In light of recent posts and the relentless march of technology

david_smith110 · November 5, 2015

So here is an interesting and amusing video I saw over on PetaPixel. It pits a 17 year old 2mp Canon DSLR up against a brand new Canon 5d. Now it isn't going to surprise anyone who wins, but in my book it is the 17 year old Canon. Why? Because it freaking has the video game Pong as on option play on its crappy little screen! Oh yeah, gaming on your DSLR. Why isn't this an option today?

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/05/this-is-how-the-canon-d2000-from-1998-compares-to-the-canon-5ds-r-from-2015/

In all seriousness though the reason I am posting this video here is because it struck a chord with some of what I have been posting recently in the whole DSLR/MC thing. I found this video to be an excellent, viewable example of just how long Canon has been working on the great DSLR's they are able to put into consumers hands, pros and non pros alike. Their cameras truly are polished gems, with many years of thought and dedication designed into them. Mirrorless cameras on the other hand are really very new, and to a large extent came about as a way for smaller firms to combat Canon and Nikon in their undisputed dominance of the DSLR market. For MC's to even come anywhere near the performance of these apex predator cameras so rapidly is an achievement in itself.

MC's have a long way to go before they are able to capture the market share that DSLR's now hold. I know many people believe that will never happen, and that's ok. But for being on the market for such a short time one must admit there have been some incredible new products brought out because of MC technology and photography is a better place because of it. All photography. As someone else said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Thanks to Canon and others for paving the way in digital imaging so we can enjoy the great tools we use today, whether it has a mirror or not.

a7 • 1959 M42 mount Ziess Biotar 58/2

aplumpton · November 6, 2015

Your old Canon was one of the early digital cameras. Nikon produced the first digital DSLR 24 years ago, following Steven Sasson's Kodak invention of the medium in 1976 (but not as a consumer camera). That technology breakthrough activated further development by Fuji, Kodak and others.

Perhaps the mirrorless camera we know today (Remember that they have always existed in one form or the other) with digital sensor is mainly a reaction against the size and weight of the DSLR. They cannot do all the DSLR can or at least not as easily, but they have a certain place in photography. Sony, Fuji, Leica and others have produced digital imaging technology that rivals the Canikon empires. Leica has never worried much about capturing the market, but had a mirrorless camera on the mrket at least 10 years before the first SLR, an Exakta of 1936.

Fujifilm, with their original views of camera development, and Sony (inheriting the Minolta facilities and a leader of sensor development, and now a big partner with Zeiss optics), are two of the main leaders in mirrorless digital cameras. Oddly, Nikon and Canon, makers of mirrorless cameras prior to about 1960-65 before concentrating only on SLRs, have not really put up any great competitive battle against the others. Mirrorless is a reasonable choice for Sony, who makes sensors for Nikon and others, to offer its own cameras. The success of the A7 series has even greatly surprised the lens maker Zeiss, which has trouble keeping up production to meet the high demand for digital camera lenses, like the E-mount Batis 25mm and new zoom lenses. Basic camera philosophy of Leica has evolved to include more features in a high performing mirrorless + RF camera.

david_smith110 · November 6, 2015

Perhaps the mirrorless camera we know today (Remember that they have always existed in one form or the other)...

</blockquote>

Arthur I think this statement describes an issue with the naming convention with which these new cameras have come to be known. When I go into a camera store and ask the clerk to show me one of the new 'mirrorless' cameras he is not going to pull out a Samsung Galaxy S6, or a rangefinder, or a bridge camera, or any other camera which has existed for years and does not have a mirrorbox assembly.

The term 'Mirrorless Camera' as it is know now in the market and popular nomenclature describes the camera systems which have arisen within the last several years and are, to a large extent, 'mirrorless DSLR's' which have had the OVF replaced with an EVF, if there is any VF at all as some models just use the rear screen. Only a short time ago the term mirrorless had not been generally accepted yet and there were all sorts of names being thrown around. MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens camera), EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens), and CSC (compact system camera) were just a few. For whatever reason the term mirrorless stuck and is in wide acceptance now.

For example, compact cameras can be considered mirrorless in that they do not have a mirrorbox assembly. But compacts have been out for decades, even back in the film era, and nobody has ever referred to them as 'mirrorless' cameras, either as a market segment or in the popular lexicon, until they have recently been lumped into that group. Same with rangefinders. Rangefinders have been rangefinders for decades untold but now the get grouped into 'mirrorless' cameras as well. Whats next, large format view cameras? Camera obscuras?

Again, when you walk into a camera store and ask to see some mirrorless cameras you will be steered toward Fuji XT's and XE's, micro four thirds, Sony a7's and a6000, Canon EOS M and the like. I really wish the industry had put a better name out for such a new product other then choosing the thing it doesn't have to be its main description. We don't call electric cars 'gasless vehicles'. We don't call maglevs 'trackless trains'. Heck, we didn't even call early digital cameras 'filmless cameras'.

I personally like EVIL cameras myself. :)

nex 7 • yashica ml 28/2.8

GerrySiegel · November 6, 2015

Looking back it seems inevitable that live view would lead to mirrorless where the image gets to be seen as it appears on the sensor. And image quality and focus quality are now equal or a tie.. I hail Canon for its achievements. I applaud Panasonic and Sony and Olympus and Fuji for giving all the goodies in a small package. I would not wish to lug either the D 2000 or the 5D. For those who do, I tip my baseball cap. I dug out my Olympus Camedia C 5050 this week and saw how many features it offered in 2003 using contrast detection, a tiltable LCD and a top LCD and optical finder as well. A fixed 1.8 zoom lens with power zooming... Bracketing and built in flash and took three types of media, ( old SM, xD and CF). And it still does a great ok decent job for 5 megapixels and a fixed 1.8 lens. 5 meg was the tipping point for on line imagery IMO. It is sluggish, but logical in its layout. And its menu was simple and its buttons easy to remember, - a feature lost in some modern do it all machines.. Uh uh,no recreational games, hah!. Not even a calculator.

eric_arnold · November 7, 2015

I dug out my Olympus Camedia C 5050 this week and saw how many features it offered in 2003 using contrast detection, a tiltable LCD and a top LCD and optical finder as well.

</blockquote>

This is a really good point which dovetails with recent essays on the state/future of cameras by Ming Thein and Thom Hogan. Basically it would be nice if camera makers didnt try to reinvent the wheel everytime out, but just make a better wheel. In other words, make a product which just works seamlessly by combining the best features from past efforts which integrate in a functional way with new technology. There were some really ambitious offerings from Canon, Nikon, and Sony, as well as Olympus, in the pre-DSLR days. Its always cool when camera companies revisit their own history as Olympus did with the Pen line, even if the results arent always home runs, like the Nikon Df.

5 meg was the tipping point for on line imagery IMO.

</blockquote>

ha! i remember 1mb digital cameras which had low capacity internal memory, you could maybe get 6-8 shots on one before you had to offload the pics. you dont really need even 5mp for most online use though, because usually pics are displayed so small. i had 4mp shots with my old Fuji superzoom printed in a magazine before. the 6mp DSLRs like the D70 and D40 were and still are pretty good; equipped with a low-profile prime, they're not that much bigger of a footprint than some mirrorless bodies of today.

Karim Ghantous · November 7, 2015

No point in doing retro for the sake of it - that's why, among other reasons, the Df is lame, IMO. Fuji 'does retro' better, but only because it enhances user experience. The Leica M may technically be retro, but to me, it's about simplicity, not about retro chic. It has an irreducible simplicity.

Speaking of retro, there's a difference between retro and hangovers. DSLRs are hangovers, and the Df is a retro hangover. If the M is not a hangover, it's because it isn't replaceable by mirrorless systems such as the A7 or OM-D.

Here's a statement from Zeiss, reported by Sony Alpha Rumors:

“We have to admit that we have been surprised by how popular the A7 markII series (A7II, A7rII and now the A7sII) has become over the past few months. The demand for the Batis lenses have been a lot higher than expected. We are working on this to reduce the waiting time as quickly as possible.”

</blockquote>

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/zeiss-is-working-on-five-more-new-fe-lenses/

mark_amos · November 7, 2015

While the benefits of the EVF to see the actual way the sensor will record a scene is noteworthy, I agree that "mirrorless" cameras entered the market some 7 years ago or so with the idea of offering a high quality large or large-ish sensor in a more compact body than the dslr Canikons. I was drawn to the Leica CL and later the M6 precisely because they allowed me to use high quality 35mm film with great lenses in cameras that were at least slightly smaller than the Nikon FM series and much smaller than the large af slrs. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a bit disappointed that Sony, for example, with its a7 series has departed considerably in the last 3 years from what it seemed to promise with the NEX 7 and the 5 series in particular. Sony seems to have found interest and advanced the A7 s/r series II of everything, and these are small cameras for professional do-everything camera, but where is the digital Minox or Rollei 35? I'm talking about cameras that are really very small but with professional quality imaging even if the ergonomics and features are somewhat limited at the trade off. I acknowledge that the a6000 is about the size of the Leica CL, and it is probably the closest to what I've described that has been made. Maybe the soon-coming a7000 and/or a6100 will step us closer to small super high quality with enviable ergonomics and durability too.

mjferron · November 8, 2015

@>>Mark Amos Mark I consider my Olympus EPM2 to be just that. The very small camera with very decent image quality. Really the IQ is pretty much up to snuff with the OMD's yet the tiny body with say a Panasonic 20mm 1.7 will fit in a coat pocket. Sure there are some 1" sensor cameras that are smaller but the image quality is one notch lower and sometimes there is such a thing as "too" small. I picked mine up off of the auction site for a whopping $150 is super condition. What's not to like?

david_smith110 · November 8, 2015

Sony seems to have found interest and advanced the A7 s/r series II of everything, and these are small cameras for professional do-everything camera, but where is the digital Minox or Rollei 35? I'm talking about cameras that are really very small but with professional quality imaging even if the ergonomics and features are somewhat limited at the trade off.

</blockquote>

How about the Sony RX1r II? Basically a a7RII in a small, compact fixed lens 35/2 Zeiss Sonnar body. Check out the size when compared to the a6000, they are almost the same. And not really any trade offs on this camera, even has a pop up EVF.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#535,638

Or the Fuji X-T10 which I linked a review for in a recent post.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#535,620

a7 • Canon FDn 50/1.4 <img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/389/19856584103_b5cd7d3bd0_c.jpg" alt="" />

mark_amos · November 9, 2015

Come on David, the RX1IIr costs $3,300 before you get the EVF, which is a must IMO. I guess one could argue this is what I'm talking about, but it includes film for life, kind of. Actually, the Fuji x100 is hard to argue with . It is interesting to me that both Fuji and Sony know that a 35mm equivalent lens is the perfect choice.....and that's why they offer us a very limited selection of lenses in that focal length. Fuji has a 23 1.4 and 27 2.8. Sony has a APS-C 24 1.8 (for $1,000), a maybe-not-great 20 2.8 and (finally) a 28 f2 FULL FRAME, so it isn't really very small. Is a 4.5 star, very small 35 equiv f2 really so hard? And I need to start a rant..(I mean a post) wondering why nobody will make a great small general purpose equiv 30-60 f2.8 sort of lens: wide enough for group interior shots and long enough for full torso portraits? @Michael, I understand about MFT. I've been studying the options more than ever even recently. I've even shot some tests in stores, but it was inconclusive. I'm just concerned, processing aside, the sensor capability might not be quite up to the APS-c sensor. And seriously, I used to shoot Kodachrome 64 in my Rollei 35 a lot. That slow-ness had to be accommodated, but shooting outdoors gave absolutely remarkable results. I guess you could argue that outdoors in good light, the MFT sensor might be essentially every bit as good as a larger sensor. My hesitation with the Olympus options is that they are actually bigger than my Sony 5n. I realize the MFT lenses can be smaller. I think that if Sony had a small very high quality lens like the two I described above for no more than $500-$600, they could really put a hit on the MFT options. I also will add that because you got your Olympus used for just $150, I think you did great. But I would have to have an EVF. Granted, the viewfinder (without rangefinder) in the Rollei was limiting, and I admit that was something I could never find quite versatile enough, but on the one trip I ever took to Europe, I took the Rollei only and had no regrets.

david_smith110 · November 9, 2015

Come on David, the RX1IIr costs $3,300 before you get the EVF, which is a must IMO.

</blockquote>

Its a lot, I know. But I was just tying to find cameras to fit your criteria since you didn't mention a price. And the EVF is included on that camera. Its a pop up unit that is housed inside the camera when not in use. Pretty nifty actually.

I really would recommend the Fuji X-T10 again. It is a very small camera, with some excellent Fuji primes.

a7 • Minolta MC Rokkor PF 55/1.7

mark_amos · November 9, 2015

I've studied the X-T10 a lot lately too. I've handled it in a store. I like it a lot. Thing is I already have the Sony 5n, an extra battery and the Sigma 19 and 30, which isn't a huge investment if I see the perfect alternative. I have also read so much good stuff about the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4, and maybe it is small enough for times you really feel you need the zoom range. I will say that I like the Sony feature of activating magnification by moving the focus ring. I use that a lot. I use one button mag for my Leica lenses, so I know what that is like, and the auto option is very convenient often.

My favorite shooting lens is the 35 summicron for it's size, field of view, adequate speed, and quality (of course), so I'd love the RX1IIr, but it is so expensive that even used one day, I just don't think I'd want to pay $800 for one that is beat up in 5 years. As I said, the Fuji X100 is nice, but it is actually a little bigger than the Sony a6000, and I'm okay without the optical viewfinder. Actually, the a6000 is barely bigger than the RX1. I would just LOVE a really small fast excellent 2x normal zoom from Sony...or Sigma. I carry around that 19 and 30 and am constantly switching back and forth....

mark_amos · November 9, 2015

David, sorry I failed to even acknowledge that really fine picture you attached. I love that. Without seeing the rest of the kid, I am vividly reminded of what it means to be a kid again. Thank you.

david_smith110 · November 9, 2015

No worries Mark. I have just started adding a random photo to every post I make. This is a photography forum after all so I figured what the heck. :)

NEX 7 • speedbooster • Yashica ML Macro 55/4

Karim Ghantous · November 9, 2015

I would just LOVE a really small fast excellent 2x normal zoom from Sony...or Sigma.

</blockquote>

Well, there's no such thing as small and fast! Even with APS-C. You could try the Contax G zoom...?

Lenses can be cheap, fast and sharp, but you only get to pick two. Add 'compact' into that group and I imagine the equation would remain the same: pick two!

mark_amos · November 9, 2015

Karim, please look more carefully at what I am proposing. I know we have to compromise on some aspect of a zoom lens, (and every lens), and I'm saying there would be a huge demand for a lens that offered a very narrow range of zoom as the compromise. Instead of the 3x standard 18-55 zooms, a higher quality faster zoom with less zoom range like a 2x zoom would be desirable. I agree with the "pick two" triangle concept, but it is relative and has variables. I need a fast lens that gives me a field of view to shoot a group of 22 kids in a class room that is 24' by 24' and that also can zoom in a little to shoot the kids playing soccer where I'm allowed to walk up right onto the field, but I can't run amongst them. I'm saying I would trade zoom range for quality and size. I'm happy to make that trade.

eric_arnold · November 10, 2015

where is the digital Minox or Rollei 35? I'm talking about cameras that are really very small but with professional quality imaging even if the ergonomics and features are somewhat limited at the trade off.

</blockquote>

What, exactly, is wrong with the Fuji XE2 or XT10? they both have great ergonomics and imaging. want smaller? Panasonic GM5.

It is interesting to me that both Fuji and Sony know that a 35mm equivalent lens is the perfect choice.....and that's why they offer us a very limited selection of lenses in that focal length. Fuji has a 23 1.4 and 27 2.8.

</blockquote>

23mm on APS-C is 35mm. what's the problem here? Fuji offers what you want, unless you are complaining about it being a f/1.4. How many 35mm options does one need? You also forgot to mention the 17mm Olympus lenses for m4/3.

Is a 4.5 star, very small 35 equiv f2 really so hard?

</blockquote>

lol, you just described the X100. And the Leica T.

I need to start a rant..(I mean a post) wondering why nobody will make a great small general purpose equiv 30-60 f2.8 sort of lens

</blockquote>

maybe because you're the only person who would actually buy a lens like this. sorry, but i always have to chuckle when people get indignant because camera companies dont design things to one person's personal specifications.

I think that if Sony had a small very high quality lens like the two I described above for no more than $500-$600, they could really put a hit on the MFT options.

</blockquote>

So your issue here with Sony isn't even lens availability, it's that you're too cheap to pay $1000 for the 24/1.8? the aforementioned Fuji 23/1.4 is $900, so I can't really say the Sony is overpriced for its class. That's also the price point for the full-frame Sigma ART 35/1.4.

Also, the reason Sony isn't developing more lenses for E-mount is because most of the demand for lens production is coming from FE mount users (see Zeiss reference above). They're already stretched thin across several different sensor platforms, so you would stretch them even thinner for your own personal edification? Good God, man. just buy a cheap old 35mm lens for your 5n and go shoot some pictures.

eric_arnold · November 10, 2015

I have also read so much good stuff about the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4, and maybe it is small enough for times you really feel you need the zoom range.

</blockquote>

the 18-55 is not like the Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Olympus kit lenses. it has excellent IQ and is no larger than the 14/2.8 prime. sure, it's only f/4 on the long end, but there's no constant-2.8 aperture zoom made for APS-C which is more compact. Sony doesnt even make a 2.8 E mount zoom, period.

the Fuji X100 is nice, but it is actually a little bigger than the Sony a6000, and I'm okay without the optical viewfinder.

</blockquote>

this is kind of an empty complaint, because once you attach a lens to the A6000, the size advantage shrinks. in fact, of the Sony E mount lenses, only the 16/2.8 pancake has similar protrusion as an X100 series body. Speaking as an X100 owner, i can't imagine it being too big for anyone except maybe a Liliputian with extremely small hands. Its about the same physical dimensions as the XE1/2. If you prefer ILCs over fixed-lens bodies, Fuji's 27mm mounted on an XE body is about the same size as an X100 and it's way better optically than the Sony pancake.

Instead of the 3x standard 18-55 zooms, a higher quality faster zoom with less zoom range like a 2x zoom would be desirable.

</blockquote>

There are a couple of lenses which fit this criteria: the Tokina 11-16 and 11-20 f/2.8s and the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Of course, both are designed for DSLRs, and the 18-35 in particular is kind of a beast. That's because to have a lens which is both wide and fast requires those physical dimensions. I supposed if we altered the laws of physics and/or traveled to another dimension, something like what you are proposing might be possible. But even so, i doubt Sony would make that lens, and even if they did, it would be outside your price range.

Mark, dont take this the wrong way, but i have to wonder: is your goal here to complain that no possible option is good enough? everything is always too expensive or too big or why dont they make an uncommon zoom range which may not even be physically possible within your size criteria. There simply are no ultra-compact 2.8 zooms for APS-C mirrorless bodies. The Fuji 18-55 is as close as you're going to get. Accept that fact.

Karim Ghantous · November 11, 2015

I've given this some further thought. I think it's possible for this lens to exist in reality by modifying the Contax G 35-70. If you can get someone to change the optics to reduce the image circle, therefore increasing the aperture, you could have yourself a 23-50/2.5-4. It's effectively like attaching a SpeedBooster.

The 35-70 is only 54x59mm at its smallest size. To compare, the 45/2 Planar is 39x56mm. There are optical engineers who modify lenses who could do this conversion but I don't know how much it would cost.

mark_amos · November 11, 2015

Thanks Eric for addressing my comments line by line. Sometimes however, the comments have to be taken in the context of all the comments. What I mean for example is that when I'm whining for a 2x zoom, I meant one specifically in the normal lens range, meaning moving out in both directions from a 40mm (equiv.) An equiv 16-35 isn't what I mean. Still, I acknowledge I am kind of all over the place. That is because I'm trying to describe a complex cloud of options and how they meet with my ideals preferences. Thanks again, and my gripes are meant in a good spirit.

Firstly, I must dismiss my own cry for a modern Rollei for now. That topic is too complex, and frankly, I think you are right. There are amazing small and great options. I suppose I've gotten greedy.

What I am trying to say is that in each category of feature regarding lenses in particular, I am fine with 90%. Seeking 100% - best possible - often costs more than it is worth in other features. The classic Leica 35 cron M, to me, is perhaps the definition of what I mean. It is very small. Optical quality is outstanding. It is "fast enough." This happens to be my preferred field of view also. It was expensive but not compared to the 1.4. True, it is more expensive than what I'm setting as a budget, but I don't have to have a lens made in Germany, nor Japan for that matter. So what I am also saying is that for Fuji to offer a 27 f2.8 and then a 23 1.4 appears to be leaving an obvious gap designed for the X100 and its 23 f2 niche. That's a shame. Similarly Sony has a 20 2.8 that is okay but not great and then a Zeiss branded 24 1.8 that requires it to cost $1000. How about a 24 2.5 without the Zeiss brand so Sony could offer a lens to duplicate the function of the classic 35 f2 in a body as small as possible at a reasonable price for A- quality.

The sort of ideal that I'm describing for an all around zoom lens embraces the benefit of Leica's tri-elmar 18, 28, 50. I realize why that was an incredible achievement for a rangefinder camera that doesn't have traditional zooms, but my point is that it proves that having a lens that is 28-50 and fantastic (albeit at f4 max ap) can be desirable compared to having only one field of view at a time. I agree that the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 is probably as close as I will get to what I'm describing, but I'm bought into Sony at the moment, but I will say that an X-T10 and that zoom, (which I have handled in the store) is very capable and attractive. I'm just not sure I'm ready to jump ship and spend another $1000 just yet.

The Sony 18-55 3.5-5.6 isn't terrible. I'm using it a lot more lately, and that is why I'm back to wishing there was a more ideal option because the image quality just isn't quite spot on, but the main reason is that at 5.6, the ISO is driven just beyond what I consider usable in some situations. With this in mind and noting that the Sony 18-55 can maintain f4 up to 32mm, which is 48mm equiv, when shooting indoors I sometimes try to think of the lens as an 18-48 f3.5-4 with a longer option usable outdoors in good light.

Thanks Karim. I have no idea of whether such a modification would be economically worthwhile, but thanks again.

mark_amos · November 11, 2015

Sorry, I meant Tri Elmar 28,35,50 for film and later they introduced the 16, 18, 21 with the M8 in mind, I think. My point is that apparently they thought that narrow range of field of view still added significant flexibility compared to a fixed focal length lens. I agree, particularly for the 28,35,50.

mark_amos · November 11, 2015

Furthermore, is it really asking too much to have an aperture ring like the Fuji 23 1.4 (but not the 27 2.8) but also have the ability to activate focus magnification for manual focus tuning by moving the focus ring like the Sony cameras/lens do? This seems so obvious to me that it seems like Sony and Fuji have deliberately not offered this: a smallish auto focus (less than 2" long) 23 f2 (or even 2.5) with aperture ring and auto focus mag/manual focus override for under $600.

eric_arnold · November 12, 2015

So what I am also saying is that for Fuji to offer a 27 f2.8 and then a 23 1.4 appears to be leaving an obvious gap designed for the X100 and its 23 f2 niche. That's a shame.

</blockquote>

i don't quite see it that way. Speaking as a Fuji shooter who has the 27 and the 18-55, as well an an X100, i do prefer the 35mm view, but the 27 is remarkably good for a pancake lens, with corner to corner sharpness. yes, i wish it was faster and physically the same size and also had an aperture ring, but i got mine for $250 new on sale, and it's a stealthy option for street photography. the 18-55 just amazes every time i shoot it, as i just dont expect a kit lens to be that good. i wouldnt pay $700 for it new, but bundled with a body, you can find some good deals from time to time, especially if you buy an older body. the original X100 with its tactile controls is still an enjoyable shooting experience, even with its 12mp sensor, and it can fit in a jacket or cargo pants pocket.

if you were going to have a compact fixed-lens body with any focal length, 35 is probably the best choice. and Fuji also has the 23/1.4 as you note; if they didnt offer that, i might weigh your point more heavily. Remember that the X100 begat the X-mount series, so it's counter-intuitive for them to undermine the original camera -- they've been assiduous in refreshing it, and its gotten better with each iteration. The new price may seem high, but $1300 for an X100T is not a lot when you consider the 23/1.4 is $900, and you can get used ones, especially older models, for much less than an equivalent lens would cost by itself.

How about a 24 2.5 without the Zeiss brand so Sony could offer a lens to duplicate the function of the classic 35 f2 in a body as small as possible at a reasonable price for A- quality.

</blockquote>

uh... most of the Sony-only primes arent that great. if you really really like 35mm equiv., then you'll pay market price for a good one. again, your problem seems to be unrealistic expectations: you want cheap and good and compact and a specific focal length and a specific aperture. Sony doesnt really have a connection with the classic film era, as they've been an electronics manufacturer their entire history. i just dont think they sell all that many primes for E-mount bodies, and it makes sense that their company strategy would be to try to push selective photographers toward the more expensive options and/or their full frame line. It wouldnt really serve Sony all that well to offer a really good prime lens at discount prices; as profit margins on higher volume items is what's keeping them afloat as P&S sales plummet. This is the same company that wants $1300 for an RX10, $950 for an RX100, and $1200 for an 18-200.

Sony 18-55 can maintain f4 up to 32mm, which is 48mm equiv, when shooting indoors I sometimes try to think of the lens as an 18-48 f3.5-4 with a longer option usable outdoors in good light.

</blockquote>

Dont you mean a 27-48? but you make a good point here: that extra stop on the Fuji 18-55 does make it more useful indoors. trying to keep track of where the max aperture stops down automatically while shooting is a bit maddening. i did research mirrorless options before i bought into Fuji. i liked some of the Sony bodies, but the lenses just weren't all there, and the better lenses were as expensive as the better lenses from other companies. i also looked into m4/3. they had more lenses and some capable bodies, as well as the 5-axis stabilization, but i just couldnt get past the sensor limitations (at the same price as APS-C mirrorless or DSLR). Now that some of the bodies are reaching the end of their product cycle, though, there are some pretty inexpensive m4/3 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1188622&gclid=Cj0KEQiAjpGyBRDgrtLqzbHayb8BEiQANZauh8_rouv2x9Lw673wzxpz04uTsSYGwPnIaiLrTm6zz-8aAqxe8P8HAQ&is=REG&m=Y&Q=&A=details">deals</a> out there, but if you want the best lenses on those systems, it's gonna cost you a tidy sum comparable to full frame or prosumer DSLR prices.

i think if you're gonna stick with Sony E-mount, you kind of have to take what they give you and learn to like it, or just use legacy lenses with focus peaking and MF. if Fuji doesnt really offer what you want between all of their bodies and lenses, there's no use lusting over them. That said, i do feel like Fuji's philosophy is more photographer-driven, while Sony is more about tech and innovation and trying to create product niches which havent existed before.

mark_amos · November 15, 2015

Eric, thank you for taking the time to write yet another detailed response. I really enjoy it. I realize this probably wasn't the OP's intent, so I'll finish with this. Mostly my point can be made by me saying how perfect the new Fuji 35 f2 WR is at just 1.81" long and 43mm filter, an aperture ring AND weather proof for $399. Now that's what I'm talking about! Love it! The 23 1.4 at 2.5" long and with a 62mm filter/dia. is sized about like a classic SLR lens and not a small one, and while that's fine, the size of the M lenses was part of my fascination with them and the use. Consider the 35 cron aspherical at just 1.4" long, 39mm filter, and the prior version is even smaller.

I get that the electronic rangefinder in the X100 makes it its own wonderful thing, but I have to watch my spending and redundancy. I just think that if Fuji follows the new 35 f2 with a 23 f2 similarly priced and featured, an E X2 would be more than fine. Frankly, I would be just fine with the 2.8-4 zoom and a small 23 f2, and if Fuji offered that, I would pick Fuji if I were starting again. Sony has neither a high quality fast-ish compact zoom nor a very small 35 f2 equiv., and I don't plan on taking what they give and learning to like it. What I'd be fine with would be a full frame Sony in a body just bigger than the 5n that would work with my Leica and VC glass without smearing. I guess that's impossible with the 2.5mm sensor cover glass issue. Oh well, I want what I want, and I like talking about it. Thanks again!

eric_arnold · November 15, 2015

ha ha, ok Mark. well i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for a Fuji 23/2. it's more likely that Fuji will update the 18 and possibly the 60 first -- that lens would be great with OIS. the 35/1.4 is a fine lens, but it was often criticized for slow focus, which the new lens corrects. if i was buying now i might get the new 35/2 for the WR but then i do love fast primes. btw, i'm seeing used X100's for $350 USD on Amazon, which is pretty affordable IMO considering you get a body and lens for that. im still using mine and still getting complements on it.

Sony has neither a high quality fast-ish compact zoom nor a very small 35 f2 equiv., and I don't plan on taking what they give and learning to like it.

</blockquote>

yeah, but, i dont see where you have a choice, since you've already bought into the Sony E-mount system. maybe 2016 will see some new lenses in this mount, but AFAIK, the closest thing to what you want--a compact fast 35mm equivalent-- is either a X100 series body or the Olympus 17/1.8. good luck!

Sign In

In light of recent posts and the relentless march of technology

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in