Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Technology (Page 4): Most would call that smart . . . just sayin'...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

oldtigger wrote:

If they do something as stupid as reducing the distance between the sensor and lens mount, we could have spacer plates made to go between the mount and lens so that we could continue to use our existing lenses.

Most would call that smart . . . just sayin'

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

[quote=oldtigger]

Dale40203 wrote:

Interchangeable mirrorless cameras have a couple o... (show quote)

To leverage the advantages of the smaller format. Just like Leica, Canon and Nikon had one series of lenses for their rangefinder, and a completely different series for their SLRs. It's tradition!!!!!!

(oh, and btw, the rangefinder lenses were a lot smaller than their SLR counterparts.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Dale40203 wrote:

Full frame lenses made for mirror less cameras are much small because they don't have to compensate for the extra distance between the back element and the sensor plane. Compare some of the Sony A7 lenses to same focal length/aperture full frame Canon and Nikons.

My comment was to the another question comparing not full frame mirrorless, but smaller mirrorless to full frame, unless I misunderstood that question.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Cdouthitt wrote:

Let me see what I can find...I know I've read a few articles on this somewhere comparing the IQ of the 45 with I think an 85...now I just need to find them...being that I'm not as familiar with nikon and canon's vast lens lineup, I may need some help.

Still looking for one review in particular...but here's what google drummed up for me so far.

The review of the lens was taken on one of Olympus's older bodies.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/10/01/the-olympus-45-1-8-micro-43-lens-review-by-steve-huff/

DXO marks...if find the weight difference astonishing...116g vs 660g (nikon)

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/(lens1)/532/(lens2)/241/(lens3)/388/(brand1)/Olympus/(camera1)/687/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/619/(brand3)/Nikkor/(camera3)/680

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

oldtigger wrote:

i guess what i was trying to ask is why my 70-200/2.8 fx lens would not be usable on a full frame mirrorless camera.
Why would they have to change the design?

Does your lens automatically focus? Does it have image stabilization? Can you control its aperture using a control on the camera? I doubt that any camera other than a Nikon will support these functions with your 70-200/2.8 FX lens, even with an adaptor.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

jackpinoh wrote:

Does your lens automatically focus? Does it have image stabilization? Can you control its aperture using a control on the camera? I doubt that any camera other than a Nikon will support these functions with your 70-200/2.8 FX lens, even with an adaptor.

why would i want anything other than a nikon mirrorles full frame?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Cdouthitt wrote:

Still looking for one review in particular...but h... (show quote)

My tamron 300/2.8 weighs 7 pounds, about 3000g so whats your point?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Mark7829 wrote:

Smaller lenses on mirrorless cameras can not compete (at the moment) with their larger DSLR cousins.

I think you have that one backwards. Allow me to illustrate:

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=1 (broke resolution test records)

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/855-fuji27f28?start=1 (oustanding resolution and contrast)

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/783-fuji1855f284?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/744-fuji60f24?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/869-zeiss12f28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/673-oly12f2?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/490-leica_45_28?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/m43/830-oly75f18?start=1 (oustanding wide open)

http://www.photozone.de/m43/852_panasonic35100f28?start=1 (The only lens in this survey that exceeds $1000 - at $1400 - still not bad for a field of view equivalent of a 70-200 with dust and weather seaing - and it seems to outperform the Nikon VRII in this format)

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1

This is a short list from one source - there are plenty of reviews from other trusted sources (not user reviews from fanboys and fangirls) that correspond to Photozone's reviews on these.

Bottom line, these lenses are damn good! If and when I add mirrorless to my bag of tricks, I won't feel that my lenses are letting me down in the least. In fact, it might help me make a decision sooner better than later.

MtnMan Loc: ID

oldtigger wrote:

why would i want anything other than a nikon mirrorles full frame?

Because they don't make one. They don't even make an APS-C one.

But Sony makes both. And, IMHO, Sony's software is far superior to Nikon's.

If Nikon would make a mirrorless D5300, though, I'd buy it and sell my NEX-7. Not till then.

Full disclosure: I have a D800 that I use whenever weight isn't a factor. But it is a brick, and the lenses anchor it.

(PS: Your Nikon full frame might use a Sony sensor anyway.)

amehta Loc: Boston

I think MILC/DSLR is trying to challenge zoom/prime for a spot in the "UHH Top-3 Dogmatic Discussion Topics (TM)". I don't think Canon/Nikon and JPEG/Raw are at risk of losing their status yet. :-D

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Cdouthitt wrote:

Still looking for one review in particular...but h... (show quote)

We have fallen off the page si to speak. My original comment was to Full Frame DSLRs. The comparison you selected included a D7000. It is a crop factor camera and old. Select a Canon D5 Mark III and a Nikon D800 and it blows the olympus away. I also painstakingly selected every camera for the olympus lens on the DxO drop down listing and the results were always inferior.

I really don't have time to further engage. Have a great day.

amehta Loc: Boston

When talking about MILCs, we need to remember that there are currently four sensor sizes:
1. full frame (Sony A7-series)
2. APS-C (Fuji X-series, Sony)
3. micro 4/3 (Olympus, Panasonic)
4. 1"/CX (Nikon 1)
while DSLR sensors are sizes #1 and #2.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Cdouthitt wrote:

Let me see what I can find...I know I've read a few articles on this somewhere comparing the IQ of the 45 with I think an 85...now I just need to find them...being that I'm not as familiar with nikon and canon's vast lens lineup, I may need some help.

Go to Snapsort....it puts the IQ of the a6000 right there with the Nikon 5200, 5300, 7100, well over the T3, etc. if I recall they rate it out in the low 80s (83?)

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Dale40203 wrote:

Interchangeable mirrorless cameras have a couple o... (show quote)

Call me old school, old fashioned what ever you like but shooting with a screen instead of a real view finder just isn't my cup of tea. I'll never buy one of these cameras because of that and the fact that they appear to be way over priced and over rated point and shoot cameras... nothing more.

I'll shoot with a dslr camera thanks.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jimmya wrote:

Call me old school, old fashioned what ever you like but shooting with a screen instead of a real view finder just isn't my cup of tea. I'll never buy one of these cameras because of that and the fact that they appear to be way over priced and over rated point and shoot cameras... nothing more.

I'll shoot with a dslr camera thanks.

Take a look at the new Sony's - I used to think like you - but the EVF on the Sony is really good - and fast to refresh. You hardly notice the difference between it and an optical VF.

Your resistance reminds me of my kids when I tried to introduce the concept of eating zucchini - it went like this:

WHAT is THAT on my plate?
Zucchine . . .
WHY?
Because it tastes good and is good for you . . .
BUT I DON'T LIKE ZUCCHINI!!!!!
How do you know, you've never tried it before, you should try it, once you taste it it might change your mind . . .
NONONONO - I HATE ZUCCHINI!!!
I DON'T WANT TO TRY IT- EVER!!!!!

You can substitute any food for the zucchini, but suffice it to say, my kids are all grown up now - 24, 27 and 31, and they all like zucchini - the hardest part was getting them to try it. :)