« on: May 30, 2014, 02:18:28 PM »
How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is not much at all!
See below comparisons:
Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4
Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8
+1. Everyone seems to miss this. Sure, the cameras are thinner without a mirror, but a big sensor (generally) has big lenses.
So if I ever got tired of lugging my FF rig around and wanted a smaller body, it would be APS-C or smaller, and I'd expressly choose a system that had really well reviewed pancakes.
+1. Which is why I got the M to complement my 5DIII. The native lenses maybe be slower, but it is a much more compact system. But when the light levels are low, I'd rather have the larger sensor with the fastest lenses.
I don't think it's a surprise that many of the initial lenses for the Sony are relatively slow. (i.e. 28-70, 24-70 f/4, 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.. Imagine if they had come out with these lenses instead (24-70 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 55 f/1.2, 70-200 f/2., then the price and size would have killed off the A7 system at the start.
I picked up an sl1 for my daughter but it is a nice complement to my mkiii. The problem is that I should most out my cheaper lenses and I started to let her use my L glass... and that was disconcerting... so I bought her the impressive little 40mm.