who's going to produce the next ff CSC?

Its not really a problem, nothing stopping you putting an A mount lens on you can have the f2.8 70-200 then.
 
Which Fuji do you have?
If you changed purely for size then great the Sony isnt for you. There are people that dont want compromise so much on the IQ bit still want to save some weight, people like me. Why is it so hard to comprehend that more choice is better, and something thats in the middle between a small CSC and a DSLR is also wanted by people.

The way i see it you have CSC that are the stuff thats been around for a bit, a crop sensor in a small body.
Then you have your CSC of new that are FF sensors in smaller bodies, call them FF CSC if you want.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
Which Fuji do you have?
If you changed purely for size then great the Sony isnt for you. There are people that dont want compromise so much on the IQ bit still want to save some weight, people like me. Why is it so hard to comprehend that more choice is better, and something thats in the middle between a small CSC and a DSLR is also wanted by people.

The way i see it you have CSC that are the stuff thats been around for a bit, a crop sensor in a small body.
Then you have your CSC of new that are FF sensors in smaller bodies, call them FF CSC if you want.
Click to expand...

I have XT-1 XE-2 and the sensor is fine for the shooting i do theses days,it wasn't just size it was weight due to illness,otherwise i would still be quite happy with my Nikons D700 & D3 and the lens :)
 
Okay so your XE2 is 34% lower weight than a 550D. My A7R is 40% lower than a 6D. So why is one a CSC and the other isn't? I get lenses are bigger but percentage wise, all FF lenses will be similar as will all crop sensor. The smaller the sensor the smaller the lens, making more difference at longer focal lengths.

If you made a system based on a 1" sensor they would be smaller still, would that mean all current CSC are no longer CSCs?
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
So why is one a CSC and the other isn't?
Click to expand...
Because the system is significantly smaller. The system means body + lenses. The 550D, 6D and A7 all need FF lenses as you can't get decent lenses (i.e. not consumer grade zooms) for a Canon that are not FF compatible beyond 55mm, therefore any system lens advantage is lost. In fact, you might as well have the FF body - particularly when you move to xxD or 7D bodies if you want decent Canon glass.
robj20 said:
Then you have your CSC of new that are FF sensors in smaller bodies, call them FF CSC if you want.
Click to expand...
No... call them what they are... FF mirrorless and drop the word "compact" from the description. Unfortunately, the marketing people in Sony have latched onto CSC as a "good thing" and selling them as that. But they aren't. That's not to say they are pants or anything (if I were still on FF, I'd probably have moved to Sony) but they aren't compact. The thread should be titled "Who's going to produce the next FF mirrorless"...
 
Changed my 5D MKII for a Fuji X-T1, roughly half the weight and size with a standard zoom lens.

Knew after buying an X-E1 that I wouldn't be using the larger camera much, just so much more portable and for my uses the quality is fine

Doesn't matter how great a camera is if you don't want to lug it around
 
When you say body+lens. Which lens? If it were the 35mm it is significantly smaller than similar FF lenses, as is the 24-70 and the new 16-35, only the 70-200 closes the gap its still a bit smaller though.

Answer me this would making a system based an a smaller sensor mean your current CSC stop being so?
 
The Sony is just a full frame mirrorless camera, nothing really compact about it. Even less so when you start putting better native mount glass on it and it looks like a Transformer when you add in the A mount adapter and use Alpha lenses.
 
robj20 said:
When you say body+lens. Which lens?
Click to expand...
It's not one lens, it is all of them when taken collectively. I.e. "the lenses for the system". You can always find some lenses that are bigger/smaller in camera systems. If you want a good example, look at the Canon 50mm f1.8 vs the Voigtlander 25mm for micro 4/3rds - you can claim they are "equivalent" as they'll give similar FoV and similar DoF on the respective sensors wide open.

robj20 said:
Answer me this would making a system based an a smaller sensor mean your current CSC stop being so?
Click to expand...
No. But I can guarantee you the marketing department would come up with another name for them to convey the fact the camera system was smaller again than current CSCs. I wouldn't then call my camera by this new name, because that's not what it would be.
 
the a7 is reasonably small, its like a classic m42 camera size, roughly

so its a really good size

pentax q is really small csc that everyone ignores
 
Canon might do it in the form of 4K C-series video camera :P The current APS-C bodies are a compromise IMHO

I don't think there is a need for a new system as EF serves the market pretty well. A premium FF fast zoom compact (24-70/2.8) might be just the thing to shut up a few people. I believe they have got a similar near-APSC compact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top