04-08-2018, 10:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2018, 03:56 PM by JJ_SO.
Edit Reason: typos
)
Show us one 16-35 on FF smaller AND lighter than the Sony.
If you don't like FF, don't buy it.
Your example with Leica falls tremendously short. The CL has the same size as a Leica M3 which is FF. And comes with lenses that are pretty huge for APS-C - or normal size when they are normal slow like f/3.5-5.6. From the 7 lenses only one prime comes at f/1.4 - so, DoF will be huge for the rest of them. There are many limits in the CL line, but if one doesn't need shallow DoF, has big pockets and is happy with only 7 AF lenses (which will cost more than 14 others in other systems
) just go and grab it, instead of wailing about things you don't have to suffer from.
If I see an Olympus µ 4/3 of today I don't think, they got them much smaller than an OM1 - 4 back in the day, although the sensor delivers only ¼ of FF sensor area. But then: If they'd got them ¼ of a OM4: who could operate such a thing? 4-5 year old children? The Nikon 1 series was/is rather small. The prices aren't. Small alone doesn't sell.
Also APS-C bodies. According to Fujifilm, users wanted IBIS and and a bigger body. I suspect, they use the couple of users who actually wanted a bigger body to justify the size the body had to get because of the oh-so-urgently-needed IBIS. There are enough small and light systems to not complain about the size of others. If I look at any of my Fujis, their lenses and bodies are much smaller than current DLSRs - not to mention some f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses which are big beasts in their DSLR-version, as none of the DSLR manufacturers cares about high-quality and fast APS-C lenses today. Primarily they have to be cheap. And the Pro-DLSR APS-C bodies are used to crop tele shots, getting "more reach".
This whole "mirrorless has to be small and lightweight" dogma is in my opinion bullshit. Purpose and ergonomics dictate the design. Size of bags doesn't.
If you don't like FF, don't buy it.
Your example with Leica falls tremendously short. The CL has the same size as a Leica M3 which is FF. And comes with lenses that are pretty huge for APS-C - or normal size when they are normal slow like f/3.5-5.6. From the 7 lenses only one prime comes at f/1.4 - so, DoF will be huge for the rest of them. There are many limits in the CL line, but if one doesn't need shallow DoF, has big pockets and is happy with only 7 AF lenses (which will cost more than 14 others in other systems
) just go and grab it, instead of wailing about things you don't have to suffer from.If I see an Olympus µ 4/3 of today I don't think, they got them much smaller than an OM1 - 4 back in the day, although the sensor delivers only ¼ of FF sensor area. But then: If they'd got them ¼ of a OM4: who could operate such a thing? 4-5 year old children? The Nikon 1 series was/is rather small. The prices aren't. Small alone doesn't sell.
Also APS-C bodies. According to Fujifilm, users wanted IBIS and and a bigger body. I suspect, they use the couple of users who actually wanted a bigger body to justify the size the body had to get because of the oh-so-urgently-needed IBIS. There are enough small and light systems to not complain about the size of others. If I look at any of my Fujis, their lenses and bodies are much smaller than current DLSRs - not to mention some f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses which are big beasts in their DSLR-version, as none of the DSLR manufacturers cares about high-quality and fast APS-C lenses today. Primarily they have to be cheap. And the Pro-DLSR APS-C bodies are used to crop tele shots, getting "more reach".
This whole "mirrorless has to be small and lightweight" dogma is in my opinion bullshit. Purpose and ergonomics dictate the design. Size of bags doesn't.