Obstacles to a FF mirrorless

[aplumpton]

<p>Other than the expensive Leica M or M9 rangefinders, is there any hope for an eventual FF mirrorless at prices below that of the larger Nikon D800/D800E? Can such a system apply a 36 MP sensor (Sony) like that of the Nikon? Is there a reluctance of the manufacturers to have a mirrorless compete in IQ terms with their DSLR models? Perhaps the NEX-7 and others are enough in terms of IQ and with their ability to use better non-native optics, but a FF mirrorless of highest quality sensor would almost certainly have its adherents. Any news coming down the pipeline?</p>

[phule]

<p>Other than the Sony RX1 you mean? </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>One way or the other, the mirror is a mechanical kludge that will -- sooner or later -- be eliminated altogether. But just when depends on both the market (the buyers) and the technology making EVF work well enough to satisfy the same. It is by no means a given that the result will look like the current "mirrorless" cameras.</p>

<p>The point of satisfaction for the general public has long ago been reached and crossed. We're talking about so-called "pro" cameras here - a tiny, but prestigious part of the overall market.</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Fuji X-E1with an improved APS-C sensor design,it pretty much matches any full frame Dslr. But how big do you want to print? Unless you want really huge prints,most of the larger sensor mirror less cameras should give you what you want. And if you really need huge prints,you want a medium format Dslr. Full frame is now up there with the megapixel wars-it really doesn't matter any more. Plus the XE is quite a bit smaller than full frame cameras,as are it's lenses,and Zeiss is making lenses for it now. You really don't need huge sensors with huge megapixel counts any longer.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I would suggest it is less a reluctance on the part of the makers but the absurb pre-occupation with DSLRs which currently prevails in the market. There is also the point that the size of the body can get smaller but if it has a larger sensor it needs larger lenses which are as heavy as those used by the DSLR so the weight reduction in the body is to no great point. Is there really much point to mirrorless with a large sensor except for a minority market. Perhaps I should write miniscule rather than minority? It can be done with current technology but do we need it?</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have Sony NEX 5N and a Canon 7D. The issue between them is not image quality per se. It is the efficacy of the EVF, the ability to track and focus on moving objects, and the ability to use use large, fast lenses. The 5N is very useful but I use the 7D and Canon long L lenses for sports and other events as I have tried the 5n and I lose too many pictures. The EVF is the standard Sony EVF they use in other cameras as well and it cost three hundred dollars. I think it effective but not yet as good as the optical finder in the 7D. This is particularly true in bright light and quick capture in sports. It seems kind of silly to mount a 100-400 on a small body when Canon specifically makes bodies to function with these lenses without built-in delay. I agree that a moving mirror is a kluge but evfs IMO have to capture more light and be quicker before they can compete with optical finders. At least I can comment on equipment that I own and use. I think it not practical for some uses to put a full frame sensor in a smaller body.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>Dick, I'm hoping that Sony may offer an interchangeable lens evolution of the RX-1, preferably with a built-in EVF.. For slow moving, adapted-Nikon lens, tripod based shooting the time-delay of the digital TV image moving through millions of transistors wouldn't be a problem. Who knows, they may find a way to lessen the delay; broadcast TV cameras have virtually no time delay in their finders...of course, they're only 2MP.<br>

But until then, and for much or most shooting that requires fast decisions, the OVF in still king.</p>

[laur1]

<p>FF lenses for a FF MILC camera don't have to be huge and heavy. Compact zooms might be tricky to build, but compact prime lenses should be no problem - anyone that feels otherwise should just look at all the rangefinder lenses built so far.</p>

<p>There is no technical reason why a FF MILC system similar in size to Leica M or even smaller cannot be built. The M itself has started becoming a hybrid MILC in its latest incarnation.</p>

<p>The interest in FF will persist simply because of the availability of legacy lenses for that format. If I would start from scratch, I would have no interest in a FF camera, but because I have a few dozen 35mm lenses already, I'll probably pick a FF MILC when it will become available at a decent price, just so I can use those lenses.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It seemed a good idea to use my legacy lenses but when I set myself up to do that the idea pauled in comparision to using modern automatic lenses ... but some people make a virture out of working 'the old way', which includes using prime lenses rather than zooms.<br>

Encouragement should be given to those developing and making better zooms rather dismissing them as second rate all the time.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks for all your responses from which I have learned some things. Basically, a FF mirrorless camera would be much smaller than the equivalent FF DSLR. Advantage No. 1. The availability of great optics for FF systems means that they could be used with adapters and provide the originally intended focal length. A 21mm f2.8 or faster lens becomes a 28 or 30mm f2.8 lens with the next smaller sensor, hence the FF allows you to use your expensive 21mm optic (or equivalent variable focal lens with that FF focal length within its zoom range) and not sacrifice its wider angle. Thus, advantage No. 2. Also, a FF mirrorless with 36 MP sensor is going to allow all that and have a camera capable of similar resolution to the Nikon D800, which many feel is into the region of medium format quality (which I could really use, if available at reasonable price, compatible with my optics and not physically too encumbrant). Advantage No. 3.</p>

<p>Perhaps the market is not that large, but who cares about whether it is going to appeal to everyone! The D800 doesn't appeal to everyone, either.</p>

<p>Come on, Sony or others. MF digital is "out of question pricey" and the large area and 30 or 40 MP files are too heavy, so let's get something at the same price as the 800, or even cheaper. Yes you can!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>A FF mirrorless body should be small, but with AF lenses I see very little reason why the lenses will be much different from current DSLR lenses in size, so the main appeal of mirrorless is negated for most people. As Dick suggests, the larger the lens the less sense it is to have a tiny body to go with it. There are advantages to EVFs, but it will not affect the lens size very much. The FF exception of course is the Leica M, but that has MF lenses which mean their lenses can be a lot smaller, although remember that keeping a lens small is also a design constraint. Personally, my small camera is a 5D mkII with 40/2.8 pancake - this is of course bigger than a Sony RX-1, but it fits the hand much better and fits in a lot of the same spaces that the Sony would. Personally I think a much more interesting small camera system is the m4/3 where the size of the system as a whole is significantly smaller.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>No reason why a FF mirrorless could not be used with zoom lenses in less than fully automatic mode as well as with primes, and using the advantageous rotatable monitor in those models that have live view. Laurentiu is right about the fact that a FF mirrorless would be within the already small size of the Leica M or that of the two previous digital M series models.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>The FF exception of course is the Leica M, but that has MF lenses which mean their lenses can be a lot smaller, although remember that keeping a lens small is also a design constraint.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just compare Leica MF lenses with SLR MF lenses (legacy, or modern ones from Zeiss/Voigtlander/Samyang) to see the difference in size. Sure, AF and IS will add bulk, but the mirrorless systems start from a more compact baseline anyway.</p>

<p>For example:<br>

Zeiss 35/1.4: 830g, 120mm x 72.7mm<br>

Leica 35/1.4: 249g, 58mm x 56mm</p>

<p>Sure, if your lens of choice is a 70-200/2.8, you'll probably not gain much from a mirrorless FF, but if you are just looking at a few classic focal lengths, a mirrorless system will provide options that are smaller and lighter on top of a more compact body.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Problem is APS-C cameras outsell FF models. Who knows whether FF buyers will accept anything other than an SLR configuration at a premium price point? Suspect the Sony RX1 could be the beta for a future FF MILC platform that will make the NEX 7 look antiquated. When you make the sensors, you call the shoots.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The only obstacles are market forces. "Full frame" compact 35mm film cameras have always been common and come in regular and interchangeable lens. M4/3 and NEX cameras have show that there's no need for a lot of space inside the camera body, and there actually are <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/12/Sony-NEX-VG900-full-frame-camcorder-and-VG-30-APS-C-model-and-18-200-power-zoom-lens">full frame NEX video cameras</a> with E mount. There's no reason that couldn't be put in a NEX-9 or whatever if Sony thinks they can sell it.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I was under the impression that there wasn't space in the lens mount for a FF NEX sensor, but that video camera has proven me wrong. I've already decided that I'm selling my NEX-7 as soon as a FF NEX is available for sale, and possibly my Nikon gear as well, provided the high ISO settings have improved, and there is an NEX lens at least close to my 70-200 by then. Close is good enough for me.</p>

<p>The availability of a wider variety of higher-quality lenses (provided you're okay with manual focus) has shown that mirrorless cameras (at least the NEX-7, OM-D, and Fuji models) can meet, and even exceed the quality of traditional DSLRs, at a smaller size and lower price point. At low ISOs, the only complaint I have about my Sony is that it still has some of that weird, digital-looking 'sparkle' in the near-whites that larger sensors lack.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A high quality FF mirrorless adaptable to excellent prime optics or zooms would have the potential of competing not just with the best DSLRs, but also with moderate to high resolution (30 or 40 MP) medium format cameras, the prices of which are out of reach for most. Given the shorter flange to sensor plane distance, perhaps a microlens would have to be part of the imaging chain. The FF mirrorless would likely satisfy the needs of many advanced amateur and money-strapped professional photographers.</p>

[james_h]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=23754"><strong>Robin Smith</strong></a>snip… "Personally I think a much more interesting small camera system is the m4/3 where the size of the system as a whole is significantly smaller."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lots of good points and comments here. A compact FF frame or just large sensor camera would be of interest, but it might be too late <em>for me</em>. If Canon would have introduced a largish sensor, high-end camera before now [and lenses] they likely would have received my money. Instead I've heavily invested in Panasonic m4/3 (f/2.8 lenses) in recent weeks. While FF or APS sensors are/will likely be better, I think the current and future m4/3 quality might be <em>good enough</em>, and of course will continue to improve. I realize that everyone's <em>enough</em> is not the same. The overall size and weight savings of a smaller system was what I was after, one of the reasons I used Leica M a few years ago, and m4/3 seems to deliver. Though not identical [DOF differences, etc.], the size of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 is simply wonderful after years of owning and using a Canon 70-200 f/2.8. </p>

[joseph_wang3]

<p>I HAVE ONE !<br>

Indeed it is the Sony VG900. Although it is designed as a camcorder, it is mirrorless and I am using it as a full frame still camera. It is doing the job well. It has 24 MP. </p>