Generic view re: mirrorless/prismless large sensor format

RovingEyePhoto · June 2, 2010

I apologize in advance for not keeping current here at dGrin. Can't seem to fit everything in. However, just responded to comments encountered elsewhere on mirrorless/prismless, and thought what I wrote might add to the many discussions here.

* * *

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSTAN&H%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> There are two distinct markets for mirrorless/prismless format bodies: everyman's-P&S who want better quality pics at smaller size; pro and pro-sumer who want top-quality/fast-glass at smaller size. Fast glass means bigger size no matter what, multi-FL means even bigger, clever design can achieve some minimization, but existing physics is existing physics, no fighting town hall on this. For those like me in the pro-sumer market, an APS-C mirrorless/prismless kit on par with quality APS-C SLR's -- really high resolution, pin-point selective AF, high ISO low-noise ability, high dim-light performance, high color rendition, selective focus points, exposure comp and other manual controls, RAW/JPEG output, eye level viewfinder, big memory, etc, -- is a gift from the gods! Same can be said for 4/3, just half the sensor size, so makes double the sense to opt for APS-C. And goes without saying, all with in-body IS! Finally something for us pro-sumers smaller than a tank to carry with the family or for travel, and at a full 1/2 FF sensor size, wonderful! For the P&S market, tiny glass seems the priority, so slower/lesser glass is accepted. But for the pro-sumer market, glass has to be fast at all FL's, f/2.8 minimum, preferable f/2. Pro-sumer zoom ranges already are established, just have to be matched in mirrorless/prismless: for shooters like me we're talking equiv 28-70mm or thereabouts (Oly's equiv 28-70 f/2 is Nirvana!), for longer shooters it's 70-200mm and longer (sky's the limit for these sports/bird/pazaratti gurus). Like their SLR counterparts, mirrorless/prismless lenses of this magnitude will be bulky and costly, no way around that, all fast/fixed-f/stop glass is bulky and costly, but nowhere near as bulky and probably less costly than for larger diameter mount SLR's, so mirrorless/prismless will have met its potential. Come on gang, the mirrorless/prismless revolution is great for P&S with lesser glass, and would be great for pro-sumer with better glass. The former will pay more than for their tiny 1/2.7" sensor models, the latter will pay the same or less (hopefully less) than for their quality SLR models. Overall in terms of size/price/results, everybody wins! Sure, we'll all hope for scientific breakthroughs that reduce anyone's most incredible rig to comfortable/pretty/pocketable, but mirrorless/prismless isn't such a breakthrough, merely smart design made possible by an eye-level TV viewfinder or none at all, and related jiggering with mount diameter and optical design. Lets embrace the format, and hope producers ultimately build for both P&S and pro-sumer markets -- what a glorious conclusion that would be!

craig_d · June 2, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Fast glass means bigger size no matter what, multi-FL means even bigger, clever design can achieve some minimization, but existing physics is existing physics, no fighting town hall on this.

More or less, but smaller sensors allow for smaller image circles, which allow smaller, lighter lenses without compromising. I think the main reason there were never f/2 zooms for full-frame is that they'd be too heavy. Even f/2.8 FF zooms are pretty bulky. It doesn't surprise me that the first constant f/2 zoom is for Four Thirds.

For those like me in the pro-sumer market, an APS-C mirrorless/prismless kit on par with quality APS-C SLR's [...] is a gift from the gods! Same can be said for 4/3, just half the sensor size, so makes double the sense to opt for APS-C.

Well, just as APS-C allows smaller, lighter lenses than FF, Four Thirds allows smaller, lighter lenses than APS-C. I think it's fine to have these different options available so that we can all decide for ourselves what suits our requirements.

For me, I already have FF SLRs for both digital and film, and APS-C isn't so much smaller/lighter than FF that it would make sense for me to get one. Micro Four Thirds, on the other hand, is quite a bit smaller/lighter, while being vastly superior in quality to tiny-sensor P&S cameras, so I could see myself getting something like an Olympus E-P2 as a high-quality pocket camera. It doesn't have an optical VF, but its EVF is really quite impressive.

But for the pro-sumer market, glass has to be fast at all FL's, f/2.8 minimum, preferable f/2.

Hardly. The usual solution to this is to buy zooms for convenience and a selection of fast primes for when you really need the speed -- which most of us, most of the time, really don't. Or just buy the primes and forget the zooms unless the ability to switch focal lengths QUICKLY is of utmost importance -- which again, isn't really true for most of us most of the time. I take a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom to my family's martial arts events, but other than that, it mostly stays in its bag at home. You pay for that combination of speed and versatility with size, weight, and lots of money.

I spent a few days in Yosemite last month and aside from a few evening candid shots of my companions, I don't think I shot faster than f/8 the whole time. For that matter, I didn't take any zoom lenses either. I had seven FF primes ranging from 20mm to 300mm, combined weight actually LESS than the total weight of the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I had speed where I might need it (28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8), and slower, lighter lenses where I didn't (20mm f/4, 200mm f/4, 300mm f/4.5). It worked really well.

Meanwhile, a pro who was on the trip with us, who has made a lot of money over the years with his landscape photos, had the same lens on his camera every time I saw it: the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L. Not an f/2.8. Speed clearly was not his priority. In fact, he was shooting at narrower apertures than I was.

Like their SLR counterparts, mirrorless/prismless lenses of this magnitude will be bulky and costly, no way around that, all fast/fixed-f/stop glass is bulky and costly, but nowhere near as bulky and probably less costly than for larger diameter mount SLR's [...]

It's the smaller sensor size rather than the absence of a mirror that makes for most of the reduced size of these systems. Being mirrorless allows a reduction of the flange distance, for an overall reduction of about 2-3cm in body thickness -- fairly minor compared to the reduction in lens size due to the smaller sensor.

One thing I've been wondering about, though, is this: The reduction in flange distance makes the body thinner, but doesn't that also have an effect on minimum focus distance? In a typical optical system, the closer you focus, the farther the lens has to be from the image plane. This is why non-internal-focusing, non-rear-focusing lenses are at their shortest when focusing at infinity, and extend to focus closer. So do Micro Four Thirds lenses just extend proportionally farther than FF lenses, or do they not focus as closely, or am I missing some other factor that makes up for the difference in flange distances?

fldspringer · June 4, 2010

From a non-pro viewpoint...
I think of my little Oly EPL-1 kit as both the "go anywhere" camera as well as the second camera I don't even know is there unless I need it.

My main lens for the critter is the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 (a tad bit wider than normal on this format) and is an outstanding performer in a pancake design. The little cam shoots ISO 1600 like a champ. For size, its a dream. (pictured in front of the barrel of a 300 f2.8)

I guess I think along the lines of bright prime lenses at focal lengths where they can be made compactly. Leica M-mount lenses show what can be done here. At longer focal lengths, I'd rather suffer a speed loss than the big weight increase. I have Oly's regular 40-150 f4-5.6 mounted on this camera (via adapter) as a matter of practice when the E-3 is wearing the 300mm f2.8 on the gimbal.

My micro kit is.. EPL-1/20 f1.7/40-150 f4-5.6/35 f3.5 macro and weighs in at less than 1000g with the adapter. Perrrrfectttt!

Here's a crappy digicam shot of the EPL-1/40-150 compared to the E-3/50-200 and the weight difference is HUGE.

Panny has released some pretty impressive lenses for the system so far. Leica M-mount via adapter is also a possibility. Sony and Samsung are committed to the segment, and I'm sure more will follow. Possibilities abound.

If you want large sensor.... It may cost, but the Leica M is about as good as it gets. Tain't cheap

, but....

fldspringer · June 4, 2010

craig_d wrote: »

It's the smaller sensor size rather than the absence of a mirror that makes for most of the reduced size of these systems. Being mirrorless allows a reduction of the flange distance, for an overall reduction of about 2-3cm in body thickness -- fairly minor compared to the reduction in lens size due to the smaller sensor.

Well, not entirely. Short flange to sensor distance allows compact designs without having to go to extreme retrofocal design with shorter focal lengths. Compare Leica M lenses shorter than 50mm to their full frame counterparts. Compare the Leica 25 f1.4 for four-thirds to the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 for micro four-thirds. That's where the big size advantage resides with mirroless designs.

RovingEyePhoto · June 4, 2010

Hey Craig, I agree with everything you've said here, don't think we're at odds. In my particular case, I only shoot one genre, and it requires relatively wide to short/tele (in and around 28-70) coupled with narrow DOF that only fast glass can provide. And mostly on-the-fly run-and-gun, no time for prime lens changing. I know, sounds boring, but it's anything but. I've shot a great many genres over the decades, not pro but plenty serious, and find the modeled-street I presently shoot the only thing that still gets me going. There's a very personal interplay to it, real people up-close and personal, controllable mod, candid surround. Check out my Flickr and SmugMug pages, it shows where my psyche resides, what I set out to shoot. So again, you can see why micro 4/3 or micro APS_C is so compelling to me, if only fast wide/short-tele zooms were part of the equation. As stands now, think I read the new Samsung NX-5 and 10 sport a 40mm equiv f/1.7, which sounds pretty damn good for my mode of shooting, a single prime that would cover much of my range. I'd lose flexibility I'd like with view angles, but everything's a compromise, and this could be a good one for me. Don't know much about the Samsungs yet, but look forward to physically handling and reviews and especially what comes next. Maybe Samsung's APS_C effort will get Canon/Nikon into the micro game, then things should really heat up. We'll see ...

Sorry, can't help on flange question. Would take more time than I've got to reason it through.

RovingEyePhoto · June 4, 2010

Hey Greg, thanks for input. We're all thinking alike, sort of. Take a look to my response to Craig's comment, pretty well arrives at same place as you, except for wonderment over Samsung's new NX line based on an APS_C sensor rather than 4/3. The f/1.7 sounds dreamy, and 40mm equiv is right in the middle of my sweet spot, so maybe I accept that a single prime can do it and learn to live without the various view angles a wide/short-tele zoom would provide.

fldspringer · June 5, 2010

RovingEyePhoto wrote: »

Hey Greg, thanks for input. We're all thinking alike, sort of. Take a look to my response to Craig's comment, pretty well arrives at same place as you, except for wonderment over Samsung's new NX line based on an APS_C sensor rather than 4/3. The f/1.7 sounds dreamy, and 40mm equiv is right in the middle of my sweet spot, so maybe I accept that a single prime can do it and learn to live without the various view angles a wide/short-tele zoom would provide.

I wouldn't forget about Sony. They have anounced and there are cameras in the hands of reviewers, so I don't think it will be too long. They are a little ugly in my opinion, but I'm guessing if you want low light performance, they will delive. The bigger sensor should deliver the more restricted DOF of a 1.5x crop as long as the fast glass becomes available.

Good luck with your hunt. I'm sure your selection will increase in the near future.

RovingEyePhoto · June 9, 2010

fldspringer wrote: »

I wouldn't forget about Sony. They have anounced and there are cameras in the hands of reviewers, so I don't think it will be too long.

Question of the hour -- when will the really big boys jump in the micro-APS-C pool, and with what?

Generic view re: mirrorless/prismless large sensor format

Comments