The "ultimate" compact, two-body, APS-C system: DSLR + mirrorless compact!

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>I would've otherwise nailed with a DSLR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about...risky idea!.... using your D3200 with a standard zoom lens instead of a handful of mirrorless gizmos :)</p>

[studio460]

<p>Thomas said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>How about...risky idea!.... using your D3200 with a standard zoom lens instead of a handful of mirrorless gizmos</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I have the NEX for!</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/NEX-300-1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Thomas said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>. . . using your D3200 with a standard zoom lens instead of a handful of mirrorless gizmos . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But, seriously, the whole point of this downsizing effort was to significantly reduce the bulk of my previous "compact" kit (my D7000, plus my Tokina f/2.8 screw-drive zooms, neither of which will auto-focus on a D3200). My AF-S Nikkor 17-55mmmm f/2.8 (which <em>still</em> isn't quite long enough) is a relatively large lens, compared with say, the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G prime which I have mounted on my D3200 right now. My planned lens, the 85mm f/1.8G will still be on the big side since it's actually an FX lens. So, again, part of the problem is that DX shooters are forced to use Nikkor lenses mostly designed for FX bodies, so the size benefit of Nikon's DX format largely ends with the body.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Louis said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Yep, that's it. My Sony kit lens is lighting fast and pin point accurate on the NEX 6. The Sigma 60mm is not bad but slower to acquire focus and in low light it's more fussy. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. That <em>is</em> it. I just compared my Sigma 60mm f/2.8 E-mount lens to my Sony kit lens. The NEX-3N's AF performs much faster with a Sony OSS lens than with a third-party Sigma lens.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>My AF-S Nikkor 17-55mmmm f/2.8 (which still isn't quite long enough) is a relatively large lens, compared with say, the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G prime which I have mounted on my D3200 right now.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just mounted my 17-55mm f/2.8 on my D3200. It's friggin' HUGE. I had originally purchased it for a "second" body when shooting events. This was <em>before</em> I decided to shoot with dual FX bodies instead. Now, I have absolutely no use for a heavy, mid-range DX zoom. I've GOT to sell this thing!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The problem with a large sensor is always going to be that longer lenses are big. To the best of my knowledge, people aren't generally making normal and medium-long lenses in extreme telephoto designs; I don't even know how practical that is. Until they do, getting a 75mm equivalent (FoV) lens on a DX form factor is going to require the thing to be 50mm long. Of course, you can use a shorter, wider lens and just crop the centre out of it, at the cost of pixel count.<br />

<br />

This is why I've always been a bit dubious about larger sensors on mirrorless cameras. Fine for wide angles (like the X100), but when the lens extends beyond a DSLR's mirror box, the camera isn't really any smaller.</p>

[Albins images]

I suppose for me nowadays it is like this:

 

A Samsung S3 in (and quickly out) of my pocket. And a

DSLR with 50mm loosely thrown in the bag on my

shoulder. Obviously, the mobile phone gets the most use..

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>To the best of my knowledge, people aren't generally making normal and medium-long lenses in extreme telephoto designs; I don't even know how practical that is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Olympus has a 45/1.8 and a 75/1.8, which equivocate to 90mm and 150mm. i wouldn't be surprised to see Fuji come out with a 90/1.8 or a 120/2 in a year or two, which would = 135 and 180 focal lengths on 35mm. if they could be stabilized, they'd have a leg up on conventional FX lenses (of course the OM-D bodies have the advantage of in-body stabilization, but you get a smaller sensor and all that implies). i've been generally very surprised at how good the Fuji x-bodies are in low-light, the XE1 is maybe only a half-stop behind my D3s up to 6400. that's kind of making me rethink the entire paradigm. </p>

<p>if you read Thom Hogan's latest rant, which is super-wordy, he essentially says that Canon and Nikon dictate the DSLR market because of their legacy lenses, and they havent innovated with DX lenses because they dont have to. which creates a paradox, where there's room for innovation but no real impetus for the Big Two companies to do so.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>(Belatedly...) Sorry, Eric, I meant telephoto in the technical sense - i.e. shorter than the focal length suggests (insert something about nodal points here). I've not seen, for example, a 90mm lens that's much shorter than 90mm long. (I do have a tiny Leica 90mm f/4, but it's still 90mm long!) That's irrespective of crop factor - yes, I can get the behaviour of my 200 f/2 with my micro 4/3 camera using only a 100mm lens, but until someone makes a 100mm f/1, I'm not biting with that comparison however fond I may be of my GF2. If I'm comparing long lenses to DX, I need to allow for my TC-14 in how big these lenses are.<br />

<br />

I was looking at Fuji. Thom has a bit of a commentary on extracting information from the X-Trans and how much chroma bleeding you can get, which was enough to worry me. I'm impressed by the low noise, though - but it may be at the cost of smearing. I'd kind of like an X100s, but they're still quite expensive; the X-Pro1 looks very due for replacement, and I can't quite bring myself to ignore the optical finder options when looking at the rest. I may reconsider if I have an ill-advised bout of retail therapy at some point.</p>