the silliness of small bodies and large lenses

I recently got sucked into the mirrorless maddness....
even though i was originally set on getting an APS-C mirrorless, i wound up getting an Olympus E-PL5.
obviously not the latest and the greatest of the m4/3 line, but what i personally wanted was a camera that i could take to places like the park, the zoo, or just when we are out and about without having to drag around the DSLR. I almost never took our cameras anywhere except on rare occasions, the dog park. It was just a hassle and a half between the camera itself and a lens or two.

The Olympus? so much smaller and more manageable. you can get some fast primes for m4/3 too. 17, 30, 50, 60, 75... and some fast zooms too in a 12-40 f/2.8, and a 40-150 f/2.8. (rumored for this year?) not to mention the panasonic lenses I can use on the Oly. Pricey? yuppers. especially the Pro zooms. I imagine i will be just fine with the slower zooms and a fast prime or two. I could just buy an adapter and use my Nikon lenses....but then it would turn into a camera i didn't want to drag around with me. and I already have two of those.

I dont think a lot of people are buying mirrorless systems to try to compete them against their DSLR's. I would imagine that a large percentage of MILC buyers are the same as me. Just someone who wants the versatility of an interchangeable lens system, but small enough to actually take with you without having to bring a suitcase along.
There are always sacrifices to be made, no matter what system you go with. I like having the DSLR's for when we need them, and a m4/3 for when i want a camera my wife can carry in her purse. personally, i would not want to start putting big lenses on my Olympus. it would totally defeat the purpose for which i bought it in the first place.
is it great that i can? absolutely. I am just not likely to do it myself.
 
Pix - that's how I see the market as well. It's not competing but complimenting the DSLR market which is why its an attractive market to corner for the manufacturers. I find that I too end up leaving the camera behind many a time - esp if I've not got a backpack to hide it away when I really don't want it out. Small cameras have their place and technology allows them to now be very good and similar to the DSLR I'm used to shooting with.

Most of those I see selling their bigger DSLR are oft older photographers who simply can't deal with the weight and bulk as easily in life and want to keep up with photography but just don't want all that bulk anymore.
 
Most of those I see selling their bigger DSLR are oft older photographers who simply can't deal with the weight and bulk as easily in life and want to keep up with photography but just don't want all that bulk anymore.

Ageist bigot!!!!!!!!! :smileys::smileys:
 
Most of those I see selling their bigger DSLR are oft older photographers who simply can't deal with the weight and bulk as easily in life and want to keep up with photography but just don't want all that bulk anymore.

Ageist bigot!!!!!!!!! :smileys::smileys:

How old is Pix I wonder. :D

I know I resemble that remark. :mrgreen:
 
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.

You may want that or consider that the "main" advantage.
I don't. I want mirrorless for a host of other non-smallness reasons too:

1) Theoretically cheaper (now small volumes cancel this out, but if volumes were equal they'd be cheaper due to no mirror or pentaprism, etc.)
2) Already definitely cheaper wide angle lenses are possible, and higher optical quality to boot, due to simple straightforward designs instead of inferior and complicated retrofocus designs.
3) Adaptability to multiple brands of lenses, with cheaper adapters (more room to work with makes machining adapters cheaper) and/or adapters that aren't possible with other brands at all.
4) An extension of #3: there's enough room for the adapters to DO stuff affordably, like tilting or shifting, making potentially any Nikon/Canon lens a tilt shift, for example, if the coverage is enough. Goodbye $2,000 tilt shifts. hello $150 tilt shift adapters + things I already own.
5) Easier to make quality teleconverters for less.
6) More robust: fewer moving parts = less likely to break.
7) Easier to make homemade lenses for and otherwise "hack"/modify, which I like doing.

And of course also still... smallness.




Also there is absolutely no reason why image quality needs to be affected by mirror vs. mirrorless. The mirror flips up during a photo anyway -- at the moment of capture, ALL cameras are mirrorless... And they already sell mirrorless full frame sensor cameras and such.
 
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.

WOW, first off I'm glad you are talking about you and admittedly a lot of others, but we are not all the same.

First came my lenses, second came the body (plenty of homework went into that), not the other way around. I shoot only MF long, fast heavy lenses and what is at the end of them is a small box with a sensor. On front of that box often lives a 5.5 KG lens. The box has focus peaking, it also has a shutter button, an ISO switch, a shutter dial ........ and that's it. The rest is junk :wink:

The size of the box (in my case a NEX-7) is totally irrelevant, it matters not. The box takes birds, macro, BIF's and motorsports, so the box was picked VERY carefully trust me.

All the best and thank goodness we are all different.

Danny.
 
    • 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.

Hardley limited to 200mm! In native lenses there are options going up to 300mm (thats 600mm equivalent) and the Panasonic 100-300 certainly classes as high performance from the images I've seen.
 
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.

I'd say film-plane/sensor distance is very much a matter of the box it is housed in'.
 
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...

Have you ever actually been in the same room with any Fuji X gear? Have a look at the Fuji lens roadmap sometime. Their optical chops aren't an issue.
 
Most of those I see selling their bigger DSLR are oft older photographers who simply can't deal with the weight and bulk as easily in life and want to keep up with photography but just don't want all that bulk anymore.

Ageist bigot!!!!!!!!! :smileys::smileys:

How old is Pix I wonder. :D

I know I resemble that remark. :mrgreen:

Heck! I more than "resemble" that remark...

I sold off all my APS-C Canon stuff and converted over to m4/3, now have GH3's for video (bodies did grow a bit there), GX1, just got a GX7, and also got an E-M5 for it's 5 axis IBIS. At 75 I really appreciate the GX1, GX7, and Oly E-M5 for their compact size, lighter weight, and the fact that they will take every lens I own. It's great to pack a small bag with a light bidy, ultrawide zoom, and the 40-150 Oly (80 to 300 equiv) and not get worn down playing "packhorse".
 
Ageist bigot!!!!!!!!! :smileys::smileys:

How old is Pix I wonder. :D

I know I resemble that remark. :mrgreen:

Heck! I more than "resemble" that remark...

I sold off all my APS-C Canon stuff and converted over to m4/3, now have GH3's for video (bodies did grow a bit there), GX1, just got a GX7, and also got an E-M5 for it's 5 axis IBIS. At 75 I really appreciate the GX1, GX7, and Oly E-M5 for their compact size, lighter weight, and the fact that they will take every lens I own. It's great to pack a small bag with a light bidy, ultrawide zoom, and the 40-150 Oly (80 to 300 equiv) and not get worn down playing "packhorse".

Oh, you are old, two years older than me. :biggrin:
 
I'm going to have to differ on the "sony EVF's is terrible". I've been using both the sony line and fuji line for wedding work. The EVF's on both lines are amazing to work with, especially the Sonys. To say you have to pray for something to be in focus when shooting with manual lenses is a complete misconception. In fact, I do not own a sony lens.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top