[popo]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1308995029' post='9509']

Nikon, according to rumors, is also moving in a wrong direction...



On one said they say they are aiming at the more professional side of that compact market, on the other side they are talking about 2.6-2.8x crop!



I am not sure why one would want to have such a smaller sensor compared to APS-C, one REALLY would have to hate the possibility of more shallow DOF....



Canon is apparently working on a more compact DSLR, so with mirror but a smaller body than we have no with the 1100/600D series.

[/quote]



I think a lot of people are looking at EVILs with a SLR-like perspective, and I do not think that is appropriate in all cases. The existing systems like NEX and m4/3 give us a relatively big sensor, and with that comes relatively big lenses in most cases. Yes, there is a bit of reduction possible due to the shorter mount distance, but if you want a long zoom, it'll be comparable to a SLR lens. The possible size advantage of EVIL then gets strongly diminished unless you limit yourself to only smaller lenses like I have with the E-P1 and 20mm f/1.7 pancake. Basically I'm saying if the lenses are as big as a SLR, I'd rather have the SLR.



The only way you can really reduce the size of lenses significantly is by using a smaller sensor. The rumoured Nikon Pro Coolpix or whatever it will be called sounds like it might be in a sweet spot to me. Smaller sensor = smaller lenses, but without the sensor being so small you might as well get a regular compact like in the case of the Q. Yes, you will sacrifice shallow DoF ability, but I think from a compact user's perspective it would be sufficient "as is" or with a touch of software faking. Of course in Nikon's case, they already have an extensive SLR lineup if you want something more serious. Their EVIL will be aiming below that but above compacts. Sony and Olympus really don't care about eating into their low end sLR sales since they're relatively minor players.



Also there is a general trend where smaller image circle lenses seem to be more easy to make faster lenses for, which can partially offset some of the sensor contribution to DoF.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1309000080' post='9515']

I think a lot of people are looking at EVILs with a SLR-like perspective, and I do not think that is appropriate in all cases. The existing systems like NEX and m4/3 give us a relatively big sensor, and with that comes relatively big lenses in most cases. Yes, there is a bit of reduction possible due to the shorter mount distance, but if you want a long zoom, it'll be comparable to a SLR lens. The possible size advantage of EVIL then gets strongly diminished unless you limit yourself to only smaller lenses like I have with the E-P1 and 20mm f/1.7 pancake. Basically I'm saying if the lenses are as big as a SLR, I'd rather have the SLR.



The only way you can really reduce the size of lenses significantly is by using a smaller sensor. The rumoured Nikon Pro Coolpix or whatever it will be called sounds like it might be in a sweet spot to me. Smaller sensor = smaller lenses, but without the sensor being so small you might as well get a regular compact like in the case of the Q. Yes, you will sacrifice shallow DoF ability, but I think from a compact user's perspective it would be sufficient "as is" or with a touch of software faking. Of course in Nikon's case, they already have an extensive SLR lineup if you want something more serious. Their EVIL will be aiming below that but above compacts. Sony and Olympus really don't care about eating into their low end sLR sales since they're relatively minor players.



Also there is a general trend where smaller image circle lenses seem to be more easy to make faster lenses for, which can partially offset some of the sensor contribution to DoF.

[/quote]

I agree with you on all that, except the faster lenses part... The "fast" lenses on MFT are still really not that fast at all. 50mm f1.8 at most (FF equivalent), and that is the exception...



I do get it doesn't make sense to put a BIG sensor in a SMALL body because you will keep having big lenses... But I do not get the desirability of small sensors!



If I wanted a small sensor, I should just get a compact digital. And I chose a DSLR for what you can do, image wise... Making a compact digital have different lenses, does not expand what you can do with it image wise.



So, yes, for the moment I do fail to see the desirability of compact with small sensor.

[popo]

I was thinking of much smaller image circle lenses, and I certainly didn't intend to suggest that purely going faster would totally offset the reduced shallow DoF potential over bigger sensors, only that it could help make that gap smaller than it would otherwise be if you kept equal actual f number.



Also I don't think it is a desire for small sensor in itself, but the smaller overall package. So something between a crop factor of 2x (m4/3) and 5.6x (compact) might give an interesting balance. People are always asking for the "best" but eventually they realise they don't need it, and find the right "good enough" level.



Taking a specific example, I recently got a HX9V. 5.6x crop factor or there abouts. The lens is slow enough that it is in diffraction limiting looking at pixel level on the sensor. But I don't care. The package has a ton of capability, in a small size, and is good enough for a lot of uses. My last 4 submissions here were test shots I took on the HX9V, which I've also allowed full size download on if you want to attempt to pixel peep. The Q I think has about the same size sensor with lower MP count, also with the possibility of having faster lenses which is capable of satisfying its sensor at pixel level. So the Q should give better pixel level image quality than that. I don't think the HX9V is bad in itself as long as you're not comparing with a DSLR of course. The Q should be no worse, and the rumoured Nikon even better.

[Albert]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1308987626' post='9498']

The rumour is there will be a 2nd launch later this year of another line of APS-C mirrorless from Pentax. The Q is obviously aiming elsewhere.

[/quote]

Well, if they use the same cmos as is used in K5, it will be a no brainer for me. However, rumours,ehhhh... it remains me of those days when I was SOOOOO excited about the rumours of a FF pentax camera <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> .

[Guest]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1309000080' post='9515']The existing systems like NEX and m4/3 give us a relatively big sensor, and with that comes relatively big lenses in most cases. Yes, there is a bit of reduction possible due to the shorter mount distance, but if you want a long zoom, it'll be comparable to a SLR lens.[/quote]



That´s simply wrong. The long Pana and Oly tele zooms compare actually very well in terms of weight and size to DSLR lenses. To help you out with the facts:



Panasonic 100-300: 520 g

Olympus 75-300: 430 g

Nikon 80-400: 1340 g

Canon 100-400: 1360 g

Tokina 80-400: 1020 g

Sigma 120-400: 1750 g

Tamron 200-500: 1237 g



A mFT cam plus tele zoom with 600 mm reach weighs roughly as much (or little) as a mid-range DSLR body (Canon 7D, Nikon 300s) only... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1309070023' post='9551']

That´s simply wrong. The long Pana and Oly tele zooms compare actually very well in terms of weight and size to DSLR lenses. To help you out with the facts:



Panasonic 100-300: 520 g

Olympus 75-300: 430 g

Nikon 80-400: 1340 g

Canon 100-400: 1360 g

Tokina 80-400: 1020 g

Sigma 120-400: 1750 g

Tamron 200-500: 1237 g



A mFT cam plus tele zoom with 600 mm reach weighs roughly as much (or little) as a mid-range DSLR body (Canon 7D, Nikon 300s) only... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

They do not compare well at all, actually....



The Olympus 70-300mm f4.8-6.7 for instance.... It is equivalent to 140-600mm on full frame, yes. But look at that aperture (or rather: f-value): equivalent aperture of f9.6-13.4!

No one would even consider a lens with such tiny max. apertures on full frame. The reason for its small weight is the ridiculously small aperture, not the mirrorlessness and not even the smaller sensor.



It is in no way comparable then to the Canon 100-400mm or the Tamron 200-500mm for instance, and yet you make that comparison.



If you compare actual equivalent lenses, you will notice that the Olympus lenses actually are more expensive and more heavy.



Take a look at for instance the Olympus 35-100mm f2 (yes I know, not an MFT lens, so have to get the 4/3rds one). Equivalent focal length to FF: 70-200mm.

Equivalent f-value: f4.

So... it is comparable to the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM on full frame.

Weight 35-100mm f2: 1650 grams.



Weight of 70-200mm f4 L IS USM: 760 grams.

Weight of EOS 5D mk II: 907 grams (including battery and card).

Weight of 5D mk II with 70-200mm f4 L IS USM: 1667 grams.



So.... weight of full frame 21mp body + lens, same weight as LENS ONLY for Olympus. Even the smallest, lightest Olympus MFT body would make that Olympus combination more heavy.



Your "facts" you compare with are as valid as saying:

"Oh look, that Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8 is WAY lighter than that Canon 50mm f1.2 L USM".

A totally silly comparison. Compare things that actually are comparable...



Of course a smaller aperture lens is less heavy than a fast lens. Of course, a 400mm f5.6 is a lot lighter than a 400mm f2.8 lens. And a 400mm f11 lens would be even way more light.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309074520' post='9553']The Olympus 70-300mm f4.8-6.7 for instance.... It is equivalent to 140-600mm on full frame, yes. But look at that aperture (or rather: f-value): equivalent aperture of f9.6-13.4!



At some stage these "equivalent aperture" calculations cease to make sense. You easily managed to reach this stage. 600 mm on full frame - wow! - that´s costly and you need a truck to move it. Anyhow, for tele shooting achieving sufficient DOF poses typically more of a problem than the other way around. Hence, in practical terms, in addition to the massive size and weight advantage, a system like mFT is in many situations indeed preferable.

[Klaus]

Technically a full format 140-600mm f/9.6-13.4 could be almost as small ... but it wouldn't allow any phase-detection AF so it wouldn't make any sense to design one.



The Pana 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS is just as small and heavy as the Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS despite identical field-of-view in the respective format - just to give you a counter example.



But from a real world perspective you're generally right, yes.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1309078734' post='9555']

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309074520' post='9553']The Olympus 70-300mm f4.8-6.7 for instance.... It is equivalent to 140-600mm on full frame, yes. But look at that aperture (or rather: f-value): equivalent aperture of f9.6-13.4!

[/quote]



At some stage these "equivalent aperture" calculations cease to make sense. You easily managed to reach this stage. 600 mm on full frame - wow! - that´s costly and you need a truck to move it. Anyhow, for tele shooting achieving sufficient DOF poses typically more of a problem than the other way around. Hence, in practical terms, in addition to the massive size and weight advantage, a system like mFT is in many situations indeed preferable.

[/quote]

That is of course, not true. Even with the longest teles, the subject will always seem in focus even wide open, even with a 800mm f5.6. And bigger apertures you can not find:



Just to illustrate: 800mm / 5.6 = 142mm aperture!



That is why tele lens users often use their lovely teles wide open. That is also why the big aperture large teles are so popular with professionals, and why amateurs who actually understand optics always lust over these lenses.



It was you who was comparing a super small aperture tele on 4/rds with a moderate aperture full frame 135 format tele... so if you feel that somehow is a wonky comparison, guess who is to blame <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Youw ill NOT need a truck to move a 60mm f13.4 lens, by the way. Thing is, those are such toy like figures, that there simply is no market for that on 135 format DSLRs.



And that is exactly my point... you compare a 300mm f6.7 on MFT with a 400mm f5,6 of FF.

MFT: 600mm f13.4 (!!!!!)

APS-C: 640mm f8.9

FF: 400mm f5.6



Yeah, how weird that that f8.9 lens is heavier than that very slow f13.4 lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Those are the actual facts... get an equivalent lens on MFT, and it will NOT be lighter. As my example of the 35mm f2 lens shows. Want me to give more examples?

[popo]

You're welcome to disagree of course, but I do not consider the sensor difference between m4/3 and APS-C as significant so would directly compare same actual focal length lenses between them. I can easily crop an APS-C image to m4/3 equivalent and get the same quality as m4/3. In fact I often crop much further since longer lenses are not really affordable.



I guess I should add, I'm only comparing field of views and disregarding depth of field effects. In this case the generalisation is bigger sensor = bigger lens. If you do depth of field equivalence too, then lenses would tend towards being the same size regardless of sensor size, apart from a smaller contribution from image circle size.



There's a lot to compare between lenses, so I wouldn't pick a single factor like weight. I would also consider the build quality, AF type and speed, optical qualities and other differentiators. There are only two areas of possible advantage for m4/3 from the mount compared to SLRs - possibly smaller lenses of focal length close to the mount distance from sensor plane, and possibly lighter lenses due to the limited image circle. So far EVIL lenses have used concious design relaxations to make lenses smaller, such as increased distortion that will be corrected later in software. And the contrast AF is not sensitive to aperture like phase is so they can make slower lenses that retain AF. This does allow some lenses to be a bit smaller than a hypothetical SLR equivalent since they rarely align exactly.



So having said that they're not comparable in a single way, I'm going to compare them in a single way. Just for fun here are some lengths taken from random sources:



Canon EF 70-300 IS USM 142mm

Canon EF 70-300 DO IS USM 100mm

Panasonic 100-300 126mm

Olympus 75-300 116mm



Not much difference is there? If anything the lens erection looks sillier as the body gets smaller in proportion.



To swing this back onto the Q, with the much smaller sensor, that will finally be able to realise much smaller lenses, although I will admit that will be at a different compromise of only comparing equivalent field of views, and not aperture.



In summary, I'm asking myself why am I even writing this? The sun is out, and I'm about to be also. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />