Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Panasonic Lumix Pro 70-200mm f/2.8 OIS and 16-35mm f/4 announced
"Now, there are tiny lenses in MFT land which would be equivalent to f4 or f5.6ff lenses. I'm sure if such lenses existed for FF, they would be comparable in size. They just don't exist."

Exactly. For a good reason, in fact for several ones, but the main reason is "no one would buy them". As BC states, what good is it to go FF if not having the advantage of shallow DoF and great low light performance. Also, most of OL's tests at some place state "... until diffraction kicks in", mostly after f/8. So, with an f/4 prime I had two usable aperture stops? No, thanks. If I want to have a very compact system with me, I take something like the Nikon 1 V2 and two lenses, 10-100 and 70-300, and live with the lower IQ - I could not carry an equivalent of 28 - 810 mm in two lenses all day.

Also, I like to put your idea of "in film eras the cameras were lighter" into a reality check, because I was tempted to agree. Until I put my Contax 137 MA (which at least has an aperture priority mode, but can't AF and I need to change the roll after 36 frames. Oh, and it also cannot do movies...) on scale: ready to shoot the scale shows 662 grams. The Z 6 shows 668 grams. Oh, and I forgot to include a filter can: + 20 grams for the Contax which is very comparable in size, just clocks out at 3 fps, at 1/1000 and not tiger than 36°/3200ASA, aka ISO 3200.

And it doesn't even have a rear screen to preview the pictures... "film cameras were smaller" - they had maybe 25-35 % of the buttons or dials of today. I count 20 buttons (including multiselector, not including the i menu on the touchscreen) on the Z6 and 1 to stop down the aperture (to "control", hahahaha, the DoF in a dark OVF) on the Contax.

First, film cameras were not necessarily lighter/smaller than today's mirrorless bodies. Not even the Pentax or Olympus ones. Second, today's bodies have a lot more function elements, not to mention endless menus, which need to be at least operational and accessible. Third, to get the IQ of a 24 MP sensor, not even a Kodachrome 25 is sufficient - and no longer for sale anyway.

I always stated there's a limit of getting smaller and smaller. I could push 4 buttons with my thumb at once. I don't ned to push 8. Coming from DLSRs like D8xx, the Z bodies are sooo much smaller already and the lenses, too. And I don't need dark hole f/4 shards, only useful in bright sunlight.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Panasonic Lumix Pro 70-200mm f/2.8 OIS and 16-35mm f/4 announced - by JJ_SO - 11-07-2019, 09:00 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)