These lenses don't really seem to be aiming at traditional size saving mirrorless markets but rather at people who might value a mirrorless system over a DSLR in areas like event shooters who want real-time previews and being able to shoot video though the viewfinder.
This is really strange. Who determines what is traditional size saving mirrorless and what size mirrorless is supposed to be?Mirrorless fullframe lenses cost moreand are heavier. Aren't mirrorrless systems supposed to be less bulky, faster, less costly? The APC system is better suited for mirrorless IMO. Less bulky at least ..... I like the philosophy of Fuji in that regard.
It’s simply a camera without a mirror. Sony FF mirrorless has been out for years with their big bulky lenses.
With that type of thinking, why couldn’t I say all MILC are too big, bulky, expensive and not following the traditional point and shoot designs that mirrorless was intended?
Pretty silly statement in my opinion. I suppose Mirrorless Medium Format is running rogue to the rules of mirrorless as well?
Not trying to be mean, but maybe everyone is complicating this way too much. Maybe it’s just a f/2 zoom lens in the size you would expect such a lens to be relative to ALL other lens designs ever made. This lens is for a Full Frame mirrorless camera that has a bigger sensor than what you’re comparing to in regards to APSc and M4/3.
Your opinion on what mirrorless is supposed to cost and look like, and how big lenses are supposed to be is completely irrelevant to reality.
I think they should make a FF point and shoot with a 24-200 f2 lens and retain same price and size of traditional PNS because those are my arbitrary standards regardless of physics haha. Although, “everyone” would be a “pro photographer” at that point.
Last edited:
Upvote
0