Mirrorless cameras still constrained by lens sizes

RichA writes:
That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
need to look at Olympus and Panasonic.

But most _current_ APS-C cameras use "legacy" mounts, where the various
details of the lens interface are designed for FF 35mm cameras with a
mirror box. They can make "DX only" lenses which are indeed smaller,
but they're still constrained a bit by the mount.

Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.

[After all, the 4/3 sensor, tho obviously on the small side, isn't
_that_ much smaller than APS-C...]

-Miles

--
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here,
beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?

Miles Bader wrote:


Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.



You could make wide angle prime lenses a lot smaller, since they need not
be retrofocus.

Doug McDonald

RichA writes:
You could make wide angle prime lenses a lot smaller, since they need not
be retrofocus.

But these cameras will be aimed primarily at migrators from P&S's and
they don't want prime lenses.

There seems little point in having interchangeable lenses at all if
you're going to restrict yourself to the "just stick on the kit zoom and
leave it" crowd.

Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
laggy like the GH1), and if the "NX" standard is good, they'll start
drawing in the DSLR crowd too (I know I'd certainly like a smaller
camera, it's just that the current crop [GH1 etc] kinda sucks).

Using an APS-C sensor helps to that end, with its somewhat higher
quality and nicer aspect ratio (than the 4:3 sensor).

-Miles

--
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"

Miles Bader wrote in
:

RichA writes:
You could make wide angle prime lenses a lot smaller, since they
need not be retrofocus.

But these cameras will be aimed primarily at migrators from P&S's and
they don't want prime lenses.

There seems little point in having interchangeable lenses at all if
you're going to restrict yourself to the "just stick on the kit zoom
and leave it" crowd.

Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
laggy like the GH1)

Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs? It's easier to focus with a manual lens
using it than most optical viewfinder cameras, especially (because of its
gain) in low light.

Rich writes:
Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
laggy like the GH1)

Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?

I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
scene ... most unpleasant. It may be due to the processing they're
doing, or sensor readout issues, and not the resolution of the VF
display.

[btw, according the docs I see, the resolution of the GH1 VF is 800x600,
or about 0.5 megapixels]

-Miles

--
Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.

RichA wrote:

Miles Bader wrote:
Rich writes:
Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
laggy like the GH1)
Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?
I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
scene ... most unpleasant. It may be due to the processing they're
doing, or sensor readout issues, and not the resolution of the VF
display.

If you pan the camera while looking through it, you get a kind of
colour separation effect happening. Also, people who complain the EVF
looks grainy generally do after seeing it in low-light conditions, and
like a sensor, it does look grainy, but not in daylight.
[btw, according the docs I see, the resolution of the GH1 VF is 800x600,
or about 0.5 megapixels]

-Miles

Well, the LCD is 460,000 and the EVF has noticeably higher visible
resolution than the LCD.

That's "dots" (R,G, &B sub-pixels)
Divide by three to get resolution.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:09:20 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

Rich writes:
Hopefully EVFs will get a lot better (e.g. not massively pixelated and
laggy like the GH1)

Massively pixelated? 1.2 megs?

I don't know the source of the problem, but looking through the
viewfinder, there was very obvious aliasing on any sharp edges in the
scene ...

I could explain to you why this is a major plus in real-world use, taking
any EVF equipped camera (even lower resolution EVFs than that) leaps and
bounds over any optical viewfinder, but heavens-forbid that I should
attempt to educate morons that insist on remaining morons. They are what
they are and choose to keep being what they are. Oh well ....

RichA wrote:

But to your point about having only a kit zoom as limiting, I agree
completely, and I use lots of prime lenses, but I can't help wondering
how many DSLRs would sell to novices if you permanently attached one
of the 18-200mm zooms to them? Maybe more than a few. They could
conceivably come out with a fixed zoom EVIL camera that would cost
less than a DSLR with the same separate lens yet would have a large
sensor. The Sony R1 was such a camera, but it was too big, to clunky
and too expensive.

This idea is raised from time to time but in reality it makes little
sense. The cost of the lens mount, on both sides, is pretty trivial.
Yeah, if you could sell such a camera for $300-400 you'd get some
takers, but the review sites would quickly point out the limitations of
this type of camera. Something like the R1 is exactly what you'd end up
with again. And remember, one of the reasons D-SLR bodies are relatively
inexpensive is because the manufacturer is willing to take lower margins
on the bodies in the expectation of selling high margin lenses, flashes,
and other accessories. I doubt if a D-SLR + an 18-200 would be any more
expensive than an R1 type of camera with an 18-200 zoom.

On 2009-09-05 18:01:46 -0700, Miles Bader said:

RichA writes:
That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
need to look at Olympus and Panasonic.

But most _current_ APS-C cameras use "legacy" mounts, where the various
details of the lens interface are designed for FF 35mm cameras with a
mirror box. They can make "DX only" lenses which are indeed smaller,
but they're still constrained a bit by the mount.

Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.

[After all, the 4/3 sensor, tho obviously on the small side, isn't
_that_ much smaller than APS-C...]

-Miles

RichA is full of baloney. The Leica M9 is very small and light. You can
get pancake lenses for it. And it has a full frame sensor. In fact, if
Rich had a memory longer than 10 years, he would remember that there
used to be many 35 mm film cameras that were as compact or even smaller
than anything being produced in 4/3 today.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-09-05 18:01:46 -0700, Miles Bader said:

RichA writes:
That is, mirrorless cameras with reasonable sensor sizes, not P&S's.
This is the place the micro 4/3rds has a chance to keep for itself.
This APS-C mirrorless camera has lenses as large as any normal APS-C
camera, which only makes sense. Those hoping for hyper-portability
need to look at Olympus and Panasonic.

But most _current_ APS-C cameras use "legacy" mounts, where the various
details of the lens interface are designed for FF 35mm cameras with a
mirror box. They can make "DX only" lenses which are indeed smaller,
but they're still constrained a bit by the mount.

Surely if you designed lenses from scratch for an APS-C sensor without a
mirror-box, you could make them at least a _bit_ smaller.

[After all, the 4/3 sensor, tho obviously on the small side, isn't
_that_ much smaller than APS-C...]

-Miles

RichA is full of baloney. The Leica M9 is very small and light. You can
get pancake lenses for it. And it has a full frame sensor. In fact, if
Rich had a memory longer than 10 years, he would remember that there
used to be many 35 mm film cameras that were as compact or even smaller
than anything being produced in 4/3 today.

There's 35mm film SLR cameras which are smaller than most of the
FourThirds DSLR cameras.
The irony is that most of them were made by one of the founding members
of the FourThirds Group.
One of the things to consider with live-view interchangeable-lens
cameras (with whatever sensor size) is that there needs not be any
mechanical linkage (such as an RF cam) between the lens and body (other
than lens-mount), so the body (and mount to sensor distance) can be much
thinner than even a Leica M8 (or M9).