Dslr to mirrorless (Page 15): I also have an SL2, and an SL1 and SL3. I got the SL2 as an upgrade to the SL1. I got the SL3 mainly because I wanted a good compact light weight DSLR for...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

2Wheeler wrote:

Love my SL2. I also own two 5D Mark IVs, but when I fly commercial I pack my SL2. For its size, weight, and cost, it does an amazing job.

I also have an SL2, and an SL1 and SL3. I got the SL2 as an upgrade to the SL1. I got the SL3 mainly because I wanted a good compact light weight DSLR for shooting video, mainly at night at Longwood Gardens, where full size tripods are not allowed, even though some people still bring them. Also, most of my Canon lenses work on my SL cameras, and I can set the SL3 on a mini tripod set on a wall and it's not in anyone's way. For the money, the Canon SL series were and are great compact interchangeable lens cameras.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

foathog wrote:

I wouldn't have but you brought it up more than once. I personally don't care what camera anyone has and I don't think mine is better cause it's a Canon or a mirrorless. I find all of this bickering to be quite puerile. I've seen GREAT shots from many different brands.

I too don't care what camera others have, just what I have, at the time. Brand is pretty much irrelevant to me also. I don't subscribe to the petty Canon vs Nikon arguments because I own both, and like both. I currently don't own a FF MILC because of cost and that my DSLRs still give me the results I'm looking for. I am getting an R7 because it will be an excellent and useful addition to the cameras I use for wildlife photography.

petrochemist Loc: UK

CHG_CANON wrote:

The grass is always greener when captured with a mirrorless camera.

Not at all, several of my mirrorless cameras are IR converted & these often don't give green at all from foliage.

My DSLRs are quite capable of giving greener grass than I get from then, I tend to keep the saturation turned down to natural as over saturated shots usually look ghastly!

petrochemist Loc: UK

JD750 wrote:

I’m not an optical scientist.

However there is this..
Nearsignted:
“ unable to see things clearly unless they are relatively close to the eyes, owing to the focusing of rays of light by the eye at a point in front of the retina; myopic. Treatment options include eyeglasses, contact lenses, and surgery such as LASIK.”

I’m nearsighted, I wear contacts, I can see fine with the contacts. So it works. .

The difference in image position between Z & F lenses is considerable greater than the distance involved in nearsightedness. The flange distances differ by around 30mm difference which isn't to far from the diameter of an eyeball! I'd be very surprised if contact lenses could correct for more than 5mm shift in image plane, 1mm would be far more common.

Yes, it is possible to come up with an adapter, but it would either have to be a fairly powerful telephoto (I'd guess significantly more than 3x), or use a relay lens configuration that effectively turns the image upside down.
The relay lens option would also be too bulky to be practical...

Given the

markwilliam1

CHG_CANON wrote:

Don't let the photographer you were yesterday stop you from buying a mirrorless camera tomorrow.

Are you just trying to get your post numbers higher? Trying to be a Philosopher? Your comments are getting quite Old Sir and not that funny….they go on and on and not relevant to the topic. But your vast knowledge of photography and software are Very Worthwhile and I enjoy reading them. Just saying….

User ID

JD750 wrote:

I’m not an optical scientist. br br However the... (show quote)

Youre designing a reverse TC. Therefor you wont lose a stop, you will actually gain. IOW its a Speedbooster.

The amount of flange depth adjustment you are seeking is rather significant, so therefor the optical compromises in the device will also be significant and most likely very visible.

This is what I meant when I said that I thought you knew better :-(

petrochemist Loc: UK

User ID wrote:

Youre designing a reverse TC. Therefor you wont lose a stop, you will actually gain. IOW its a Speedbooster.

The amount of flange depth adjustment you are seeking is rather significant, so therefor the optical compromises in the device will also be significant and most likely very visible.

This is what I meant when I said that I thought you knew better :-(

A focal reducer/'speedbooster' needs the lens closer to the sensor than a simple adapter, which is why they are not made for native mount lenses.
Standard TCs need the lens to move further away. A weak TC (~1.2x) is used in infinity focus adapters to mount M42 lenses on Nikon F which is relatively small difference in registration.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Maik723 wrote:

What was your experience converting from dslr to mirrorless?

Needed to optimize custom camera settings and adjust workflow. Would never go back.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

When you know you need a mirrorless camera, you have the knowledge to succeed.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

CHG_CANON wrote:

When you know you need a mirrorless camera, you have the knowledge to succeed.

More bullshit from the windy one.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

User ID wrote:

Youre designing a reverse TC. Therefor you wont lose a stop, you will actually gain. IOW its a Speedbooster.

The amount of flange depth adjustment you are seeking is rather significant, so therefor the optical compromises in the device will also be significant and most likely very visible.

This is what I meant when I said that I thought you knew better :-(

Thank you for the explanation.

Optical compromise ? Fair enough. The quantification of said compromise is important. Exactly what would be compromised. Distortion at the edges? CA? The manuf has touted the z lens as superior. So there is a little bit to give away. Is the expected compromise such that the Z lens optical quality, would be worse than the equivalent F lens?

If not worse, then the adaptor could be a boost to Z-lens sales for those still using DSLRs who don’t want to buy dual lens systems.

User ID

petrochemist wrote:

A focal reducer/'speedbooster' needs the lens closer to the sensor than a simple adapter, which is why they are not made for native mount lenses.
Standard TCs need the lens to move further away. A weak TC (~1.2x) is used in infinity focus adapters to mount M42 lenses on Nikon F which is relatively small difference in registration.

All true, but youre just muddying up a simple explanation about why a certain something is impractical and therefor is not marketed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something similar, and barely practical, was sold by Nikon in the proto-digital era. It cost about the same as a very modest house or a condo.

I suspect that the price tag didnt really represent a retail selling price. A high price might justify a high rental charge paid by news services. Or maybe the rent was one dollar and the "retail tag" existed only to tell the news guys that they were the beneficiaries of a really important development program. Just speculating.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Backwards compatibility used to be Nikon's strength, but now it's Canon's.

Bill_de Loc: US

rmorrison1116 wrote:

More bullshit from the windy one.

But he still gets you to respond, just what he wants.

---

User ID

JD750 wrote:

Thank you for the explanation. br br Optical comp... (show quote)

You are asking about an essentially impractical, but maybe *theoretically* possible, device. No point speculating about its image quality.

Z lenses do not have vastly superior designs. They simply benefit from not being required to work at an extended distance (the mirror box) from the focal plane. Deploying your hoped-for device negates that benefit even if the device could magically be optically flawless.

Last but certainly far from least, theres the dual gremlins of size and price.

Catering to the SLR diehards is a losing business model. Nobody outside of UHH even pretends to care, and most of the UHH contingent are not "true believers" at all. They just like arguing even when theres really nothing to argue about.