# 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

71M said:


> 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_Traveler said:


> 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_Traveler said:


> 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

Derrel said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


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

The_Traveler said:


> 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

vipgraphx said:


> 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

Ron Evers said:
			
		

> 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 &#8212; _Every mount has a different weakness, but they all have a common weakness, too: good telephoto choices, especially performance telephoto.
_Canon EOS M &#8212; _Three lenses, not all available in the US. Overall rating: inadequate.
_Fujifilm X &#8212; _Nice lineup of primes up to 60mm. Work in progress with zooms. Overall rating: adequate.
_Nikon 1 (CX) &#8212; _Quickly gave us a small, basic set, then decided to start putting them in waterproof housings. Overall rating: barely adequate.
_m4/3 &#8212; _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 &#8212; _A very nice set of the basics, with promises for more. Overall rating: adequate.
_Sony E &#8212; _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 &#8212; _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.


----------



## robbins.photo

The_Traveler said:


> 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

brunerww said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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_Traveler said:


> 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

jaomul said:


> 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

JerryLove said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Derrel said:


> 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

sashbar said:
			
		

> 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

tirediron said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## pixmedic

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.


----------



## Overread

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.


----------



## The_Traveler

Overread said:


> 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:


----------



## Ron Evers

The_Traveler said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
Click to expand...


How old is Pix I wonder. 

I know I resemble that remark.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Overread

Now  I know how Hammond feels on Top Gear


----------



## Gavjenks

The_Traveler said:


> 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.


----------



## nzmacro

The_Traveler said:


> 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 

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.


----------



## petrochemist

Derrel said:


> _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.


----------



## petrochemist

tirediron said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## cgw

Derrel said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## bif

Ron Evers said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old is Pix I wonder.
> 
> I know I resemble that remark.  :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


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".


----------



## Ron Evers

bif said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ageist bigot!!!!!!!!!  :smileys::smileys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old is Pix I wonder.
> 
> I know I resemble that remark.  :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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".
Click to expand...


Oh, you are old, two years older than me.


----------



## rstarphoto

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.


----------

