dsut4392 said:dak723 said:dsut4392 said:dak723 said:Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g
Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g
Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.
Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g
Canon slightly larger and heavier.
Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g
Canon smaller and lighter
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g
Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g
My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).
If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?
Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.
I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible. Nor is the size and weight dependent on the mount as the SL-1 clearly indicates. When Canon does come out with a FF mnirrorless, I would be very disappointed if it was not smaller and lighter than its DSLR counterparts. It can do so with an EF mount. If it has the same 18mm mount as Sony, I wouldn't even consider it, because I can not afford the high priced lenses that would be necessary to overcome the optical issues that the short flange distance creates. I have tried the Sony FF - and with the cheaper kit lenses that do not correct for the short flange distance, you get burned.
Like most folks, I shoot with the viewfinder, so whatever is possible in live view is irrelevant. Nor does any camera I have a "hybrid" viewfinder, which would certainly be welcome. My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
How are the other focal length lenses in your bag any less relevant than the one lens mounted? The weight reduction of 680g was based on a reasonable kit of real-life lenses (and in fact it actually grows if you omit the 24-70s which overlap the 24-105s), yet you say it "really isn't possible". What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?
As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?
Sorry that I upset you by making my list of comparable lenses. I was just personally curious as to the differences in the lens lineup between Canon and what will likely be one of their two main competitors when they all enter the mirrorless FF lineup. Then I shared what I learned, which, I realize now, was a big mistake, as folks here are not actually interested in factual information - aside from the authenticity of the moon landings, which I am quite sure actually happened as they were big news at the time. I am fairly certain the lenses I listed above are real and that the size and weight information is factual, although - now that I think about it - I have not actually seen any of the Sony lenses in real life.
I am not an optical engineer, so I shouldn't have said "isn't really possible." I should have said, "it isn't likely to happen, in my opinion." Thank you for making me see the error in my ways. Since my issues with weight are more about the camera I am actually carrying, not the weight of a full camera bag, which I rarely carry, and would more likely be in the front seat, or perhaps the trunk of my car, (and when I do carry it, never has more than 2, maybe 3 lenses in it), thank you for pointing out that a real photographer like you would have 5 maybe 6 lenses in their bag. So, yes, the cumulative weight would matter.
Sorry that my comments - and my list of lenses - so upset you that you felt you needed to personally attack my sanity (re: moon landing belief). Have a good day.