Mirrorless cameras still constrained by lens sizes

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 6, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
    This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
    This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
    camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
    need to look at Olympus and Panasonic. Me? I just hope the LCD and
    EVF are top notch since they have to be.

    http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_nx_preview/
    RichA, Sep 6, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Miles Bader Guest

    RichA <> writes:
    > That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
    > This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
    > This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
    > camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
    > need to look at Olympus and Panasonic.


    But most _current_ APS-C cameras use "legacy" mounts, where the various
    details of the lens interface are designed for FF 35mm cameras with a
    mirror box. They can make "DX only" lenses which are indeed smaller,
    but they're still constrained a bit by the mount.

    Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
    mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.

    [After all, the 4/3 sensor, tho obviously on the small side, isn't
    _that_ much smaller than APS-C...]

    -Miles

    --
    Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here,
    beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?
    Miles Bader, Sep 6, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Doug McDonald wrote:
    > Miles Bader wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
    > > mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.
    > >

    >
    >
    > You could make wide angle prime lenses a lot smaller, since they need not
    > be retrofocus.
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    But these cameras will be aimed primarily at migrators from P&S's and
    they don't want prime lenses.
    RichA, Sep 6, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Miles Bader Guest

    RichA <> writes:
    >> You could make wide angle prime lenses a lot smaller, since they need not
    >> be retrofocus.

    >
    > But these cameras will be aimed primarily at migrators from P&S's and
    > they don't want prime lenses.


    There seems little point in having interchangeable lenses at all if
    you're going to restrict yourself to the "just stick on the kit zoom and
    leave it" crowd.

    Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
    laggy like the GH1), and if the "NX" standard is good, they'll start
    drawing in the DSLR crowd too (I know I'd certainly like a smaller
    camera, it's just that the current crop [GH1 etc] kinda sucks).

    Using an APS-C sensor helps to that end, with its somewhat higher
    quality and nicer aspect ratio (than the 4:3 sensor).

    -Miles

    --
    "1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"
    Miles Bader, Sep 7, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    Miles Bader Guest

    Rich <> writes:
    >> Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
    >> laggy like the GH1)

    >
    > Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?


    I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
    viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
    scene ... most unpleasant. It may be due to the processing they're
    doing, or sensor readout issues, and not the resolution of the VF
    display.

    [btw, according the docs I see, the resolution of the GH1 VF is 800x600,
    or about 0.5 megapixels]

    -Miles

    --
    Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.
    Miles Bader, Sep 7, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Miles Bader wrote:
    > Rich <> writes:
    > >> Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
    > >> laggy like the GH1)

    > >
    > > Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?

    >
    > I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
    > viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
    > scene ... most unpleasant. It may be due to the processing they're
    > doing, or sensor readout issues, and not the resolution of the VF
    > display.


    If you pan the camera while looking through it, you get a kind of
    colour separation effect happening. Also, people who complain the EVF
    looks grainy generally do after seeing it in low-light conditions, and
    like a sensor, it does look grainy, but not in daylight.
    >
    > [btw, according the docs I see, the resolution of the GH1 VF is 800x600,
    > or about 0.5 megapixels]
    >
    > -Miles


    Well, the LCD is 460,000 and the EVF has noticeably higher visible
    resolution than the LCD.

    But to your point about having only a kit zoom as limiting, I agree
    completely, and I use lots of prime lenses, but I can't help wondering
    how many DSLRs would sell to novices if you permanently attached one
    of the 18-200mm zooms to them? Maybe more than a few. They could
    conceivably come out with a fixed zoom EVIL camera that would cost
    less than a DSLR with the same separate lens yet would have a large
    sensor. The Sony R1 was such a camera, but it was too big, to clunky
    and too expensive.
    RichA, Sep 7, 2009
    #6
  7. On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:09:20 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:

    >Rich <> writes:
    >>> Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
    >>> laggy like the GH1)

    >>
    >> Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?

    >
    >I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
    >viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
    >scene ...


    I could explain to you why this is a major plus in real-world use, taking
    any EVF equipped camera (even lower resolution EVFs than that) leaps and
    bounds over any optical viewfinder, but heavens-forbid that I should
    attempt to educate morons that insist on remaining morons. They are what
    they are and choose to keep being what they are. Oh well ....
    Let Them Remain Being Morons, Sep 7, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    SMS Guest

    RichA wrote:

    > But to your point about having only a kit zoom as limiting, I agree
    > completely, and I use lots of prime lenses, but I can't help wondering
    > how many DSLRs would sell to novices if you permanently attached one
    > of the 18-200mm zooms to them? Maybe more than a few. They could
    > conceivably come out with a fixed zoom EVIL camera that would cost
    > less than a DSLR with the same separate lens yet would have a large
    > sensor. The Sony R1 was such a camera, but it was too big, to clunky
    > and too expensive.


    This idea is raised from time to time but in reality it makes little
    sense. The cost of the lens mount, on both sides, is pretty trivial.
    Yeah, if you could sell such a camera for $300-400 you'd get some
    takers, but the review sites would quickly point out the limitations of
    this type of camera. Something like the R1 is exactly what you'd end up
    with again. And remember, one of the reasons D-SLR bodies are relatively
    inexpensive is because the manufacturer is willing to take lower margins
    on the bodies in the expectation of selling high margin lenses, flashes,
    and other accessories. I doubt if a D-SLR + an 18-200 would be any more
    expensive than an R1 type of camera with an 18-200 zoom.
    SMS, Sep 9, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Mirrorless cameras still constrained by lens sizes

    RichA wrote:
    > That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
    > This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
    > This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
    > camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
    > need to look at Olympus and Panasonic. Me? I just hope the LCD and
    > EVF are top notch since they have to be.
    >
    > http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_nx_preview/


    I see a little pancake lens in the lineup. I wonder what specs and why
    they don't show that one mounted?

    The EVF appears to take as much space on the body as a mirror, although
    I do understand the mount distance is shorter so the lenses will be shorter.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Sep 12, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bob Larter Guest

    Let Them Remain Being Morons wrote:
    > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:09:20 +0900, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    >
    >> Rich <> writes:
    >>>> Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
    >>>> laggy like the GH1)
    >>> Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?

    >> I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
    >> viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
    >> scene ...

    >
    > I could explain to you why this is a major plus in real-world use,


    Oh, I doubt that. ;^)


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Sep 15, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    C J Campbell wrote:
    > On 2009-09-05 18:01:46 -0700, Miles Bader <> said:
    >
    >> RichA <> writes:
    >>> That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
    >>> This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
    >>> This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
    >>> camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
    >>> need to look at Olympus and Panasonic.

    >>
    >> But most _current_ APS-C cameras use "legacy" mounts, where the various
    >> details of the lens interface are designed for FF 35mm cameras with a
    >> mirror box. They can make "DX only" lenses which are indeed smaller,
    >> but they're still constrained a bit by the mount.
    >>
    >> Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
    >> mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.
    >>
    >> [After all, the 4/3 sensor, tho obviously on the small side, isn't
    >> _that_ much smaller than APS-C...]
    >>
    >> -Miles

    >
    > RichA is full of baloney. The Leica M9 is very small and light. You can
    > get pancake lenses for it. And it has a full frame sensor. In fact, if
    > Rich had a memory longer than 10 years, he would remember that there
    > used to be many 35 mm film cameras that were as compact or even smaller
    > than anything being produced in 4/3 today.


    There's 35mm film SLR cameras which are smaller than most of the
    FourThirds DSLR cameras.
    The irony is that most of them were made by one of the founding members
    of the FourThirds Group.
    One of the things to consider with live-view interchangeable-lens
    cameras (with whatever sensor size) is that there needs not be any
    mechanical linkage (such as an RF cam) between the lens and body (other
    than lens-mount), so the body (and mount to sensor distance) can be much
    thinner than even a Leica M8 (or M9).
    dj_nme, Sep 15, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. rbaker3
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,953
    Robert E. Williams
    Oct 15, 2003
  2. Marful
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    869
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    807
    Better Info
    Jan 19, 2010
  4. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    770
  5. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    575
Loading...

Share This Page