Comparing a Canon EOS R to Canon 6D Mark II. Both full frame, both very close in features, both about $2K, both aimed at the same market....
Canon EOS R Weight: 660g
Canon 6D Mark II: 765g
That mirror box, and the structure around it have a weight cost.
The flange distance in the RF mount is 20mm versus the 44mm for the EF mount. This means many wide angle lenses no longer need a retrofocus adaption for the glass.
This in theory will reduce lens complexity, number of elements, and potential weight and cost. For now though, it looks like the companies are charging a premium instead of passing on the savings.
In your example, you are mixing the the differences between full frame vs crop sensor and somehow relating this to the presence or absence of the mirror box.
I dont really get this posting. You seem to mostly fully confirm my statements.
Or do you really think this meager difference in weight is relevant ? Plus of course my problem with most mirrorless is that they're too flimsy to hold comfortably.
Yes, the shorter flange distance is a theoretical advantage for wide angle lenses.
However in practice I see no shortage of excellent wide angle lenses for SLR. In fact two of the best wide angle lenses I know of, the Nikkor AF-S 24mm f1.8 and the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 ZF, are for SLR, and I couldnt even name equal performers for mirrorless at all.
And wide angle lenses will be retrofocus for mirrorless, too, of course, a lot of times. Thats because people want wide apertures and you cannot geometrically manage that for wide angle lenses with large apertures without retrofocus.
As a simple example, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2 ZM, for the Leica M mount, isnt retrofocus. The Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 ZM however already is a Distagon - which is the name Zeiss gives to their retrofocus lenses. So even at a relatively mild wide angle an aperture of f1.4 will likely require a retrofocus construction, and that only gets quickly worse at even wider angles.
The other reason why mirrorless wide angle lenses will often be retrofocus is that digital sensors cant handle steep angles of incidence of the light. Thats why Leica took such a long time to release a digital M, and thats why many wide angle Leica M lenses adapt poorly to mirrorless of other companies.
If there is any such effect, its not big. I've never noticed any actual instance of it in practice.
I dont really get your last comment, sorry. You'll have to explain how sensor size even matters in this respect. Also I never talked about any crop, aka APS-C or 24x16mm, at all. I talked about full frame [small format] and crop medium format. Crop medium format is 44x33mm and thus LARGER than full frame 36x24mm.
