Anyone coming BACK to FX from mirrorless?

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>i'm not sure why you are belaboring a point</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, please take a look above at your posts. If I am belaboring, then we are in the same boat :)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>After Canon vs. Nikon, film vs. digital, is DSLR vs. mirrorless going to be the next endless debate topic?</p>

<p>It is crazy that there are so many totally unfair, apples vs. oranges comparisons on this thread, from a number of individuals.</p>

<p>I hope people realize that a lot of the weight and size reduction is due to format differences, not a DSLR vs. mirrorless difference per se. Four-thirds has a 2x crop factor vs. FX. When 4/3 allows you to use a 35-100mm/f2.8 lens with a smaller image circle, of course it is going to be a lot smaller than an "equivalent" 70-200mm/f2.8 for FX. If you are willing to use Nikon 1, the crop factor goes up to 2.7x and the lenses are smaller still. There is also the Pentax Q-S1 that is extremely small, but to such extremes I am afraid that smaller is not always better.</p>

<p>Personally, I view mirrorless as developing technology and am paying close attention to it. When the technology matures some more and the time is right, I'll take advantage of such new technology.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>This mirrorless vs DSLR theme is the Canon vs. Nikon or film vs. digital of 2015. There's no one answer. It's pointless to argue about it.</p>

<p>Of course mirrorless is smaller and lighter and of course FX is better at high ISO than DX and M4/3 and of course DSLRs have better AF systems. That's not even worth talking about. The only real considerations between mirrorless and DSLR are what you want to use the camera for and what camera best matches up with your needs.</p>

<p>When I go to shoot wildlife from a distance, am I going to take my Fuji kit or my D750 and 150-600 lens? The Nikon, of course. When I go on a 3 week trip around Europe, what am I taking? The Fuji, of course. For shooting real estate? Actually it doesn't matter which type of camera I use, but I don't have a Fuji wide zoom so the Nikon wins. This isn't a political or philosophical argument, it's completely practical.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>pointless to argue, perhaps, but the AMAZING array of cameras available now... vs. 10 or 12 years ago... it's insane that you can buy into, by my count, including DSLRs and mirrorless, one of at least 6 or 8 systems and be able to get pretty much anything you need in any of them.</p>

<p>I love it. the consumer wins again.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree with Peter. Ten years ago, the d810 that I hold in my hand would have been unthinkable. In 3-5 years I will be able to say the same thing again about a different camera or system.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< Most people who buy cameras are not pros. I'm certainly in that camp. >></p>

<p>The M4/3 is not for amateurs only. <a href="http://davidhwells.com">David Wells</a>, from whom I learned about the Olympus M4/3 system, uses it exclusively. Don't be surprised if there are others.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>My mirrorless Samsung S6 phone has an amazing camera in it. Better than my Canon S95 in many situations. I don't even miss being able to change a lens!</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>To O.P., you don't have to leave mirrorless to come BACK to FX, just buy Sony7r.<br>

But get ready to pay more and weight advantage is negligible, lens weight stay the same.</p>

[nigel_farmer]

<p>I agree with Shun - its the format that makes the difference, not whether or not the camera has a mirror. I did quick comparison of some nikon DX v Fuji lenses since they both share the same sensor size, and fuji is the system other than Nikon that I know the most about, since I have a fuji x100s and have been considering switching from a nikon D7100 to the XT1.<br>

There is not actually that many lenses that you can compare easily, mostly due to a lack of DX lenses from Nikon, but are a few near enough like for likes<br>

Fuji - 10-24mm f4 - £709, 410g<br>

Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 DX - £639, 460g or Nikon 12-24mm f4 DX £839, 490g<br>

Sigma 10-20 f3.5 (for nikon DX) - £384, 465g</p>

<p>fuji 16-55mm f2.8 - £753, 655g<br>

Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX - £979, 755g<br>

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 (for Nikon DX) - £309, 595g</p>

<p>fuji 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 - £579, 490g<br>

Nikon 18-140mm f3.5-5.6 DX - £429, 490g</p>

<p>With the exception of the Nikon 17-55mm which is quite old now and which I'm sure Nikon could make lighter if they ever bother to make a new version, the weights are pretty similar. I included the two sigma's primarily to highlight that fuji does not have the benefit of many third party lens options and as such the lens line up appears expensive. Fuji should take a lot of credit for building up a system of lenses very quickly including various primes, whilst Nikon still have to complete the line up, which I presume they would have done by now if they were going to. On the other hand you can take advantage of the FX lens set, which is particularly useful at the telephoto end which is where fuji are missing at the moment. Credit should also go to fuji for publishing and regularly updating a lens roadmap - I wish Nikon would do this.<br>

Comparing the XT-1 to the D7200, and the price in the UK identical at £849, whilst the XT1 is 225g lighter and quite a bit smaller thanks to the absence of the mirror.<br>

I perhaps could have come up with more lenses to compare (i have better things to do with my time), but it showed me at least that the majority of the weight gain is in the camera. You may have to carry a few more spare batteries for the XT-1, but you would have to have about 12 to make up the weight difference and that would seem to be extreme.<br>

When it comes to switching to mirrorless, there are benefits that have been discussed in this thread, but when it comes to comparable formats, I think that two important questions, at least for Nikon are<br>

1)why would a Nikon FX user move to fuji instead of to DX<br>

2)why would a Nikon DX user switch to fuji<br>

For 1) we have established that the fuji body is lighter and smaller, but lenese are a similar size. But fuji (exluding telephoto end for now) has a large range of lenses, whereas Nikons range of DX lenses is poor and you have to substitute with bigger, heavier and perhaps more expensive lenses.<br>

For 2) I am one person who has considered it - I have an X100s which I love. The handling is fantastic, the dual EVF is great and has massively improved my ability to see in b&w. But above all, its the image quality which is stunning, with much lower noise at higher ISO's than my D7100. However its a big expense to sell all of my 8 Nikon lenses and switch to fuji. Equally its a big expense to switch to Nikon FX which is my other consideration - I have less lenses to replace (sigma 10-20mm, 35mm, 16-85mm, the others are FF) but to more expensive equivalents, but also to a much more expensive camera. I'm kind of stuck where I am for the time being, but will no-doubt reconsider my options when the D7300 comes out or the legendary and mythical D400 :-)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>we have established that the fuji body is lighter and smaller, but lenses are a similar size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Nigel - so pretty similar results to my FX vs Sony A7 Series comparison. There's one caveat though - Nikon DX lenses are larger than they needed to be to fill the DX image circle - because they have to live on cameras with the FX flange-to-sensor ratio. In other words, both the DX DSLRs and the DX lenses could be made smaller and thus be lighter, narrowing the gap to mirrorless even more. But I think it's quite sensible to be able to mount FX lenses on a DX body without the need for an adapter (and that DX lenses can be mounted on an FX camera - unlike Canon EF-S lenses that can't (though that really isn't such a big deal)).<br>

Naturally, a DSLR body can never be made as small as a mirrorless body (on account of the space the mirror will need) - but there's a natural limit how much a body can shrink before handling suffers. </p>

[nigel_farmer]

<p>I meant to say the lenses were similar weights, I didn't look at sizes, but I believe you are right and they are probably smaller.</p>

[Gup]

<p>This past January I spent a great deal of time at two camera stores trying to decide between the Fuji, Olympus and Sony mirrorless systems. I had two weeks to photograph as much of Costa Rica as I could and I was just as excited at the prospect of buying new toys as I was about going away. My only motivation was a lighter camera bag! That's all.<br>

After hundreds of hours of exhaustive research over months and months, posting questions in gear forums (much here at PN), hours and hours of pixel-based photo comparisons, hours and hours of technical lens comparisons, hours and hours of reading and watching testimonials from internet gurus and new converts... my final decision was to lose 5 pounds, do a few push-ups and pack my D800E for an incredible photo vacation. It was a decision I will never regret. I also exercised a resource I really hadn't exploited before. I stuffed my AF-S 105 VR in my wife's backpack, allowing me to shave a pouch off my Lowepro shoulder bag. Magic! That was the saved weight I would have realized had I spent $3000 on one of the other systems. But, the piece-de-resistance was when I finally got eyeball-to-eyeball with my first wild monkey. I waited my turn to shoot while some others on the trail got their shots and then zoomed in to view my efforts on the LCD screen. A young guy shooting with the XT-1 glanced over at my efforts and simply stated, 'wow, this one won't do that'.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I think if the sensor size or image circle remained the same, the smaller distance between flange-to-sensor on mirrorless bodies wouldn't allow any big reduction in size and weight for most lenses. Only wide angle lenses that needed retro focus to clear SLR mirror would be significantly impacted. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Only wide angle lenses that needed retro focus to clear SLR mirror would be significantly impacted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, even that is not quite the case.</p>

<p>For digital, wide-angle lenses need to be telecentric such that the light will hit the sensor in a more perpendicular fashion, or you'll see a lot of chromatic aberration, etc. Making a wide-angle lens telecentric will make it bigger and the lens elements farther away from the sensor, hence negating some of the advantages of the absence of a mirror. The side effect is that a lot of those old Leica M rangefinder wide-angle lenses that are very small but not telecentric don't perform well on digital. (I am sure this drives those Leica fans nuts.)</p>

<p>If you are interested in more info on this topic, Google "telecentric lens" and you'll find much better explanation than I can provide.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>A young guy shooting with the XT-1 glanced over at my efforts and simply stated, 'wow, this one won't do that'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just pat yourself at the back for getting a good shot. Your results may be unrelated to the camera's ability. </p>

<p>Camera-wise, my Olympus EM1 does a lot of things that my D800 does not do, and I haven't even read the manual yet. I was so surprised when the in-camera HDR images were so perfect -- all done with the cheap version lens, and <strong>handheld!</strong> <strong><em>"Wow, the D800 won't do that."</em></strong> (Hahaha!) By the way, the Olympus LCD can also magnify the image.</p>

<p>I am not preaching the virtue of M4/3 over Nikon. Just that one camera may be able to do something that the other can't. More accurately, one photographer may be able to do something that the other can't. That's all.</p>

[Gup]

<p>Mary, he and I had been comparing results for a half an hour or so by that point. At first I noticed him shooting from the hip with his screen angled upwards, aimed between other tourists (I couldn't do that ;) while I had to wait. Later I veered up another trail away from the crowd and encountered a family of monkeys. I got my shots before we were discovered. Later he approached me to see what I had and what he was commenting on was my 100% crops of the monkey's faces and eyes. He had a comparable focal length Oly lens mounted but obviously couldn't get anything near what the D800E was able to.</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

You can take shots like that with a mirrorless camera. It's the same as it's always been - you need an appropriate lens,

decent light, opportunity and the brains to put those things together. Choice of camera system is just an exercise in

optimizing for your own priorities. What's cool about mirrorless is that it expands the number of options you have if you're

trying to optimize for small and light.

[nigel_farmer]

<p>His problem might of been that he had a fuji XT-1 with an Oly lens :-)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>wide-angle lenses need to be telecentric such that the light will hit the sensor in a more perpendicular fashion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one way - the Zeiss Loxia Biogon 35mm demonstrates another that allows older, non-telecentric designs to be adapted to modern digital sensors. Some Zeiss M-mount lenses are biogons and none does well on an A7 series body. But the lens designers accounted for the thickness of the Sony sensor cover glass - and the Loxia 35 works very well - though is likely quite specific for A7 Series cameras.</p>

<p>Leica gets around the issue that plague their lenses when adapted to a Sony A7 series by using very thin sensor cover glass - which lead to the IR filtering being insufficient on the M8 and probably is also at least partially to blame for the glass selection that now now corrodes away at the M9 sensors. Leica also applies some software correction in-camera to mitigate the effects.</p>

<p>One thing one can use Leica glass for is to get an idea how small a lens could be - they are manual focus and don't have automatic diaphragms - nothing but the essentials. Designed for a flange-to-sensor distance about half that of any DSLR (but some Leica lenses protrude quite far into the camera).</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica M rangefinder wide-angle lenses that are very small but not telecentric don't perform well on digital. (I am sure this drives those Leica fans nuts.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm going crazy :) ...but, they seem to work fantastically on M4/3, at least 35 Summicrons do, wide, not ultra wide. I also have a VC 21mm, that for some reason I've not tried probably cause I have the excellent 20mm Panasonic. But now I'm curious.<br>

</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>but, they seem to work fantastically on M4/3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As well they should - you're only using the central portion of the lens. The Summicron 35/2 ASPH has slight corner smearing on the A7, was fine on the APS-C NEX 6 - so there should be no issues whatsoever on m4/3. Your VC 21mm might be the same I have used on an APS-C Sony camera - where I still got the magenta color cast in the corners (correctable in post) - would be interested in finding out if it works on m 4/3. I sold the lens - the color cast is too pronounced on the A7 and I couldn't find a post-processing way to reliably and consistently remove it. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm going crazy :) ...but, they seem to work fantastically on M4/3, at least 35 Summicrons do, wide, not ultra wide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, I need to burst your bubble. Your 35mm Summicron is a short telephoto lens on Micro 4/3. It is not wide at all.</p>

<P>

I suppose most of those who "know" me think I am a Nikon user, but I actually had bought a Leica first before any Nikon. However, that is also the last Leica camera I have bought so far.

When I review the first Nikon J1 mirrorless camera, I took a picture with the Summicron 40mm/f2 along side with a Nikon 1 10mm/f2.8 wide angle. Those two lenses are about the same size, one for FX and one for Nikon 1's CX format with a 2.7x crop factor. Of course, the 10mm Nikkor is telecentric and has an AF motor inside.

</P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14679721-lg.jpg">

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Shortest focal-length super-wide that actually works on full-frame digital sensors is the newly developed (tele-centric) Voigtlander Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical III. Here's a size comparison to the D810 with 16-35/4 VR lens (using the 14/2.8 instead - just imagine the 16-35 ends somewhere near its focus ring and imagine a bulbous front element):<br>

<a title="wide and wider" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/258/18644962235_e99cda860c_z.jpg" alt="wide and wider" width="640" height="512" /></a><br>

Compared with the previous versions - which didn't perform well on full frame digital sensors, the Heliar III is about twice their size and some 70% heavier - but still a light weight at 256g.</p>

<p>The Voigtlander 21 f/1.8 is actually longer (0.5" - but that's the Nikon without its hood) and heavier (50g - that's metal vs plastic) than Nikon's 20mm f/1.8 lens; its filter size is 58mm though - vs 77mm for the Nikon.</p>

<p><a title="Two 21mm lenses" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7255/13914342755_3840be0be6_z.jpg" alt="Two 21mm lenses" width="640" height="512" /></a><br>

The other lens in the picture is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 21/4P - unfortunately it doesn't behave at all on the A7 (see my post above).</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>He had a comparable focal length Oly lens mounted but obviously couldn't get anything near what the D800E was able to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gup, that's a nice closeup of a good looking monkey.</p>

<p>"Comparable focal length" may or may not be comparable quality. In the Olympus 40-150 range, one costs a grand more than the other. Beyond the equipment, the photographer's skill and experience, and opportunity, determine the ultimate result. He should be able to do it, unless the monkey was moving fast and Nikon's superior focus tracking ability kicks in. My Olympus EM1 is wonderful. I almost use it exclusively for macro photography now. However, focus-tracking is where Nikon excels.</p>

[Gup]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>You can take shots like that with a mirrorless camera. It's the same as it's always been - you need an appropriate lens, decent light, opportunity and the brains to put those things together. Choice of camera system is just an exercise in optimizing for your own priorities.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<a name="00dSfb"></a>

 

 

<p > </p>

 

<p>I'm not disputing that you 'can' take photos like that with a mirrorless system, only that he couldn't with his body and a comparable focal length (allowing for the crop factor) to what I was using in those same conditions. It was quite dim, thus 3200 ISO, flash was prohibited, and you can just about see the distance I was away by my reflection in the monkey's eye (it's much brighter and clearer on my monitor before uploading) as shot with a 105mm lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>His problem might of been that he had a fuji XT-1 with an Oly lens :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nigel, touche. My mistake. He was using the Fuji, that I remember because that was the body I had considered the longest.</p>