I Don't Understand Small Mirrorless Cameras with Big Lenses

[Mike D]

<p>I see all kinds of new 1", micro 4/3rds, cropped frame and FF, mirrorless cameras being introduced and they all have huge lenses that stick out in front of the body rendering them something less than pocketable. In addition to my Nikon DSLR's with big lenses, I also use a Canon S95 which is compact and very pocketable. With DSLRs getting smaller, I don't understand why photographers would buy a small camera with a big lens that renders it un-pocketable. Eventually, I would like to upgrade my S95 with a body with bigger sensor and faster response, but I don't want it to be any larger than my current S95. </p>

[Ken Katz]

Really simple, my m43 kit, with a body and 4 lenses weighs about the same as just my Canon 5D body and fits into a much smaller bag than my FF Canon kit. M43 shrinks the size and weight of a high quality interchangeable lens system but is not really pocketable. Perhaps the Sony RX100, with its 1" sensor, may be small enough for you.

[zane1664879013]

<p>Many people already have a pocketable camera, built into their cell phone. If you want a step up in image quality and low-light capability you'll want a larger sensor, which in turn forces lenses to grow in size (for a given zoom range and maximum aperture). All that tends to not fit into a pocket very comfortably.</p>

[andylynn]

An S95 is tiny. It's not possible to fit a noticeably larger sensor and a decent lens into such a small package.

[Gup]

<p>There is room in my world for something between a D4 and a Canon Elph. It does not need to be pocketable. It just needs to be better than what is currently being offered. My interest is peaked by the latest FF rangefinders on the market but not by their fixed lenses and EVFs. <br>

I just hauled over thirty pounds of Nikon and accessories on a week long canoe trip featuring many portages and I would really like to reduce the load without sacrificing IQ and lighting options.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why photographers would buy a small camera with a big lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because less bulk of one part, the always used central part, is still less overall. Every time.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I don't understand it either. These cameras end up as big as a crop DSLR, because lens size is driven by sensor size. You can get a real thru-the-lens DSLR that is not much larger but is a lot more affordable than these designer pretend Leica rangefinders.<br>

A compact like the Canon S series and equivalents from Panasonic, Nikon, Fujifilm, Olympus et al at least have the advantage of their compactness (including the zoom lens that's built-in)... and they are much more versatile than a phone camera. Every time I leave home without mine, I seem to end up with a photo op that a phone just can't handle.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I think the others have answered it really. Plus, many have legacy lenses that work fine on an M43 mount because there are so many adapters out there. I use my Panasonic G1 primarily with a Russian Jupiter 50/2 lens and love the freedom it offers me.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>You can get a real thru-the-lens DSLR that is not much larger but is a lot more affordable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Less is still less. Plus there are other individual trade offs whenever you compare gear to gear.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A compact... ...at least have the advantage of their compactness (including the zoom lens that's built-in)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and the disadvantages of all its flaws.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>they are much more versatile than a phone camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which tends to be a bigger consideration if that's all you otherwise have.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Every time I leave home without mine, I seem to end up with a photo op that a phone just can't handle.<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same with anyone with any camera other than a phone.<br /><br /><br>

People have different purposes and priorities. Just because someone has different priorities in how they choose gear doesn't make the reasons invalid. Failure to understand their reasons doesn't mean they are not good reasons. There are so many differences in gear that there all sorts of advantages and disadvantages that each kind has. All different for different types of users. What is not useful for one is easily useful for another.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

You guys who don't see an advantage - have you ever really used a mirrorless? I mean, carried one with you places?

 

I took my X20, X-E1, 5 lenses, extra batteries and accessories on vacation and the whole kit fit in my Domke F-802

knockoff. You can't do that with DSLRs. The Fuji isn't even that small as mirrorless cameras go and it's got DSLRs beat

by a long shot on functionality per size. And a cell phone or a small sensor camera can't touch its capabilities.

[SCL]

<p>To me irrelevant if it is pocketable...I just like being able to use 40+ years of collected lenses from from the film era from various manufacturers on a digital body.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Most mirrorless SLRs offer a thin prime focal length that when attached will render many of them pocketable (especially jacket pockets). My Olympus Pen E1 with 42-84 won't fit, but with the 17mm f2.8 attached it fits most jacket pockets easily.</p>

[laur1]

<p>If you really care about image quality, then forget about pocketable cameras. You cannot make compact, fast, high performance zooms. You can make some nice compact primes, but good quality zooms will always stick out of a camera body (and even poor quality ones will).</p>

<p>Taking that out of the way, mirrorless cameras give you several things over the SLRs:</p>

<ul>

<li>they can be significantly smaller (don't have to be, but they can). My Olympus E-PL2 with a 14/2.5 lens fits inside a P&S case - you might even call it pocketable. My APS-C DSLR camera bodies would not fit in that case even without a lens.</li>

<li>they offer you compatibility with more lenses than SLRs do. I mean, just look at how the price of FD lenses went up since these cameras allowed them to be useful again. I can finally use my LTM lenses again.</li>

<li>they provide features that cannot be offered in an SLR, unless you make the SLR not work as an SLR anymore. The EVF is the prime example of this - you get real time feedback on exposure adjustments, white balance, filters, bokeh, plus the ability to focus manual lenses like you could never do it on an SLR.</li>

</ul>

<p>DSLRs are not getting smaller either. Canon's SL1 is barely smaller than a Pentax K-x (2009) - that's about the limit for APS-C DSLRs. And they still don't fit in that P&S bag in which I keep my E-PL2. They never will.</p>

<p>So it's really simple. You get a lot of advantages and you get a smaller package too. Maybe some pieces of that package are not significantly smaller, but others are.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only really large-ish lens in the Nikon 1 series lineup is the 10-100/4.5-5.6, which is designed primarily for video and houses a zoom motor. Sure, it seems disproportionately large on a Nikon 1 body. So would a comparable 27-270mm VR power zoom on a Nikon D600.</p>

<p>The Sony RX100 is a marvel of engineering. It also lacks the V1's EVF, a major factor in my decision to get the Nikon. Would I be happier with Nikon if they borrowed a trick or two from Sony and squeezed the CX sensor and the Series 1 ultra-quick AF and a reasonably fast midrange zoom into the Coolpix P7800, which has an EVF? You bet.</p>

<p>Pierre, I'm not sure whether you're still facing health struggles, but you know how exhausting some days can be.* I bet you'll appreciate the significantly lighter and more compact mirrorless cameras. For me, every ounce and inch matters. And all those advantages to a "real" dSLR or larger sensor matter very little when the gear stays home in the closet.</p>

<p>You don't notice it at first. But after a long day, you'll notice. For me, it's a choice between being able to function the next day and edit photos after several hours of carrying the mirrorless kit; and, after lugging my dSLR bag, spending the next day or two in bed swapping between ice and heat while popping ibuprofen like M&M's.</p>

<p>As for the image quality, I'll admit there's a compromise but it matters very little to my style of photography. Even when I shot mostly film I abused and pushed the stuff. With digital I routinely shoot at high ISOs at night to get a grittier, less detailed look. When I shoot at low ISOs it's often to emphasize motion blur. And I prefer deeper DOF, with a busier, even cluttered milieu. So the advantages to something like an FX dSLR are wasted on me. Right now the only dSLR I might consider is the new Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1.</p>

<hr />

<p><em>*My back and neck were busted up in a car wreck several years ago. On particularly bad days, such as thunderstorm barometric pressure dives, I bobble around like C-3PO roller skating on ice, and have to turn my entire body around to look to the side. I have to pay for almost any day of walking around taking photos with a full day of rest the next day, wearing an ice pack on my neck that gives me a stylish Quasimodo look.<br /></em></p>

[User_502260]

<p>It seems easier to make a small zoom lens if it's permanently attached to the camera than if it's removable. My DSLR is a Pentax K-x. It's not super small but it's certainly light enough. When I am not using the 18-55 or a 100-300 Sigma I have many other lenses that will fit. These include K mount lenses for my K mount film cameras, M42 lenses with an adapter, Tamron SP and Adaptall II lenses, Vivitar TX mount lenses, Vivitar T4 lenses with an M42 mount adapter and plain T mount lenses. If I bother to make the correct settings I get image stabilization even with the non-Pentax non-AF lenses. Manual focusing with the K-x is easy. The focus confirmation takes care of that. My favorite lens on the K-x may be my old 50/1.7 SMC Pentax F.<br>

Last month I took two outfits with me on vacation. The medium format outfit included a Mamiya M645 1000S with a 120 insert, PD-S finder, 45/2.8, 70/2.8, 150/4, 210/4 and the left hand grip. All of this fit into a large bag along with film. I felt the strap on my neck with any of the lenses. I dragged the outfit up the 199 steps to the top of the Cape May lighthouse and got some nice pictures. My 35mm outfit included a Canon FTbN, 28/2.8 FD SC, 50/3.5 New FD, Vivitar 100/3.5 Macro (the plasticky but light lens) and the 35-105/3.5-4.5 New FD. That's an easier outfit to carry around and some days I carried just one or two of the lenses. The 35-105 is an often maligned lens and I think unjustifiably so. I have the larger straight f/3.5 model but do not use it often. Why? It's not very good for tight portraits. I'm either too far away from the subject or too close in the close-up range. The 3.5-4.5 is just right for a portrait at the 105 setting. It has two disadvantages: you just can't shoot against the light with it, too much flare, and it's not really suited to serious architectural work. If you can live with those disadvantages you get a sharp and versatile lens which is small and light. I have to admit it would have been easier to focus the lens on a Canon F-1 with a D screen.<br>

While I can I don't mind carrying around some heavy stuff. I regularly carry and shoot with a Bronics GS-1 hand held. Eventually I would do this less even if film were available indefinitely but for now I enjoy it. <br>

</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Michael, you are not wrong. One can use a mirrorless camera and not exploit it to its full. There is no point in owning a Micro 4/3 camera only to attach it to an ungainly lens such as the Canon EF 35/1.4. In a similar way, most people who buy DSLRs don't exploit their capabilities, either. Some things you may not find in the manual.</p>

<p>Starvy makes an excellent point that mirrorless cameras are compatible with more lenses than any DSLR system. I may go to America next year. As nice as the NEX is, I might not even take that and make do with my iPhone and a couple of adapters.</p>

<p>It seems to me that DSLRs are anachronisms, but many photographers don't know it yet. It is the mirrorless paradigm which makes the most sense for most people. A DSLR has all the drawbacks of a 35mm SLR but not all of the advantages that digital offers. I no longer own a DSLR and probably never will again, but I don't shoot sports (sport is one niche where DSLRs do better, IMO).</p>

<p>My first digital cameras were, in order of purchase: D1, D1X, D50, D700. I wish we had mirrorless systems back then!</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>My Nikon 300 F4 is a 600 on my 4/3 camera. I recently bought a tilt adapter that allows me to get lens movements with my old nikon primes. A much cheaper alternative to Nikon's perspective control lenses. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>There is no point in owning a Micro 4/3 camera only to attach it to an ungainly lens such as the Canon EF 35/1.4.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure there is. If it works, why not? Seriously. Is there some sort of actual problem about it? Maybe someone uses other lenses but has the 1.4 and needs it for low light now and then or something. You expect them to fork over all sorts of money for something else just because you claim there is "no point"? What is with all this pontificating about what is suitable for other people just because you aren't in to it?</p>

[johnw63]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that DSLRs are anachronisms, but many photographers don't know it yet. It is the mirrorless paradigm which makes the most sense for most people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that is the case. If you believe that smaller is all the matters to most people, then I can see how you would think that. If you want full function out of a mirrorless camera, you need to use THEIR lenses. Adding an adapter and slapping another brand on loses functions and speed of use. So, to be at their best, you are still rather limited to lens choices. Besides, so many of them have no viewfinder, which is a big limit too. Many of them have few external controls as well, which is not helpful to using the camera quickly since you need to look at the menus to see what you are doing. All you can say in reality, is that a mirrorless system is good for SOME people. </p>

[lachaine]

I'm all for compact cameras. In fact, my only digital camera at the moment is a small sensor P&S. I can take many pics with it that I

probably would not have taken with a larger camera... with or sans mirror. All I'm saying is that the larger sensor "compacts" have neither

the advantages of the pocket cameras, nor those of a DSLR. In my boring little provincial city, I see guys walking around playing street

photographer with these expensive simili-Leica-M-rangefinder cameras every day. I think it's a fad right now.

 

On the other hand, I'll gladly play passionate street photographer with any kind of camera, of any size or configuration, should I

miraculously fall into possession of one.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>All I'm saying is that the larger sensor "compacts" have neither the advantages of the pocket cameras nor those of a DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do. At least to partial effect. I'm not sure why the reality of trade offs and legitimate priority making decision of others is being ignored and dismissed as a fad or why you are fixated on Leicas when the people you observed probably haven't given Leicas a single thought with respect to their decisions. There doesn't seem to be any merit to bring Leicas in to this but for pointless posturing.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I just dumped my Nikon DSLR system for the Olympus OM-D. I am very pleased with the switch. </p>

[johnw63]

<p>So Ross, why DID you "dump" your Nikon DSLR system ? What were you trying to gain ? What type of shooting do you do ?</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I've never even owned a Leica, in over 45 years of photography.. so I wouldn't call it posturing. It just seems to me like some of these cameras tend to look a little like replicas, and even their marketing largely encourages that perception.</p>

[john_h.1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've never even owned a Leica, in over 45 years of photography.. so I wouldn't call it posturing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ownership isn't required to make dismissive comments such as seen shown here. We have even more vague references. Perhaps percived images of gear are more important than the merits of making images here.</p>