Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless | |
Jman13 wrote:
I'm not complaining about slow full frame lenses, I'm saying the native lenses they are showing so far are LARGE. Period. In many cases they are larger than FF DSLR lenses of the same capabilities. A small camera body with huge lenses doesn't interest me in the least. It's the reason I dumped FF in the first place. And dear lord, can we please stop with the aperture equivalence talk. m4/3 is not trying to match FF depth of field capabilities. It's a fools errand to do so. It's one of the advantages of FF. Size is one of the advantages of the smaller sensor. That's all I'm talking about now. I'm not saying that these m4/3 lenses match all the exact image properties of the FF kit. They don't. That's not the point. My point is right now, the native FE lenses are quite large, and that limits the appeal to me as a full system.
This is not going to kill m4/3 or APS-C mirrorless because there are still many photographers who value size far more than they value ultra-shallow depth of field. Now, if they have a range of very high quality glass that's a little slower, but has IS and isn't insanely expensive, and is very small, that'll be great, but I've seen no evidence of that so far. And they'll never get there in the telephoto range because of the focal lengths required, though they could get there in the wide to portrait lengths. Thing is, if they go slow enough to match the size, then there is also no advantage to the full frame sensor....so what's the point. (you have to bump ISO to compensate for the slower aperture). Like I said, there's no free lunch (on either side).
What doesn't limit the appeal is how incredibly good this body should be for adapting the much smaller manual focus lenses that are out there.
...Show more →
Well I guess what I am saying is that I don't believe it is true that one of the advantages of m4/3rds is small lenses. The lenses are only smaller when they sacrifice imaging capabilities and I don't think that is an advantage. Don't get me wrong. I still really like m4/3rds and I am going to keep the system.
With that in mind let's look at the three lenses available for the new Sony FF.
Sony A7 - 465 grams, width 126.9mm, height 94.4mm, depth 48.2mm
Zeiss ZA 35 f/2.8 - 120 g length 36.5mm diameter 61.5mm
Zeiss ZA 55 f/1.8 - estimate 250g length 70.5mm diameter 64.4mm
Zeiss ZA 24-700 f/4 OSS - 430g length 94.5mm diameter 73mm
Let's compare that with an EM-1 and as similar lenses as we can get
Olympus EM-1 - 497g, width 130.4mm, height 93.5mm, depth 63.1mm
Olympus 17mm f/1.8 - 120g, length 35.5mm, diameter 57.5mm
Panny/Leica 25mm f/1.4 - 200g, length 54.5 mm, diameter 63mm
Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 - 382g, length 84mm, diameter 69.9mm
Now let's look at the differences in size. Because the Sony camera is about 15mm thinner than the EM-1, and 32 grams lighter, each camera plus lens combination ends up being very similar in size. For the 35mm prime the Sony is 14mm shorter and 32grams lighter. For the 55mm prime the Sony is about 18 grams heavier (I had to guess on the weight of the 55, but it is just a bit bigger than the 225g Zeiss 24 f/1.8, so that is where the estimate came from) and 5mm longer. For the zoom the Sony would weigh 16 grams more, but it would be 9.5mm shorter. So, when I look at the specs closely I don't see much difference in size for at least these three lenses. It is true that if we look at tele zooms the Panny 35-100 is way smaller than the Sony e-mount 70-200 f/4, but this is an unusual comparison because the Panny extends when zooming and the Sony does not. Frankly it seems that Sony did not think at all about size when they built the 70-200 f/4. It would be easy to do so, however, and to start it would make sense to make a lens that extends when zooming if you want a small package.
So, no I don't see this new Sony as making a lot larger package than m4/3rds and that is especially so if the two systems are equated on imaging capabilities. Still m4/3rds will have some distinct advantages. It will allow much less demands on lenses in terms of corner sharpness and distortion. It will allow easier focussing towards the edge of the sensor. It will allow cheaper cameras. It will allow greater depth of field when that is needed (often a boon for macro for example). In my view, however, it doesn't really mean smaller lenses.
|
But these will likely severely impact the upper end M4/3 bodies, leaving cheaper consumer market intact.