Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts  (Read 5029 times)

JKoerner007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • "A picture's worth a thousand words."
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #60 on: June 26, 2017, 08:53:48 AM »

Now this is a crock of sh*t. You do realize the vast majority of professional photographers do not use your so called "world class super telephoto" lenses. Professional that shoot portrait, weddings, journalists etc... have zero need for super telephotos. In fact the photographers that do rely on super telephotos are very much in a minority.

Maybe you should rephrase your statement say the minority of professional photographers, mainly sports, rely on super telephotos...whereas the majority of professionals have zero need for the big behemoth lenses and would do just fine with a more lighter compact camera and lens system.

You are an angry, ridiculous, broken record.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #61 on: June 26, 2017, 09:17:01 AM »

You are an angry, ridiculous, broken record.

Sorry, but you are the one that just focuses on your big telephotos and think a system is not professional until it has a full set. If you are a sports photographer then yes your system needs the telephotos, but for the other 99% of photographers, they don't even come into the picture.

You need to open up your narrow view of photography and see the vast majority don't need what you as a major item missing with Sony.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5826
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #62 on: June 26, 2017, 11:29:31 AM »

One reason I moved away from DSLR's was the increasing bulk and weight of the system which includes lenses. No way would I take the behemoth existing lenses, add an additional adapter for more weight and bulk and then stick that only a mirrorless body
It is roughly a wash for total camera bulk, lens plus body. The extra bulk of the adaptor simply replaces the extra bulk at the front of an F-mount or EF-mount body due to the SLR lens mount needing to be further from the sensor (for example, 44mm for EF vs 18mm for EF-M). A mirrorless camera with SLR mount must have a bunch of empty space where the SLR mirror assembly used to be: look at how bulky the Pentax K-01 (mirrorless with SLR mount) is compared to Sony E-mount bodies in the same format—and the K-01 does not even have an EVF adding any bulk!.

So when reusing SLR lenses on a mirrorless body, it is a wash, and likewise when reusing SLR lens designs in mirrorless mount: camera with lens is the same length, but with longer lenses and a shallower body.  However, when using lenses designed to take advantage of the shorter registration distance, the new mirrorless mount often wins on total camera bulk. For example, compare the Olympus 12-60/2.8-4 lens for Four Thirds SLR mount (registration distance 38.67mm) to the Panasonic Leica 12-60/2.8-4 lens for Micro Four Thirds mirrorless mount (registration distance 19.25mm):
FT lens: W 79.5 mm, L 98.5 mm, 575 g
MFT lens: W 68.4 mm, L 86 mm, 320 g
(And that MFT lens has in-lens OIS adding some bulk, which the FT lens does not.)
Adding in the registration distance, the FT lens extends 137.17mm in front the sensor, while the MFT lens extends only 105.25mmL a difference of 32mm or 1 1/4 inches.
This is an example of how optimal mirrorless system design (not overly constrained by backward compatibility) allows, in your words, for "a more lighter compact camera and lens system."
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 11:37:31 AM by BJL »
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #63 on: June 26, 2017, 11:38:42 AM »

It is roughly a wash for total camera bulk, lens plus body. The extra bulk of the adaptor simply replaces the extra bulk at the front of an F-mount or EF-mount body due to the SLR lens mount needing to be further from the sensor (for example, 44mm for EF vs 18mm for EF-M). A mirrorless camera with SLR mount must have a bunch of empty space where the SLR mirror assembly used to be: look at how bulky the Pentax K-01 (mirrorless with SLR mount) is compared to Sony E-mount bodies in the same format—and the K-01 does not even have an EVF adding any bulk!.

So when reusing SLR lenses on a mirrorless body, it is a wash, and likewise when reusing SLR lens designs in mirrorless mount: camera with lens is the same length, but with longer lenses and a shallower body.  However, when using lenses designed to take advantage of the shorter registration distance, the new mirrorless mount often wins on total camera bulk. For example, compare the Olympus 12-60/2.8-4 lens for Four Thirds SLR mount (registration distance 38.67mm) to the Panasonic Leica 12-60/2.8-4 lens for Micro Four Thirds mirrorless mount (registration distance 19.25mm):
FT lens: W 79.5 L 98.5 mm, 575 g
MFT lens: W 68.4 L 86 mm, 320 g
(And that MFT lens has in-lens OIS adding some bulk which the FT lens does not.)

Yes, you are right. Lenses designed specifically for the mirrorless cameras and their regestration distances can be quite a bit smaller. The Batis and Loxia lenses designed for the Sony E mount are good examples of compact lenses that deliver outstanding image quality.

That's why I'd have zero interest in a mirrorless system that relies on the existing bulky DSLR lenses with adapters...what's the point when there are systems out there that offer native lenses specifically designed for mirrorless resulting in a much more compact setup.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #64 on: June 26, 2017, 11:47:58 AM »

Surely you have to take this on a lens by lens basis and judge each on its merits.

I've used some longer lenses on mirrorless cameras and I'd describe the handling as excellent with my hand under the lens and the aperture / focus / zoom rings falling readily to hand.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5826
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2017, 09:17:09 PM »

That's why I'd have zero interest in a mirrorless system that relies on the existing bulky DSLR lenses with adapters...what's the point when there are systems out there that offer native lenses specifically designed for mirrorless resulting in a much more compact setup.
In turn, I completely agree. The only way that a mirrorless system makes sense to me is if I can build a kit that allows me to work most or all the time with "native" lenses. I see a place for a bit of use of one or two SLR lenses if (a) the mirrorless system does not [yet] have such a lens because it is rather special purpose, or (b) it is an expensive lens that I own and do not want to take the financial hit of selling and replacing.
In my case, I hang on to the Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 until there is a satisfactory MFT replacement. (Mirrorless bulk reduction is irrelevant with such a lens!)


P. S. And to Scooby70: I am also one who supports big lenses with my left hand near the balance point of the barrel, so the "lens-body balance" issue is irrelevant to me.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 07:16:51 PM by BJL »
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2307
Re: The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts
« Reply #66 on: June 27, 2017, 03:51:32 AM »

Surely you have to take this on a lens by lens basis and judge each on its merits.

I've used some longer lenses on mirrorless cameras and I'd describe the handling as excellent with my hand under the lens and the aperture / focus / zoom rings falling readily to hand.

Totally agree.  You can't make a blanket statement about it - has to be case by case.
Logged
Phil Brown
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up