Mirrorless cameras are smaller?

Ha, it's not a GM it's the 24-105G but with a simple feel in the hand test I'd say the Nikon feels heavier to be fair, certainly weighted more towards the body end but I suppose that is the G versus the 18-200 on the D200.
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

The body alone is obviously smaller in my case but I then needed (wanted) a grip so bought a Smallrig. I then needed (wanted again) to try a battery grip and here we are......

It just tickled me that's all.The grip came yesterday and I purposely fitted it and took some pictures of my wife. She didn't even notice :)
 
Last edited:
I have been tempted by a battery grip but find that the battery in my a7iii and a6600 lasts for ages.
I have a Smallrig L Bracket fitted to both and find it improved handling without increasing bulk.
On my previous a7rii and a6300 a grip would have good for the extra battery power.
 
The myth came about when Olympus started making them and they were M4/3.

So yes, m4/3 mirrorless are smaller than DSLR, but it was their advertising angle.

This isn't even a fair comparison either as both the Fuji and Sony has a grip on.

aJfcsFa.jpg


vokZJrm.jpg
 
mstphoto said:
I have been tempted by a battery grip but find that the battery in my a7iii and a6600 lasts for ages.
I have a Smallrig L Bracket fitted to both and find it improved handling without increasing bulk.
On my previous a7rii and a6300 a grip would have good for the extra battery power.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have both grips and didn't need the battery power either but well, you know how it is, so I won't try and offer any rational reasoning.....
 
mstphoto said:
Perhaps a few models down the line I'll be tempted.
I actually use my a6600 more than my a7iii as I quite like the form factor with the L Bracket.
What I find funny is that we all wanted an APSC camera in an a7 type body and we ended up with a FF in an a6*** body :D
Click to expand...

actually i wanted a small FF and i got that :D
don't think I'd buy a A7 type APS-C body unless its higher res (>30mp) and with amazing AF.
 
My omd.1-mkii and 100-400 lens weigh 2kg exactly
 
the black fox said:
but its only got half the reach of mines 2x crop factor :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...

same optical reach, m43 has a very slight digital reach advantage.
can crop two times to get a 15mp end result which isn't actually all that much lower than 20mp MFT provides.
or if you want to compare like for like if you crop 61mp to 20mp you have about 700mm equivalent field of view vs. 800mm.

the main saving you make is the cost than anything else.

edit:
even now there isn't a lens on m43 that matches my 200-600mm on A7RIV for reach. the new 150-400mm+1.25x TC activated is about the same with just 1/3rd stop more light and actually more expensive too. so all in all i don't see a reach advantage in mft, weight advantage is lost if you buy fast or/and long lenses. the real advantage i see is for slower small lenses and costs. but then you can argue that the 150-400mm is probably sharper and would resolve more pixels than a lens like 200-600mm which may be the case too...
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
My omd.1-mkii and 100-400 lens weigh 2kg exactly
Click to expand...
nandbytes said:
but an A7RIV with 100-400 weighs 1.8kg :D
Click to expand...
the black fox said:
but its only got half the reach of mines 2x crop factor :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...
nandbytes said:
same optical reach, m43 has a very slight digital reach advantage.
can crop two times to get a 15mp end result which isn't actually all that much lower than 20mp MFT provides.
or if you want to compare like for like if you crop 61mp to 20mp you have about 700mm equivalent field of view vs. 800mm.

the main saving you make is the cost than anything else.

edit:
even now there isn't a lens on m43 that matches my 200-600mm on A7RIV for reach. the new 150-400mm+1.25x TC activated is about the same with just 1/3rd stop more light and actually more expensive too. so all in all i don't see a reach advantage in mft, weight advantage is lost if you buy fast or/and long lenses. the real advantage i see is for slower small lenses and costs. but then you can argue that the 150-400mm is probably sharper and would resolve more pixels than a lens like 200-600mm which may be the case too...
Click to expand...

Now just how high is that toilet block wall .........??? ;)
 
nandbytes said:
same optical reach, m43 has a very slight digital reach advantage.
can crop two times to get a 15mp end result which isn't actually all that much lower than 20mp MFT provides.
or if you want to compare like for like if you crop 61mp to 20mp you have about 700mm equivalent field of view vs. 800mm.

the main saving you make is the cost than anything else.

.
Click to expand...
and there you have it in a nutshell based on new u.k prices Sony = £4579.00 olympus = £2028 a mere saving of £2551.00 to get something which is the equal of :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
the black fox said:
and there you have it in a nutshell based on new u.k prices Sony = £4579.00 olympus = £2028 a mere saving of £2551.00 to get something which is the equal of :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Click to expand...

Indeed just pocket change :ROFLMAO:

The 150-400mm isn't cheap which is what I'd need to replace my 200-600mm so doesn't me save money. But M43 can definitely save fair bit money for others.
 
The cameras can definitely be smaller but you can make them bigger by adding a battery grip! Lens size is mostly dictated by the sensor size hence why lenses for Sony full frame bodies are roughly the same size and weight as their DSLR lens equivalents, yet Olympus lenses for M4 3rds are much smaller.

Many mirrorless manufacturers were clever with marketing on the initial release of mirrorless by working with the myth that mirrorless full frame is smaller and lighter than there DSLR equivalents. They often released the cameras with smaller designed f4 lenses. As soon as the f2.8 ‘pro’ lenses came along they were pretty much the same size as other f2.8 lenses. That said you can make small and light mirRobles setups if choose the right lenses.
 
rob-nikon said:
The cameras can definitely be smaller but you can make them bigger by adding a battery grip! Lens size is mostly dictated by the sensor size hence why lenses for Sony full frame bodies are roughly the same size and weight as their DSLR lens equivalents, yet Olympus lenses for M4 3rds are much smaller.

Many mirrorless manufacturers were clever with marketing on the initial release of mirrorless by working with the myth that mirrorless full frame is smaller and lighter than there DSLR equivalents. They often released the cameras with smaller designed f4 lenses. As soon as the f2.8 ‘pro’ lenses came along they were pretty much the same size as other f2.8 lenses. That said you can make small and light mirRobles setups if choose the right lenses.
Click to expand...

It's not a myth it's true. Compare a Sony A7 or even the new A7c with any FF DSLR and you'll see it's true. When you add a honking great lens the bulk and weight savings the small body brings can become less relevant but equally mount a small compact lens like the Sony 35mm f2.8 and you wont find a Canikon combination that can that can get anywhere near it if having compact light kit is your aim.

Another thing to keep in mind is that mirrorless lenses are often new deigns and arguably optically better than some of the legacy DSLR lenses and in lenses being newer and better often means being bigger and heavier.
 
mirrorless bodies are smaller than Full Frame DSLR's and some of the lenses are smaller, however some mirrorless lenses which have been adapted from DSLR lenses to mirrorless one will be bigger.
The canon RF 100-500L is smaller and lighter than the canon EF 100-400L for example.

I suspect in the near future the lenses will become more compact and will be slightly lighter. Canon and Sony has proved this is possible .
 
I also wonder if the very large present designs are partly about quality. I have a Sony/Minolta 50 f1.4 that with the A to EF AF adapter is about the same size as the Sony 50 f1.8. However despite the lens being quite sharp for its time, compared to a modern mirrorless design it is soft, has lower contrast and suffers coma really badly wide open. A more recent design, Sony's 28 f2 is really compact, but again quality is lower than expected from a modern design.

We saw the change with Sigma ART lenses, which were all fast and super-sharp, but very bulky and heavy compared to previous designs. Although there are signs of push back against these designs with Tamron and Sigma f2.8 lenses, they miss the mark with apertures that were ok 50 years ago but aren't good enough now.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I also wonder if the very large present designs are partly about quality. I have a Sony/Minolta 50 f1.4 that with the A to EF AF adapter is about the same size as the Sony 50 f1.8. However despite the lens being quite sharp for its time, compared to a modern mirrorless design it is soft, has lower contrast and suffers coma really badly wide open. A more recent design, Sony's 28 f2 is really compact, but again quality is lower than expected from a modern design.

We saw the change with Sigma ART lenses, which were all fast and super-sharp, but very bulky and heavy compared to previous designs. Although there are signs of push back against these designs with Tamron and Sigma f2.8 lenses, they miss the mark with apertures that were ok 50 years ago but aren't good enough now.
Click to expand...

the canon EF 50mm f1.4 is rather small too and so is the EF 50mm/1.2 compared to the mirrorless ones.

the sony/minolta 50mm f1.4 has wonderful dreamy rendering wide open. not very sharp though.
but the sony zeiss 50mm f1.4 (a-mount version) is heavier but also sharper
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Never seen or tried that lens (but I may try it if I get the chance).
Click to expand...
its still smaller than the current large 50mm f1.4 but with the adapter it'll probably end up just as long. weights slightly over 500g though.
it also has SSM so can AF with LA-EA3.
the main issue with this lens is the CA
 
ancient_mariner said:
There seems to be something about trying to create a lens using smaller elements that simply doesn't address all the aberrations, though I sure there's a lot more to it than that.
Click to expand...
Sigma seems to have managed it somewhat with the new 85mm/1.4 but it has more distortion! Though the distortion kinda works in its favour for portraits lol
 
woof woof said:
Another thing to keep in mind is that mirrorless lenses are often new deigns and arguably optically better than some of the legacy DSLR lenses and in lenses being newer and better often means being bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...

I think there is a fundamental truth in that statement - in the last 15 years we've seen lenses get better - but prices and size have got bigger.

Until DSLRs came along the sizes of the lenses such as the 50mm F1.7 and F1.4 mentioned above were a lot more compact than today's behemoths. Mid range and wide zooms where smaller too. I had the Minolta versions that @ancient_mariner refers to and thought they were good on my first 6Mp DSLR and reasonable on at 12Mp, The F1.4 version suffered from a reduction in contrast wide open that I just don't expect to see on a modern lens. I sold them in 2014 because I reckoned that as sensors got better they wuold struggle. I sold a 24-105 F3.5 lens at the same time for the same reason - it was great on the 6Mp DSLR but showing weakness at 12Mp unless stopped down.

How many buyers of consumer SLRs back in the 80s or 90s made large prints or took a loupe to examine their film or small prints closely. Very few I suspect.

With digital people pixel peep. So even if they don't print large - they still are more likely to examine their images to a level of finer detail. So lenses seem to have become more critical. This has had an effect - particularly once DSLRs went to 16Mp and higher pixel counts.
 
Last edited:
I do wish there were more lenses the size of film era primes. I'd love a set of primes like those old ones that'd mount directly to my Sony A7 even though the majority of those lenses can't get anywhere near the quality of a modern lens at wider apertures.

Admittedly there are some relatively inexpensive compact primes from the far east and I do also have three modern Sony mount Voigtlander lenses one of which, the 50mm f2 pro Lanthar, is an outstanding lens which IMO stands comparison to any of the modern AF behemoths but of course it's MF and only f2.

This new range of Sigma lenses is interesting...

Sigma leaks the details about the new 24mm f/3.5 DG DN lens – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com

I'm hoping they're like the earlier 45mm f2.8 and designed to give a pleasing look rather than competing to be the sharpest lens across the frame as some other lenses seem to be vying to be.
 
ancient_mariner said:
they miss the mark with apertures that were ok 50 years ago but aren't good enough now.
Click to expand...
I think the opposite is true. With auto ISO and useabe settings past 10,000 ISO in some cameras, the need for wide apertures is mostly gone. For some people, of course, shallow depth of field is important but that's a minority market which is being well catered for by some of the new specialist manufacturers.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think the opposite is true. With auto ISO and useabe settings past 10,000 ISO in some cameras, the need for wide apertures is mostly gone. For some people, of course, shallow depth of field is important but that's a minority market which is being well catered for by some of the new specialist manufacturers.
Click to expand...
For me, it's depth of field control, though I do like the light gathering of ≤ f2.0 for indoors, even with high ISO. I would have every lens I own above 28mm in f1.4 if I could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top