70's there is little motivation to carry all that stuff around. FF is great for younger people than me. Personally, I don't want to deal with it and I don't feel I'm missing anything by not dealing with it. My point wasn't to dismiss full frame. My point was to help understand that it isn't important for good photography. Better? Sure. Important? Not to me.

 

[jaomul]

Nobody is suggesting that a full frame camera can't deliver a slightly better image. My issue is that of size and weight. When you reach your 70's there is little motivation to carry all that stuff around. FF is great for younger people than me. Personally, I don't want to deal with it and I don't feel I'm missing anything by not dealing with it. My point wasn't to dismiss full frame. My point was to help understand that it isn't important for good photography. Better? Sure. Important? Not to me.

The best camera for an individual is the one that suits them most. No point in having a big camera if it's not used

 

[Gary A.]

I still have a lot of FF equipment hanging around ... gathering dust. Whenever I pick-up a 1D with the 70-200 ... my immediate thoughts are OMG, this thing is a tank, in the worst way. I used to haul around two of them all day long ... no wonder my back sends out a protest every time I touch a FF camera.

 

[nerwin]

Meh. I honestly don't care anymore. I'm going to shoot with what I want. Sick and tired of this BS.

They both have their advantages/disadvantages & time and place.

 

[astroNikon]

The 1D and Nikon 5D and other versions of them are huge in comparison to other FF cameras.

D610 - 850g. 141 x 113 x 82 mm
vs
D5 - 1415g. 160 x 158.5 x 92 mm

and a D500 and D7200 DX for comparison
D500 - 860g. 147 x 115 x 81 mm (bigger and heavier than the D610)
D7200 - 765g. 136 x 107 x 76 mm

then you get other comparisons such as this for DX
Nikon D5500 - 420g. 124 x 97 x 70 mm
vs
FujiFilm X-T2 - 507g. 133 x 92 x 49 mm
vs
FujiFilm X-T20 - 383g. 118 x 83 x 41 mm (my favorite)