dsut4392 said:dak723 said:Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)
35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g
Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.
85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g
Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.
24-105mm f/4.0
Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g
Canon slightly larger and heavier.
24-70mm
Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g
Canon smaller and lighter
70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g
Almost identical.
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.
Upvote
0