Fuji X-T1 review - Part II

[jjj]

I found it made a difference. YMMV.

[BJL]

But those who want small cameras may also want small lenses and those who do not can buy bigger bodies. The bit you seem to be missing is that people want options and that a lot of people are fed up with carrying heavy cameras with big lenses.

Agreed about the desire for smaller lenses, but for many of us, the lens size advantage of a smaller format is compared to the comparable lenses needed with a larger format, and that advantage is greatest with the inherently bulky type of lenses: zooms and telephotos. Using an MFT body with 14-42 "pancake" zoom or 12-50 or 50-200 or 75-300 instead of a 35mm format body with 28-85 or 24-100 or 100-400 or 150-600 is a substantial downsizing; using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.

[jjj]

Agreed about the desire for smaller lenses, but for many of us, the lens size advantage of a smaller format is compared to the comparable lenses needed with a larger format, and that advantage is greatest with the inherently bulky type of lenses: zooms and telephotos. Using an MFT body with 14-42 "pancake" zoom or 12-50 or 50-200 or 75-300 instead of a 35mm format body with 28-85 or 24-100 or 100-400 or 150-600 is a substantial downsizing; using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.

Except I think you will find those looking for smaller kits are doing so because the advantage is actually significant. I looked at an OMD1 with a bunch of lenses and it took up the same or probably less space than my 5dII + 24-70mm.
An APS-C camera isn't much smaller than a FF camera, so is still a big huge compared to a M43. Also comparing to one specific lens combination is a bit irrelevant as so few people are ever going to just have a solitary standard lens. However there is still a big difference in size as seen below with an OMD1 and a 7D both with standard lenses, 25mm f1.8 and 35mm f2 respectively. Which kind of blows holes in your not much difference argument.  
Before you point it out, I'm aware Canon make smaller APS-C cameras, but they are much, cheaper and will not exactly have the same purchaser as that of a £1200 body, so a 7D seemed the most likely comparison and even that is cheaper.

[jjj]

Using a 25mm normal prime with 4/3" format or a 35mm with "APS-C" instead of a 50mm with 35mm format, not so much.

Did a size comparison with some of the 'small' Canons too. Still much bigger.

[BJL]

EDIT: I have wandered off my original point, which was simply that users of zoom and telephoto lenses also get an attractive size advantage from a smaller format; maybe even more so than use of prime of most focal lengths: my "not so much" means "less" not "none".

I looked at an OMD1 with a bunch of lenses and it took up the same or probably less space than my 5dII + 24-70mm.

The 24-70mm is a zoom lens, which is part of the case I was talking about!

However there is still a big difference in size as seen below with an OMD1 and a 7D both with standard lenses, 25mm f1.8 and 35mm f2 respectively.

We are talking slightly at cross-purposes here: I was talking about the size advantage that comes purely from a smaller format; you are confounding it with the further size advantage (in both bodies and some lenses) of mirrorless vs SLR, which I certainly do not deny!  Further that 35mm is a wide angle for 35mm format and with the large back-focus distance required by the 35mm format EF mount, which adds to its size problem compared to a 25mm normal for 4/3" format with no mirror clearance problems.

A better comparison of what I am talking about would come from MFT vs Fujifilm X vs Sony A7 with FE mount lenses ... if there were enough of the last for useful comparisons!

[barryfitzgerald]

EDIT: I have wandered off my original point, which was simply that users of zoom and telephoto lenses also get an attractive size advantage from a smaller format; maybe even more so than use of prime of most focal lengths: my "not so much" means "less" not "none".
The 24-70mm is a zoom lens, which is part of the case I was talking about!We are talking slightly at cross-purposes here: I was talking about the size advantage that comes purely from a smaller format; you are confounding it with the further size advantage (in both bodies and some lenses) of mirrorless vs SLR, which I certainly do not deny!  Further that 35mm is a wide angle for 35mm format and with the large back-focus distance required by the 35mm format EF mount, which adds to its size problem compared to a 25mm normal for 4/3" format with no mirror clearance problems.

A better comparison of what I am talking about would come from MFT vs Fujifilm X vs Sony A7 with FE mount lenses ... if there were enough of the last for useful comparisons!

Why not look at the size of the 35mm MF rangefinder lenses v all digital Mirrorless offerings?
You will see that the only way to get really small lenses is to make a smaller sensor (ie micro 4/3)

Or build a camera with a FF 35mm sensor and manual focus lenses, no in lens motors, no electronic aperture or OIS
The micro 4/3 lenses some of them are quite small and compact, but at a cost of sensor size.

If you want a bigger sensor, AF and in lens motors/IS in lenses you are not going to get small lenses.
This is the big problem for ILC makers, they can only offer somewhat smaller bodies v DSLR's, in the lens dept they can do very little (esp for APS-C and FF)

[BJL]

Barry,

    We mostly agree, with the caveat that some (wide-angle) rangefinder lenses designed for film are not suitable for use with most electronic sensors, due to sending light to doe parts of the frame at highly off-perpendicualr angles. That is why I prefer to compare lenses designed for mirror-less digital cameras in various formats.

... the only way to get really small lenses is to make a smaller sensor (ie micro 4/3)
...
The micro 4/3 lenses some of them are quite small and compact, but at a cost of sensor size.

If you want a bigger sensor, AF and in lens motors/IS in lenses you are not going to get small lenses.

That is my point too: there are trade-offs, and with the inherent size advantages for smaller formats that we agree on, technological changes have made formats like 4/3" or "APS-C" the best balance for many (but not all) photographers and many (but not all) use cases where with film 35mm format or larger was the best balance, due to film's far worse tradeoffs of resolution vs sensitivity, etc.

[peterottaway]

All the designers can do is to try and make the combination of camera and lens as comfortable and as well balanced as possible. In other words improved ergonomics.

As has been noticed with Sigma, by the creative use of plastic lens material you can cut some weight,size and number of elements. But like with some  small cameras, small lenses can just lead to fat finger syndrome. This type of construction does mean that you can now construct a medium size and weight lens at somewhat lower cost than previously.