who's going to produce the next ff CSC?

rjbell

rjbell

Messages
4,421
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I think fuji and samsung will stick with the apsc. Panasonic and olympus, I don't see anything from them either. Its got to be coming from canon or Nikon. My bet is canon.

I don't buy the whole harming there DSLR sales argument. You either want a DSLR or a CSC. At the moment if you want a ff CSC you have to leave the brand. I'm sure canikon owners would stay with them if there was the ff CSC option.
 
It wasnt a case of wanting a DSLR or CSC for me, if Sony hadnt made the A7R i was going to get a Nikon D800E, i wanted high res and the lack of AA filter was a plus.
The size was also a plus. So i can see why Canon and Nikon say it will hurt there DSLR sales.

boyfalldown said:
Why do you need FF in a CSC?
Click to expand...

Why do you need it in a DSLR? I dont think i could fit a D800 in my pocket i can fit my A7.
 
robj20 said:
It wasnt a case of wanting a DSLR or CSC for me, if Sony hadnt made the A7R i was going to get a Nikon D800E, i wanted high res and the lack of AA filter was a plus.
The size was also a plus. So i can see why Canon and Nikon say it will hurt there DSLR sales.
Click to expand...

Ok maybe I should have rephrased it. It would effect DSLR sales but not total sales. If Nikon had the d800 sensor in a CSC you would have probably bought that and stuck with Nikon now they have lost you to Sony.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes really the A7 with all but my 24-70 fit in my pocket. Obviously not jeans pockets or anything but i regularly stick it in my coat pocket and it doesn't get in my way. So much so i almost never use a strap or bag.
 
robj20 said:
Yes really the A7 with all but my 24-70 fit in my pocket. Obviously not jeans pockets or anything but i regularly stick it in my coat pocket and it doesn't get in my way. So much so i almost never use a strap or bag.
Click to expand...


You missed why I said really, and the point of my q. What's ff give you that apsc doesn't?
 
boyfalldown said:
You missed why I said really, and the point of my q. What's ff give you that apsc doesn't?
Click to expand...

High res, no AA filter for sharper pics, high dynamic range, high iso ability.
 
robj20 said:
High res, no AA filter for sharper pics, high dynamic range, high iso ability.
Click to expand...

But my Fujis have all that. I don't wish to sound difficult, but surely the big advantage of a csc is size, & ff precludes that? Same with sticking a 24-70 on one
 
robj20 said:
High res, no AA filter for sharper pics, high dynamic range, high iso ability.
Click to expand...
I think you get all of those with the X-E2 which, as you know, is an apsc sensor.

Edit: Whoops Hugh beat me to it
 
I have to say I've got a D800 just now and have been pondering a move back to CSC but having tried a Fuji X-Pro 1 again I just don't think I can take the jump back to APS-C, good as it is it isn't the D800.
I'll maybe have a look at the A7/A7R but I'd almost rather a Nikon FF Mirrorless that I could use my smaller Nikon G Primes on to save having to fork out for 2x systems.
 
boyfalldown said:
But my Fujis have all that. I don't wish to sound difficult, but surely the big advantage of a csc is size, & ff precludes that? Same with sticking a 24-70 on one
Click to expand...

How does it the XE2 is what 16MP, my A7R is 36, it alows me to crop so much more than even my 24Mp camera. So the Fuji wouldn't have even made my short list.
 
boyfalldown said:
But my Fujis have all that. I don't wish to sound difficult, but surely the big advantage of a csc is size, & ff precludes that? Same with sticking a 24-70 on one
Click to expand...

Always good to have choice though. You can go smaller again with M4/3. It's just a case of picking a size and budget to suit. The more the merrier if you ask me.

Only concept I do struggle with is sticking big zooms on something like an A7 but can see huge appeal in lugging one around with a nice little prime on it.
 
gad-westy said:
Always good to have choice though. You can go smaller again with M4/3. It's just a case of picking a size and budget to suit. The more the merrier if you ask me.

Only concept I do struggle with is sticking big zooms on something like an A7 but can see huge appeal in lugging one around with a nice little prime on it.
Click to expand...

Even the A7 with as you say huge zoom still a lot lighter than a DSLR with equivalent specs. I dont get this idea where the whole reason for CSC is size and weight. Its just an efficient design if you do away with the mirror it doesn't need to be as big. DSLRs only went so big because of the mirror look at the old SLRs.

I like that there is so much choice makes it easier to pick a camera that suites your own needs.

I can kit the A7R out for anything, stick the 35mm on and have it in my pocket, stick a 24-70 and have a great general purpose setup, or go with the manual lenses and have class leading quality.
 
After using a lot of CSC and DSLR, I think theres only one way to decide this….. get both. Each have positives and negatives imo.
 
Couldn't agree more, i don't know why people get attached to a design idea or a brand. I just see what i want and get what offers me that.
 
robj20 said:
I dont get this idea where the whole reason for CSC is size and weight.
Click to expand...
I think the term CSC is being misused. The A7 isn't really a CSC (the first C stands for COMPACT), it's a mirrorless version of a FF DSLR. The body is smaller as it doesn't have the mirror or pentaprism housing, but the better lenses are the same size as Canon or Nikon FF lenses. In my mind, a good example of a compact system is micro 4/3rds sized - the lenses are small so the SYSTEM (that's the S in CSC) is COMPACT. The Fujis are interesting, but I'm not sure how much smaller the longer and better lenses are over a FF counterpart. For example, the weight of the 70-200 IS F2.8 equivalents in each range are:

  • 1.5kg Canon/Nikon
  • 1.4kg Sony
  • 1kg Fuji
  • 330g micro 4/3rds (Panasonic)

Only one of those makes a Compact System Camera... (and no Alan, I'm not going to argue with you as if all you want is a FF camera with small prime on it then body size becomes more important ;)).
 
arad85 said:
I think the term CSC is being misused. The A7 isn't really a CSC (the first C stands for COMPACT), it's a mirrorless version of a FF DSLR. The body is smaller as it doesn't have the mirror or pentaprism housing, but the better lenses are the same size as Canon or Nikon FF lenses. In my mind, a good example of a compact system is micro 4/3rds sized - the lenses are small so the SYSTEM (that's the S in CSC) is COMPACT. The Fujis are interesting, but I'm not sure how much smaller the longer and better lenses are over a FF counterpart. For example, the weight of the 70-200 IS F2.8 equivalents in each range are:

  • 1.5kg Canon/Nikon
  • 1.4kg Sony
  • 1kg Fuji
  • 330g micro 4/3rds (Panasonic)

Only one of those makes a Compact System Camera... (and no Alan, I'm not going to argue with you as if all you want is a FF camera with small prime on it then body size becomes more important ;)).
Click to expand...

Doesn't look the same size to me.

7773adf16c844549e125d9d99818c474.jpg
 
boyfalldown said:
But my Fujis have all that. I don't wish to sound difficult, but surely the big advantage of a csc is size, & ff precludes that? Same with sticking a 24-70 on one
Click to expand...

Why would you want an APS-C when you can have a FF that'll fit in your pocket?
 
woof woof said:
Why would you want an APS-C when you can have a FF that'll fit in your pocket?
Click to expand...


Size/weight all of the things CSC does well. Genuine pocket size csc in either flavour are not really around (unless you have very big pockets)

But why does everything come to the mantra of ff is so much better?
 
arad85 said:
I think the term CSC is being misused. The A7 isn't really a CSC (the first C stands for COMPACT), it's a mirrorless version of a FF DSLR. The body is smaller as it doesn't have the mirror or pentaprism housing, but the better lenses are the same size as Canon or Nikon FF lenses.
Click to expand...

Of course the A7 is a CSC and at least some of the lenses are more compact than some DSLR lenses.

I'm tired of posting pictures to prove this so I'll leave it to the nay sayers to prove their point :D

Back to the question...

I think Sony will be the next company to produce (another...) FF CSC :D
 
They will there are already rumours of a Sony offering aimed at sports.
 
boyfalldown said:
Size/weight all of the things CSC does well. Genuine pocket size csc in either flavour are not really around (unless you have very big pockets)

But why does everything come to the mantra of ff is so much better?
Click to expand...

Back in the days of film cameras that'd fit in your pocket were few and far between.

My "compact" film cameras wouldn't fit in a shirt or trouser pocket and so needed to go either in my jacket pocket or if I wasn't wearing a jacket they had to go in a little bag. In these digital days I have two sub credit card footprint compacts that'll fit in a trouser pocket and I have a LX5 which will not but it does fit snugly into my old 35mm compact camera case.

My MFT cameras, when fitted with a compact prime lens, will fit in a jacket pocket and my A7 is just a bit too big because I use manual lenses via an adapter but I'm perfectly willing to believe that an A7 when fitted with a compact native prime will.

Personally, I find the oft repeated criticism that CSC wont fit in your pocket so you might as well get a D3 less than interesting. 99% of 35mm and APS film cameras wouldn't fit in a trouser pocket and yet people expect a modern digital camera to?

Well, it doesn't quite work like that.

You can have a genuinely pocketable camera but it'll have a small sensor and a small lens and the control will be a bit fiddly, or you can have a CSC that'll weigh a bit more and fit in a small bag or a coat pocket just like a film camera or you can have a DSLR that'll weighing still more and will need to be in a bigger bag.

As to the FF mantra... personally for me it's about being able to use old manual lenses at their intended FoV, something that your Fuji can't do. It's also about having a really good quality camera for pretty much market leading image quality (even with my old crappy lenses :D) for when I want to indulge myself or capture the best possible image I can. Simples.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Back in the days of film cameras that'd fit in your pocket were few and far between.



As to the FF mantra... personally for me it's about being able to use old manual lenses at their intended FoV, something that your Fuji can't do. It's also about having a really good quality camera for pretty much market leading image quality (even with my old crappy lenses :D) for when I want to indulge myself or capture the best possible image I can. Simples.
Click to expand...


Do you bet printed you could tell the difference then :) ?

My point wasn't to start an argument, but simply that aps c sensors are more then good enough now for 99.9% of what we do. And btw I use ff Nikon for work, because of the handling, apsc images are also there for 99.9% of stuff I do.
 
Film is more than good enough. Nothing wrong with just simply wanting the best. I wanted the best DR and resolution i could and only a couple of cameras offered that, the d800E and the A7R. Its great pulling back all the shadows and highlights in lightroom that i could only dream of before.
 
boyfalldown said:
Do you bet printed you could tell the difference then :) ?

My point wasn't to start an argument, but simply that aps c sensors are more then good enough now for 99.9% of what we do. And btw I use ff Nikon for work, because of the handling, apsc images are also there for 99.9% of stuff I do.
Click to expand...

Tell the difference between what? Fuji and Sony FF in print? I could and will say that same for MFT v Fuji APS-C.

My point was just to try and provide you with some of the answers you seem to be looking for in your short one line posts.

I agree that the APS-C Fuji system is good enough and I'd extend that view to MFT and ask you why you didn't go for MFT if you wanted a compact system? Take that as a rhetorical question and I'm sure you'll see why some would rather sidestep the various APS-C systems and go for FF. All choices are valid...
 
woof woof said:
Tell the difference between what? Fuji and Sony FF in print? I could and will say that same for MFT v Fuji APS-C.

My point was just to try and provide you with some of the answers you seem to be looking for in your short one line posts.

I agree that the APS-C Fuji system is good enough and I'd extend that view to MFT and ask you why you didn't go for MFT if you wanted a compact system? Take that as a rhetorical question and I'm sure you'll see why some would rather sidestep the various APS-C systems and go for FF. All choices are valid...
Click to expand...


One line? You seem to wish a fight where there is non.
 
boyfalldown said:
One line? You seem to wish a fight where there is non.
Click to expand...

Fight?

You do seem to repeatedly post one line interjections so maybe adding a little more info or a view and being clearer would mean that your points could be answered in one post rather than 6? Little one line interjections and fights? It's like talking to a 5 year old... I'm out :D
 
robj20 said:
Doesn't look the same size to me.

7773adf16c844549e125d9d99818c474.jpg
Click to expand...

So? And Alan will always bring out the 25mm f0.95 to prove his point (but then there isn't a 50mm f0.95 for any of the FF cameras, so it's a misaligned comparison). The differences are far more pronounced with longer focal lengths anyway.

FF mirrorless is not a compact system. It is a compact body, with FF lenses. If you have a number of zooms covering the 16-200 FF equivalent range, there is very little to choose between the FF mirrorless and DSLR on size and weight alone (I'm not bringing resolution/ISO/dynamic range into the equation as the different sensors in use have very little impact on body size/weight). The camera bag will be similarly sized and will weigh about the same. You won't gain much (and your definition of much may well be different to mine) from a mirrorless FF over a DSLR if you are carrying a system around with you.

If you have a single compact prime on a body and that is all you ever carry around, the discussion is different, but then that isn't a system, it's effectively a semi-permanently fixed lens camera equivalent to something like an X100S...
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Fight?

You do seem to repeatedly post one line interjections so maybe adding a little more info or a view and being clearer would mean that your points could be answered in one post rather than 6? Little one line interjections and fights? It's like talking to a 5 year old... I'm out :D
Click to expand...


Yes fight Alan. Of course the personal insults when someone doesn't agree with your point of view just support that. Wouldn't you say? Leave you to it
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
So? And Alan will always bring out the 25mm f0.95 to prove his point (but then there isn't a 50mm f0.95 for any of the FF cameras, so it's a misaligned comparison). The differences are far more pronounced with longer focal lengths anyway.

FF mirrorless is not a compact system. It is a compact body, with FF lenses. If you have a number of zooms covering the 16-200 FF equivalent range, there is very little to choose between the FF mirrorless and DSLR on size and weight alone (I'm not bringing resolution/ISO/dynamic range into the equation as the different sensors in use have very little impact on body size/weight). The camera bag will be similarly sized and will weigh about the same. You won't gain much (and your definition of much may well be different to mine) from a mirrorless FF over a DSLR if you are carrying a system around with you.

If you have a single compact prime on a body and that is all you ever carry around, the discussion is different, but then that isn't a system, it's effectively a semi-permanently fixed lens camera equivalent to something like an X100S...
Click to expand...

There is a 50mm f0.95, im even thinking of getting one for night time stuff.
My bag has a gone a lot smaller. I usually carry around a 70-200 f4, 35mm f2.8, and 24-70 f4.

But why have you set a rule that to be a system it you have to carry all your lenses around. A lot of the time i use it just with the 35 so it goes in my jacket, usually when im hiking or walking around town.
If im out with photography in mind i will probably use a strap and the 24-70, if im away for the day i will take the lot in a bag. A DSLR can only do two of those things, thats why i chose the FF CSC.
I really dont get where the hate for anything other than a massive DSLR comes from, people have different requirements get over it.
 
robj20 said:
I really dont get where the hate for anything other than a massive DSLR comes from, people have different requirements get over it.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't care if you want to lug a medium format around with you. And I think you have me wrong... I have absolutely no "hate for anything other than FF DSLR" as I sold a 5D2 and L lenses and went lock, stock and barrel to micro 4/3rds. ;) Having said that, I can see the appeal of the Sony....

I'm commenting on people classifying anything without a mirror as a compact system camera. IMHO, it is far from that if you want to carry more than 1 lens around. It becomes slightly smaller than effectively the same thing with a mirror box and pentaprism from Canon or Nikon.
 
So at what size/weight does a system become compact?
 
robj20 said:
So at what size/weight does a system become compact?
Click to expand...
When it's significantly smaller than the one it is being compared to - which is FF DSLR. If it isn't significantly smaller, then entry level APS-C cameras can be considered Compact System Cameras... and they aren't.
 
By your logic the Fuji XE2 isnt a CSC its closer in size to a DSLR with same size sensor than the A7 is to something like a D800.

A7 40% less 6D
XE2 34% less 550D
PEN PL7 33% less 550D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top