Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nikon Canon future - is this the 35mm format
Recently I've read this article.

I share the similar opinion. The current camera are over engineered in one direction. The customer want different. I dont believe that new Canon/Nikon mirrorless will be different.
Most expected from them is the Frankenstein solution ML Body with Chuncky "modern"SLR lens

I think that they have to go back to the roots. The fantastic small and reliable box that makes decent pictures I think about Galen Rowell photography

What we have now. Chunky and super fragile camera and lenses.

What do you think,
Do we need the tool that can reach the optical limits, or you need nice light multy functional easy to handle and robust tool.
Oh, a mirrorless propaganda article, how cute...
By the way:
I fully agree - mirrorless should be different. I'm currently testing the 16-35GM on the A7R II - thus a huge lens on a tiny camera again.
What's the point of this? Lenses of the same size as their DSLR cousins in a package that is worse balanced.
Of course, I understand this from a marketing perspective because it's still in the people's head that FF is the gold standard.
However, APS-H would have made much more sense really.
So what's happening now? Pana/Oly/Fuji are releasing "big" bodies again - to match big lenses once more.
If I had the money I'd probably try the Leica CL now - because Leica understood mirrorless about a hundred years ago already.
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Show us one 16-35 on FF smaller AND lighter than the Sony.

If you don't like FF, don't buy it.

Your example with Leica falls tremendously short. The CL has the same size as a Leica M3 which is FF. And comes with lenses that are pretty huge for APS-C - or normal size when they are normal slow like f/3.5-5.6. From the 7 lenses only one prime comes at f/1.4 - so, DoF will be huge for the rest of them. There are many limits in the CL line, but if one doesn't need shallow DoF, has big pockets and is happy with only 7 AF lenses (which will cost more than 14 others in other systems Smile ) just go and grab it, instead of wailing about things you don't have to suffer from.

If I see an Olympus µ 4/3 of today I don't think, they got them much smaller than an OM1 - 4 back in the day, although the sensor delivers only ¼ of FF sensor area. But then: If they'd got them ¼ of a OM4: who could operate such a thing? 4-5 year old children? The Nikon 1 series was/is rather small. The prices aren't. Small alone doesn't sell.

Also APS-C bodies. According to Fujifilm, users wanted IBIS and and a bigger body. I suspect, they use the couple of users who actually wanted a bigger body to justify the size the body had to get because of the oh-so-urgently-needed IBIS. There are enough small and light systems to not complain about the size of others. If I look at any of my Fujis, their lenses and bodies are much smaller than current DLSRs - not to mention some f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses which are big beasts in their DSLR-version, as none of the DSLR manufacturers cares about high-quality and fast APS-C lenses today. Primarily they have to be cheap. And the Pro-DLSR APS-C bodies are used to crop tele shots, getting "more reach".

This whole "mirrorless has to be small and lightweight" dogma is in my opinion bullshit. Purpose and ergonomics dictate the design. Size of bags doesn't.
Leica is just behind......technically as well as in IQ.......not that the quality is bad........but the lenses are butt-clenchingly expensive .....and the camera's usage is limited.......... to mention the need for independent assurance when the guarantee is refused for a lack of parts!

It's maybe fairly simple.......these huge lenses are just as huge when on a large FF such you have to decide at what points "quality vs mass" is applicable to you.....there are smaller lenses out there if necessary.

Sony would not have achieved what it has done today using the APSC-H sensors........though Canikon would have been rubbing their hands together with glee!
Dave's clichés
Not to mention that Sony needed only 3 generations α7 FF mirrorless to bring some serious competition. How many iterations of Nikon D600/610/750 or D800/800E/810/810A/850 to handle the DLSR problems of high res sensors? Canon 5D, now as Mk IV? DSLRs are already so much bigger than their film predecessors, although the space for the film roll could be used for something else. Where are the really small FF DSLRs? The "old" small lenses from film era - which one of them went down to f/1.4, and how huge were these, how much problems in handling and focusing were caused by them - although film never resolved the line pairs in real life what today's sensor will resolve? The improvement game appears to make bigger lenses, such as using MF lenses on 135 SLRs to get cleaner corners and lower vignetting.
There will never be a truly small FF DSLR as long as there's a LCD behind the body.

[Image: FM2_tropical_edition_A.jpeg]

Have a look at this picture. Have a look at the flash shoe and the viewfinder hump. Just to the left of it, you'll see the film plane mark. Notice how close it is to the back of the body. That's because film is very thin and there's only a pressure plate and a thin metal cover behind it.

Now have a look at a Sony A7:

[Image: Sony-A7S-top-800x720.jpg]

Keep in mind, this is the Mark I version. Mark II and III series bodies are much larger and fatter. Do you notice how far the sensor plane is from the back of the camera? That's because there is so much junk behind it. Add the mirror mechanism in front and you'll realize a 35mm FF DSLR will always end up being a fat thing, compared to film cameras.

Even the hilariously obese attempt of a retro camera called Nikon DF is useful in such a comparison:

[Image: Fujifilm_X_T1_vs_Nikon_Df_size_comparison_600px.jpg]

Unless you trim the mirror in front or the LCD in the back, there'll never be a small digital camera with a 35mm FF sensor and an interchangable lens system.
IMO performance and size/weight go together. It is us the consumer to decide how much quality vs convenience is needed.
The other day I was thinking: If I switch from Nikon to Sony A7 (one day) I can maintain two sets of glass, one high performance and one APSC for travel and hiking. Now I have Oly omd m10 and 2 lenses for convenience. Two sets of glass Vs two systems.
Obican, I like the reasoning and the nice graphic, pardon, nicely done graphic. Giving the FE an E-lens, cheapo piece of plastic? To make it look even smaller? Taking away the winder's grip? And how does one manage to get 5 fps? Quickly winding the lever? Okay, film can't overheat except it's already burning, but the thumb on that lever, my-oh-my [Image: nurse15x19.gif] doctor's assistance will be needed.

And giving the Fuji a standard zoom whereas the others have a prime? Alright, the photo you took from Df shows a 50/1.8, right?

I found one of the X-T2 with 35/1.4 (I guess) and it just looks less monstrous.

[Image: Fujifilm-XT2-top-600x400.jpg]
JJ, I did not do that graph. Just found it on the internet and my point stands, digital will always be larger because a sensor and the LCD takes a lot of space. I'd even argue that Fuji in that last graph I posted looks a reasonable size but that's only because they got rid of the mirror. It's much closer in size to an FE or any other generic manual focus camera but have a look at where the image plane is, relative to the camera body.

Everything behind that line in that Fuji is digital related. Old film bodies could've been made much smaller because you don't have to put much behind that point, a simple pressure plate and a back cover will do just fine.

And Df is huge because it has a lot of junk in both sides of that plane Big Grin.

Also bring a X-T20 the next time or even better, X-E3. They are absolutely tiny.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)