the silliness of small bodies and large lenses

[robbins.photo]

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

So are you saying the shrine I have in the basement might be over the top? I hope not. I spent a lot of time arranging those candles.

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.

As for myself I have two big concerns about mirrorless, the first is the EVF. They have improved it a lot but I think they still have just a ways to go there before it will really suit my needs well, at least based on the couple of models I've looked at that had EVF. My other primary concern is that the mirrorless thing is still rather new to the market, and I'd rather wait a bit before investing because I don't want to find myself in a situtation where I choose a system that for whatever reason fails to catch on and thus fails to get long term support.

I love the idea of having another camera to compliment my DSLR that is a little more portable, but for now I think I'll stay on the fence and wait for the next generation or two before deciding on which route to go when I finally do get something mirrorless. I can certainly understand folks that do decide to purchase now though, the portability and smaller size can certainly be a huge advantage for certain types of photography.

 

[The_Traveler]

The 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 (24-70 k 70-200 equivalents) are what I have (plus a 20 1.7 & 45 1.8). I'm content and need nothing more.
So I'll sit back and shoot and wait for the rush to sort itself out.

 

[Derrel]

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

Yes, Bill, I was thinking of the Sony RX10...and from what I have read, the LENS, being f/2.8 all the way across a 24mm to 200mm equivalent 135-format equivalent angle of view...well, that's a range that's REALLY useful...but I was ALSO thinking of this January 2014 article about the ultra-small,shirt pocket-sized Sony RX100 Shooting the Rolling Stones with the 'Best Pocket Camera Ever Made'

entitled "Shooting The Rolling Stones With The Best Pocket Camera Ever Made". These photos do NOT look like "pocket camera pictures".

Both of these cameras have made it to my radar screen.

 

[Derrel]

The 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 (24-70 k 70-200 equivalents) are what I have (plus a 20 1.7 & 45 1.8). I'm content and need nothing more.
So I'll sit back and shoot and wait for the rush to sort itself out.

So, basically, you have two of the absolute BEST, highest-spec'd micro 4/3 format zoom lenses that exist! Sounds pretty alright to me!

 

[jaomul]

The Olympus 40-150 f2.8 thats on the way will be a nice addition (and nice cost no doubt) to the improving range. Its great to have so many high quality options now whether its dslr/mirrorless or whatever tool you use to get the picture

 

[JerryLove]

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.

I was looking at the lens on the front of a view camera the other day? You know: the one where the sensor is like a foot across? Wasn't much bigger than an SLR lens.

I think you are wrong.

 

[tirediron]

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.

I was looking at the lens on the front of a view camera the other day? You know: the one where the sensor is like a foot across? Wasn't much bigger than an SLR lens.

I think you are wrong.

Yes and no; consider the rear lens element to film-plane/sensor distance in the view camera compared to that of an SLR or smaller camera.

 

[Derrel]

Telephoto lenses for APS-C and m4/3 sensor use have basically, NO size or weight advantages; telephotos already have small coverage circles. If you want a fast, high-performance lens, the older Olympus 300mm f/2.8, the one they made a few years ago, is EXACTLY the same size and weight as a Canon or Nikon 300/2.8. Olympus made a beautiful 35-100mm f/2 (eff TWO-point-zero) zoom that was EXQUISITE, optically...and was priced around $4,000 or so as I recall...but Oly decided against continuing with their original line of high-performance telephotos and zooms because...well..the people that want those kinds of lenses want "the best pixels", and we all know that the image quality of a bigger sensor is...better than a smaller sensor, all things being equal.

At the recent CP+ mega-show, Nikon executives gave very honest, candid interviews to Dave Etchells, of Imaging Resource, and a dPreview rep.Nikon Q&A: Head of development sees interchangeable-lens slowdown as an aberration, not a red flag

One of the takeaway points from the Nikon veep was that Americans have a preference for LARGER cameras an lenses, because they think larger cameras are "better". The CP+ Interviews | byThom | Thom Hogan

And, here's an article on why "legacy" camera systems are so tough to compete against. Why Legacy is So Tough to Break | byThom | Thom Hogan

Sony has been trying to gain market share against Canon and Nikon, ever since they bought out Minolta...errr, I mean, Konica-Minolta...they bragged that within a few years, they would have 20% market share. Hah! Try less than half of that...

The above article, Why Legacy Is So Tough to Break, really shows the tough road ahead for mirrorless camera makers that are NOT Canon and not Nikon...it's not enough to just come up with something that's "equal"...so far that has not been enough to dislodge the existing market paradigm. Canon's EOS mount, and Nikon's F-mount, and the 100+ million lenses and 106+ million cameras those two have sold in the last 14 years, are a HUGE obstacle to overcome with an "equal" offering from another manufacturer. Older, retired guys who are happy with their m4/3 systems, and who have enough money to pay 1.5x or 2x as much money for a camera with image quality compromises are not enough to offset the millions of young, working-class, lower-middle-class,etc. people who see they get as goo, or better, sensor performance in a Nikon D3200 for $599 at BestBuy, and who cannot afford $1300 bodies that have slightly lower-MP counts, and so on.

Sony's A7 recently attracted me. I researched it for a couple weeks, and went to see it at BestBuy....kid calls it up on the computer..they have exactly TWO of them in this entire metro region...at BestBuy! So, I go to Pro Photo Supply..I demo the A7 in the flesh with the ONLY zoom available, now, a cheap, slow 28-70mm kit zoom...and there basically are two other lenses, today: a $700 35mm f/2.8 prime, and an over-priced normal lens. Add in a sub-optimal (for me) EVF and boom...a great set of specifications, but virtually NO LENSES....yet. Oh sure, I can "adapt" lenses, and squint and peak and hope, but I'd basically spend $1700 on a body that has basically, almost ZERO lenses, zero support. Full frame sensor, yes, but hell, I'd rather have an Oly OM-D EM-5, from the used case there at PPS, for $650. Or, hell, why not a new Nikon D5300? For a LOT less, and alllllll my Nikon lenses just click right onto it...

 

[Derrel]

Summary of above: small camera bodies go great with small lenses, and m4/3 has a LOT of small lenses in consumer speeds. Not many telephoto options, except slow, f/4.5~5.6 or f/4.8~XX categories...and when a long tele hits the market, it will be GOOD-sized.

Sony's A7 and A7R's 70-200 zoom, promised soon, will be full-sized...it's a small camera with a FF sensor, and the lenses will be FULL-sized...just like a big Canon or Nikon 70-200 is.

When a Nikon D3200 or D5200 or D5300 costs HALF, or one-third as much as a fancy small, mirrorless body from Olympus or Sony, the vast majority of consumer electronics buyers will look at the megapixel counts, and think...hey...this cute little Canon has 18 megapixels, or this cute little Nikon has 24 megapixels, shoots good video, and costs LESS, by far. Boom! Canon T5i or Nikon D5200 kit, SOLD!

Small cameras are nice, but the GRIP on the new Olympus makes the camera deeper than the rather chunky Nikon Df, according to Hogan...so...where's the advantage to the "small, mirrorless" model when it's 1.5x or 2 or 3x the price of a Canon or Nikon d-slr? Changing the market is going to take a hell of a lot more than being "equal" to a Canon or Nikon d-slr. It's going to take something much, much better, and more feature-rich to get people to switch away from the huge lead Canon and Nikon hold on the camera market.

The price of the good mirrorless bodies is too high to compete against the strong lineup of low-cost d-slrs from Canon and Nikon. Small size is great, sure. That's why I carry an iPhone camera allll the time.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

[jaomul]

The advantage in size for apc and micro 4/3rds though comes due fov no? The 300 mm Canon being the same size as the one for Olympus is true, but you have a fov of 300mm on your Canon 5d but fov 600 on your e510. A micro 4/3res 40-150 kit Lens is smaller than anything in that fov range on a fullframe.

I am stating this not as fact but as I understand the way it works. I am open to correction

(PUT APPARENT IN FRONT OF FOV IN ALL CASES ABOVE)

 

[sashbar]

Summary of above: small camera bodies go great with small lenses, and m4/3 has a LOT of small lenses in consumer speeds. Not many telephoto options, except slow, f/4.5~5.6 or f/4.8~XX categories...and when a long tele hits the market, it will be GOOD-sized.

Sony's A7 and A7R's 70-200 zoom, promised soon, will be full-sized...it's a small camera with a FF sensor, and the lenses will be FULL-sized...just like a big Canon or Nikon 70-200 is.

When a Nikon D3200 or D5200 or D5300 costs HALF, or one-third as much as a fancy small, mirrorless body from Olympus or Sony, the vast majority of consumer electronics buyers will look at the megapixel counts, and think...hey...this cute little Canon has 18 megapixels, or this cute little Nikon has 24 megapixels, shoots good video, and costs LESS, by far. Boom! Canon T5i or Nikon D5200 kit, SOLD!

Small cameras are nice, but the GRIP on the new Olympus makes the camera deeper than the rather chunky Nikon Df, according to Hogan...so...where's the advantage to the "small, mirrorless" model when it's 1.5x or 2 or 3x the price of a Canon or Nikon d-slr? Changing the market is going to take a hell of a lot more than being "equal" to a Canon or Nikon d-slr. It's going to take something much, much better, and more feature-rich to get people to switch away from the huge lead Canon and Nikon hold on the camera market.

The price of the good mirrorless bodies is too high to compete against the strong lineup of low-cost d-slrs from Canon and Nikon. Small size is great, sure. That's why I carry an iPhone camera allll the time.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

As I said, the game changer will be the future EVF, not the size. Now we all presume that an OVF is so much better, but wait for another five years (maybe less), and an EVF will become better in any way, apart from battery life. A mirrorless camera is also slower than a DSLR now, but only because of the processor, which will get faster and faster. Unlike a mechanical mirror, that will never get any faster than it is now. Even now X-T1 gives us 8 frames per sec. I can not see why in five years it can not be 28 fps: it has no bloody mirror! I can bet, in, emm..,. 8 years.. a mirrorless will be a weapon of chioice for a pro sports shooter. (Actually I believe a hi-end/pro mirrorless has to have two separate processors, one for the EVF/LCD, and the other for shooting and processing).
And I believe the higher cost of mirrorless cameras is temporary, since a mirrorless camera is cheaper to manufacture than a DSLR. So either mirrorless will become cheaper or DSLRs will get more specialised and costly, but the balance must reflect the manufacturing costs.
As for grip/size advantage - I think a mirrorless has a slight advantage, because regardless of an extended grip, the body is thinner and the lense itself sits deeper, closer to the back panel, so the overall balance is a bit better.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the FOV does change the equation of the Olympus 300mm f/2.8 on an m4/3 sensor, but the fact is, the lens's size and weight is actually right at the same size, but higher in weight, than the Canon or Nikon 300/2.8 AF lenses.

But...the thing is this: many people who want the "exotic" telephoto lenses want to achieve foreground/background separation; they want to be able to "blow out" ugly, distracting backgrounds on sports and nature shots made at some distance from the camera, and the larger sensor size of an APS-C camera, or a 24x36mm d-slr, gives more foreground/background separation. Plus, the MUCH larger sensor size gives higher-quality pixels, which directly leads to better low-light performance.

I mention this because Lew's original post was about "small bodies and large lenses". A lot of people seem to think that because the sensor is smaller, that the lenses will automatically be small...but a 300mm lens that's f/2.8 still needs to have that exit pupil's diameter be roughly 1/2.8 of the focal length. And it's still gotta be 300mm long! On a tiny camera, a 7.75-pound 300mm lens is going to be a regal PITA, even on a monopod, due to a thing called "balance".

Yes, the angle of view issue changes the way an image is made...depth of field at normal distances is substantially deeper the smaller the capture format goes. For some users, like those who shoot "street", that's a GOOD thing. For other types of photography, that's not a good thing. For sports and nature and much portraiture, a smaller sensor with a lower MP count and deeper DOF is NOT really an advantage--it's a disadvantage. And I suspect that's partly why there are basically almost ZERO long,fast tele or long, fast tele-zooms made for m4/3...it's just not the best tool, and it's expensive to make lenses like that, and they would not sell well. Monster lenses on small-sensor, small-body cameras is just not a good fit.

Now that we have a new generation of sensor technology from Sony, and Toshiba, the old ideas that gave rise to the smaller-format systems have kind of shifted. You can crop a D800 image and throw half of it away, and have an 18 MP capture. The beauty of a small camera is that it IS SMALL. And light. And easy to carry. And unobtrusive. WHy muck that up with a great big, heavy lens? It makes little sense to have a huge lens on a small camera, for most people.

What I see as the big advantage of the smaller sensor is the ability to get fairly deep depth of field in "social photography" situations. For the kinds of street stuff Lew shoots, the m4/3 format makes perfect sense. It really does! It's almost the perfect compromise. That's why the camera companies came up with that format, and agreed to form a consortium, and SHARE a lens mounting system between multiple brands.

 

[Derrel]

As I said, the game changer will be the future EVF, not the size. Now we all presume that an OVF is so much better, but wait for another five years, and an EVF will become better in any way, apart from battery time. It is also slower now, but only because of the processor, which will get faster and faster.

The EVF of the future will have to be a damned site better than the one on the Sony A7. It's clearly substandard. It looks video-y, slightly off-colored, and has refresh rate issues. It's hard to literally SEE if the image is in-focus, or exactly what the nuance of a subject's expression is. I looked through the camera, and was immediately disappointed in how crappy the viewfinder image is through the EVF. If I wanted to shoot at arm's length, using the live view, the rear LCD display's image is okay. So that would make it an okay camera for arms-length use with light lenses, or for tripod use. For point& shooters used to shooting with the camera held at arm's length, there's no advantage in a good eye-level finder image. Sony probably knows that all too well.

TO "me", the clarity and usefulness of the viewfinder image has been an issue for 30+ years. People newer to photography are often happy with a general "guideline" from their finder image. People who shoot off a tripod on non-moving subjects can get by with a substandard finder image, and then review their shots, and refine them based on the LCD review of what they got.

Shoot/chimp/refine/shoot/chimp/refine is the way this is done today by some people. I want the exact polar opposite: the ability to SEE the shot, through the camera, clearly--BEFORE I make the decision to wait, or to fire. EVF is not there yet. Hopefully, EVFs get a helllll of a lot better than they are today.

 

[sashbar]

..and I guess we will see some new radical designs that were not allowed by the need for a mirror. I will not be surprised if in 5 - 10 years a camera, even a pro camera, will look nothing like it does today. Just look at this new Sigma.

(UPDATED) Sigma announced the new Sigma DP Quattro ! | Mirrorless Rumors

 

[JerryLove]

Bigger sensors will require bigger lenses relative to smaller sensors, irrelevant of the box it is housed in.

I was looking at the lens on the front of a view camera the other day? You know: the one where the sensor is like a foot across? Wasn't much bigger than an SLR lens.

Yes and no; consider the rear lens element to film-plane/sensor distance in the view camera compared to that of an SLR or smaller camera.

That would be "the box it is housed in" yes?