11-01-2012, 08:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2012, 08:43 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1351778435' post='20776']
I rather the full frame camera be the size of a konica s3 than a 5Dmk3 or in other terms 400g rather than 1000g. I know that both nikon and canon recently took a hint that smaller is better and announced 600g packages. Also as evf improve (the one in the om-d is pretty dang nice) then other benfits will arise from mirror-less solutions. I grew up with an om-1/2sp which were relatively small cameras and could never really adjust to nikon/canon line of large camera/lenses (nikon did have the FE/FM series). I know some folks like larger cameras; but it is pretty easy to take a small package and make it large but a bit more difficult to take a large package and shrink it.
-
Yea a 70-200F2.8 lens will always be large but if you compare primes in the range of 20mm to 100mm you will see that canon/nikon lenses are quite a bit heavier in most cases than equivalent range finder lenses. Heck take a look at 21, 28, 35 and 45 g lenses (contax g). They are relatively 'tiny' compare to canon monsters.
-
Anyways it is clear that you don't mind large heavy bulky packages but some folks do...
[/quote]
Neither canon nor Nikon announced 600g FF packages. No "EVIL" is FF anyway (except the Leica).
EVF's will always have downsides, some really rather value OVF's (like me). That is only possible with a mirror.
Large is not a plus on its own, usually. But a better grip, bigger controls and a bit beefier camera when working with serious tele/large aperture lenses have their real benefits.
Like I wrote, compact "mirrorless" makes sense with a few, relatively short focal length lenses. Only for a relatively small group of people they will be interesting. Many others will have different needs that you, and FF DSLRs have no reason to go mirrorless. "Mirrorless" will not take over the FF market (OVF's, fast AF tracking, large telelenses and such do have benefits for real photographers).
Different groups will have different wishes, and use different tools.
I rather the full frame camera be the size of a konica s3 than a 5Dmk3 or in other terms 400g rather than 1000g. I know that both nikon and canon recently took a hint that smaller is better and announced 600g packages. Also as evf improve (the one in the om-d is pretty dang nice) then other benfits will arise from mirror-less solutions. I grew up with an om-1/2sp which were relatively small cameras and could never really adjust to nikon/canon line of large camera/lenses (nikon did have the FE/FM series). I know some folks like larger cameras; but it is pretty easy to take a small package and make it large but a bit more difficult to take a large package and shrink it.
-
Yea a 70-200F2.8 lens will always be large but if you compare primes in the range of 20mm to 100mm you will see that canon/nikon lenses are quite a bit heavier in most cases than equivalent range finder lenses. Heck take a look at 21, 28, 35 and 45 g lenses (contax g). They are relatively 'tiny' compare to canon monsters.
-
Anyways it is clear that you don't mind large heavy bulky packages but some folks do...
[/quote]
Neither canon nor Nikon announced 600g FF packages. No "EVIL" is FF anyway (except the Leica).
EVF's will always have downsides, some really rather value OVF's (like me). That is only possible with a mirror.
Large is not a plus on its own, usually. But a better grip, bigger controls and a bit beefier camera when working with serious tele/large aperture lenses have their real benefits.
Like I wrote, compact "mirrorless" makes sense with a few, relatively short focal length lenses. Only for a relatively small group of people they will be interesting. Many others will have different needs that you, and FF DSLRs have no reason to go mirrorless. "Mirrorless" will not take over the FF market (OVF's, fast AF tracking, large telelenses and such do have benefits for real photographers).
Different groups will have different wishes, and use different tools.