I Don't Understand Small Mirrorless Cameras with Big Lenses

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"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."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, that's me! Except for the "expensive simili-Leica-M-rangefinder cameras" bit. I can't even afford the Fuji X100S. But, otherwise, yeah, that's pretty much me with my Nikon V1, which I use as a P&S on steroids.</p>

<p>Borrow one and give it a try, Pierre. Might change your mind. Even with the smallish 1-inch sensor Nikon 1 series and Sony RX100, the image quality is significantly better than with any 1/1.7" or so teensy sensor P&S digicam or cell phone cam. And the Nikon 1 series is quick - outstanding AF and shutter response quickness. Some of the more recent Olympus Micro 4:3 models appear to be equally quick. (Not sure about the RX100, haven't tried one, but <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/2012/10/27/going-light/">Brad has</a> and says it's quick enough as well.) Makes a big difference if you enjoy spontaneous, unposed snaps of family, friends, kidlets and pets scampering around, or, in my case, living out my Garry Winogrand pretensions and annoying the neighbors.</p>

<p>And while the typical mirrorless compact won't fit in a pocket, neither will my favorite teensy sensor P&S. I like the Ricoh ergonomics on the GRD and GX100, but my GX100 won't fit in my jeans pockets because of the palm swell grip. Although it will fit a pocket if I'm wearing cargo pants or khaki slacks. Usually I tote my P&S cameras in a little Lowepro zipper pouch that Velcros over my belt. I have a slightly larger belt pouch for the Nikon V1 and kit zoom. Sure beats toting a shoulder bag - even a light shoulder bag can aggravate my neck pain after a long day.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>I have owned an E-PL3 for about week and shot about three dozen pictures. No doubt it is a nice camera that feels very well made. I will not go down the road of either buying a whole new lens system for it( my lens collection are all film EOS) or buy dumb adaptors that make the lens lose functionality. So what is left then? Seems like I have a slightly large p&s. Incidentally, so far I see little difference in quality between my Lumix p&s and Olympus pictures. My impressions may change over time but this is how I feel now.</p>

[rossb]

 

<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>

<p> I had a Nikon D200 and a system of lenses, lighting gear, filters and the rest but I wanted higher ISO, video and better picture quality. I wanted lighter weight, smaller size and a new rig in general. I shoot photos with people in them, family, and general photography. </p>

<p>So I looked at everything out there and settled on the Olympus OM-D. It was voted the best camera of the year, it was beautiful, great ergonomics, weather proof. So I bought it and found a suberb camera that I could go with. I gave away my Nikon gear a week later.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>What's to understand, Michael old chap. A camera's electronics and screens can be nano designed. Lenses to be effective have to suck up light. Sucking up light means good size elements that cover the image circle of the sensor and a little more ( to get the best resolution out of the design.). Which is why a smaller sensor can deliver a smaller and less hefty lens if we are willing to give up lens speed and other goodies in the lens design. The camera miniaturization can not make the lenses as small as the camera, even sans mirror. Unless we forgo the benefit of telephoto and wide angle fast optics. What is optimal? Beats me...one can't optimize everything. My Lumix GH 2 with a 20mm fast lens is a compact combo. You must be looking at some brands where the sensors are bigger and the lenses are accordingly larger in diameter. But as pointed out, compared to what? Anyway, one hold the lens, friend, and the camera body comes along for the ride:-) Ancillary computer assist to the lens so to speak. gs<br /> PS. The Lumix 4/3 lens has 14 elements plus air spaces. Until we reproduce the lens of the human eye we are stuck with glass, plain crummy silicon dioxide glass...it is still relatively small for a zoom lens with a floating glass element for stabilization. And it is so well integrated with the camera that it is hard to give up its advantages for adding on an adapter and and FD lens...except for keeping the budget in line. Which I concede that is important for a hobbyist. Despite the blandishments of the companies. Who want to seek the new generation and not film generation types I am sure. Compromise. No big pockets, no linty eyepieces. Get a small bag....and enjoy. Or a Nokia too, lots of kids do that. We are not kids though. Sniff!</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I have a decent (and current version) mirrorless camera from a popular Japanese camera company. It is not an expensive one like a Leica, it is not very big (it is not very small either).<br>

I don't understand why photographers would not buy it or mention it here. I guess my answer is just dont care what others do</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>For personal use I agree with the OP. But this didn't start with digital. When the Olympus OM system came out I bought in and in fact, still use it. All my Zuiko lenses are the slower, smaller versions. I prefer compact and light weight cameras so while I cannot afford any m43 cameras or lenses if I could then I'd get and OM-D and some compact primes. With the short flange to sensor distance I'd get an adapter for my modest collection of Pen F lenses too.</p>

<p>I suppose that like a lot of things, it mostly comes down to personal preferences. Also I'm a hobbyist but if I had to earn a living with my photography (I'd starve) then people use whatever is needed to pay the rent. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>Sing it, brother. I don't get it either. Whenever I see a Sony Nex, even with a kit lens let alone something larger, I do a little head shake.<br /> Bulk is pretty much the same as weight for me.<br /> On the other hand, I really like the idea of m4/3 and other mirrorless gear when they go small, like a Panasonic GX1 with the 20mm pancake. I even tried a Canon EOS M with the 22mm f/2. It fit into the very same belt pouch as I've carried various P&S but it packs a bigger sensor. That is very cool even if the camera didn't quite do it for me.<br /> The promise of leaving my DSLR at home is always attractive but mirrorless or m4/3 haven't delivered. Yet.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I Don't Understand Small Mirrorless Cameras with Big Lenses</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well despite the hype mirroless cameras don't make much sense in general for most of us. They are a solution in search of a problem for the most part. If a Canon Rebel is too big for you then you should find another hobby. It is totally illogical to put up with all the compromises of a mirrorless camera for a small drop in size. Now it you use it so you can utilize many different lenses then sure that makes perfect sense. If you use it with just a pancake prime then that makes sense. Although a pancake on a rebel is pretty pockatable for me with a winter coat.</p>

<p>Often what you find is the same people were telling us the Canon Rebels were too small and that they preferred the XXD camera of the day. And then the people that bought the hype but couldn't afford a XXD bought a battery grip for their Rebel and then proclaimed it's just as good as the XXD now with the added bulk of the grip.</p>

<p>I can't tell you how many threads and posts over the years I've read where one of the main reasons someone states they got a XXD over a XXXD was because the XXD was bigger. I never understood that and I don't understand the size hype with mirrorless either. I own a 50D now that I use for video work and I would hate to shoot pictures with that thing. I have big hands that easily swallow a late model XXXD camera. They are small and light.</p>

<p>I guess everything has it's uses and I wouldn't have a negative view of mirrorless if it wasn't for all the hype about how they were the future and DSLRs were finished. I can think of certain niche uses for them and I can think of them as something nice for a nontech savvy amateur. But there is no way I am going to throw away an optical view finder, fold out screen, Magic Lantern, direct use of EF and EF-S lenses, and a host of other ergonomic and practical features just so save a few ounces.</p>

[unangelino]

<blockquote>

<p>"I guess everything has it's uses and I wouldn't have a negative view of mirrorless if it wasn't for all the hype..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm with you about the hype, any hype for that matter. At the same time, I enjoy the ambition or maybe more the potential of mirrorless. A while back many said a crop sensor wouldn't fit in a P&S body but now we have cameras like the Ricoh GR and the Nikon A.<br>

They are niche products today, but that niche is likely to get larger.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<p>Yeah if I had the dough I would get a mirroless camera with a pancake and keep it on my person a heck of a lot more. I would use it to supplement my DSLR. I like people experimenting and exploring new areas. But hyping the thing and saying DSLRs are dead is crazy.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Two assertions call for a response. ( Taking the OP as a serious critique that is)<br /> - DSLRs are dead and the mirrorless design model are standing over the corpse.<br /> Not quite. DSLRs, have a product legacy and a lens array that will keep them around for a long time. Same with the rangefinder. All fit a style and preference and still sell.<br /> -A small camera must be small enough to be pocketable.<br /> Never understood this. I don't carry the fat billfold under my lumbar spine, I use a bum bag. Where else does one keep a back up battery and a spare media card.<br /> -Mirrorless cameras are still not state of the art in specs, picture quality, button to dollar ratio and that sort of thing.<br /> Have to agree, more or less. <strong>But</strong> they are getting there <strong>fast</strong>. Miniaturization is powerful stuff. How about the little swallowable camera and flash pill that passes through your full colon and butt? Is that "pocketable" enough, sportsfans? :-)<br /> Me, I have both styles, big and smaller some with hefty lenses big as the body when zoomed out. But more and more choosing the lighter weight one with the live view screen.</p>

[Brad_]

JS: If a Canon Rebel is too big for <s>you</s> <b>me</b> then <s>you</s> <b>I</b> should find another

hobby.<P>

 

There, I fixed that for <b>you</b>...

[StuartMoxham]

<p>My sony NEX C3 with kit zoom has been just great. It's far smaller and lighter than my DSLRs and gets a lot of use. I wondered how I would get on without a viewfinder but I found it to be just fine most of the time. Being able to flip the LCD makes it great for low level shots as well. It's better in some ways for manual focus with my Nikon AIS lenses than my Nikon DLSRs are and it takes smaller rangefinder lenses also. I've enjoyed the NEX much more than I ever thought I would.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>Well despite the hype mirroless cameras don't make much sense in general for most of us. They are a solution in search of a problem for the most part. If a Canon Rebel is too big for you then you should find another hobby. It is totally illogical to put up with all the compromises of a mirrorless camera for a small drop in size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then I recommend that you stick with large cameras. People who prioritize smallness can go with the smaller gear, and everyone's happy. Really, getting argumentative about camera size must be one of the least productive ways to spend one's time.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>DSLRs, have a product legacy and a lens array that will keep them around for a long time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The bow and arrow is still around, but it is not really relevant to warfare anymore.</p>

[rossb]

<p> The Olympus OM-D EM-1 is available very soon. I already gave my Nikon mirror slapper away and bought the OM-D EM-5 but now I wish I had the EM-1. But money does not grow on trees around here so I will just drool a bit, take two tylenol and lay down until the GAS goes away. </p>