bradhusick
Active member
Yes, that Loxia 35/2 is a much better size. I have not tried it to compare with the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.It seems to me that for most camera systems, the total distance from the front element to the sensor is relatively constant for large aperture, high quality lenses of the same focal length. That obviously takes away much of the advantage with mirrorless systems
Thicker by how much? I just looked at a Yashica GX and my A7r with a Yashinon from one GX. I do not see any noticeable "thickness".Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.
That can be said for DSLR cameras also, and has to do with the electronic components being a part of the sensor "package". However, the space taken up by the mirror of a DSLR (or a Sony SLT) camera, must obviously be part of the optical formula of each lens. The question is what the consequences are for the image quality when the lens design is changed to allow for the shorter distance. Again, Leica have clearly solved this, so impossible it is not, but at what price?Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.
Totally true, of course. But people aren't generally adapting different lenses to DSLRs, so it doesn't tend to come up as much.That can be said for DSLR cameras also, and has to do with the electronic components being a part of the sensor "package".
Film compared to digital: Big difference.Thicker by how much? I just looked at a Yashica GX and my A7r with a Yashinon from one GX. I do not see any noticeable "thickness".
It seems to me that any rule that you yourself can immediately think of an exception to (and let me add the Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount lenses) may not be well thought out. But I'm sure the pleasure of playing the Devil's Advocate trumps everything else. So let me try. Let's look at the size of the 50 1.4 lenses out there for DSLR cameras. The Sigma is enormous. Some of the older designs (for instance the Minolta 50 1.4) are tiny comparatively. The Sigma is reputed to be an excellent lens. Better than the old design. Could it be smaller? Absolutely! But the price point is very good. In engineering there is a saying Cost, Quality, Delivery time. Pick two. For lenses we might substitute Cost, Quality, Size. Pick two.It seems to me that for most camera systems, the total distance from the front element to the sensor is relatively constant for large aperture, high quality lenses of the same focal length.... The exception from this rule is Leica.
I was comparing two current Sony/Zeiss lenses of excellent quality. This has nothing to do with Nikon but with how optics work. The size is indeed one of the reasons why the new Sigma and Zeiss lenses are as good as they are. My guess is that those lenses would be at least as large as they are for DSLR bodies if they were designed for mirrorless cameras. The CEO of Sigma has already stated something in that direction, and the optical principles don't change if you remove the mirror from a camera.It seems to me that any rule that you yourself can immediately think of an exception to (and let me add the Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount lenses) may not be well thought out. But I'm sure the pleasure of playing the Devil's Advocate trumps everything else. So let me try. Let's look at the size of the 50 1.4 lenses out there for DSLR cameras. The Sigma is enormous. Some of the older designs (for instance the Minolta 50 1.4) are tiny comparatively. The Sigma is reputed to be an excellent lens. Better than the old design. Could it be smaller? Absolutely! But the price point is very good. In engineering there is a saying Cost, Quality, Delivery time. Pick two. For lenses we might substitute Cost, Quality, Size. Pick two.
What the mirrorless cameras bring to the table is elimination of many of the mechanical components that are no longer needed. We are in a transition time. Canon and Nikon know it will occur. Their task is to maneuver through the transition without losing a significant part of their customer base. Sony and Panasonic and Olympus (and maybe Samsung and Apple if they care to do something ancillary to their phone business) are trying to lure away that base through providing the new product before Canon and Nikon can pivot. Who will win? Damned if I know. I'm enjoying the Sony cameras and I don't photograph sports events so I don't need Canon or Nikon auto focus expertise.
Jorgen, I guess the problem for you is to decide whether your current camera system (Nikon) is going to win or lose. Good luck with that. I hope you guess correctly.
Regards,
John
No, it was an illustration of the difference in thickness of film compared to an electronic sensor package. I suspect that you know enough about camera bodies and lenses to understand how that influences lens design and size.Camera size photography again? I will make some snaps soon comparing a CL and a D300 and a Walkman.
I continue to disagree by showing lenses on the NEX' and FF Walkmans that are compact and competent. If you ditch Nikon you will understand that there are better gear out there.No, it was an illustration of the difference in thickness of film compared to an electronic sensor package. I suspect that you know enough about camera bodies and lenses to understand how that influences lens design and size.
If you think that it has nothing to do with Nikon you are incorrect.I was comparing two current Sony/Zeiss lenses of excellent quality. This has nothing to do with Nikon but with how optics work. The size is indeed one of the reasons why the new Sigma and Zeiss lenses are as good as they are. My guess is that those lenses would be at least as large as they are for DSLR bodies if they were designed for mirrorless cameras. The CEO of Sigma has already stated something in that direction, and the optical principles don't change if you remove the mirror from a camera.
You make this sound like some kind of war. It isn't.
No, this is a campaign against large lenses. One of the reasons why I left m4/3 was that the large aperture lenses in many cases were as large and as expensive as lenses for full frame DSLR cameras, and those that were not, were mostly not of good enough quality under challenging conditions. There were exceptions, but not many.Jorgen, I thought it was a campaign against consumerism?
I am eyeing that digital Holga D750.
My guess is that you are right. Nikon introduced an adapter like that, with full AF, VR and aperture functionality for all AF-S lenses in September 2011 for their "1" system. That is three and a half years ago. My theory is that the people at Nikon will be seen as unusually stupid if they don't introduce a similar adapter when an FX mirrorless system is launched.The real question is how do they transition their lenses. My guess is a new mount with an adapter for the old mount.
Time will tell.
Regards,
John
You are the one with that fondler cam f6.No, this is a campaign against large lenses. One of the reasons why I left m4/3 was that the large aperture lenses in many cases were as large and as expensive as lenses for full frame DSLR cameras, and those that were not, were mostly not of good enough quality under challenging conditions. There were exceptions, but not many.
With these new mockups presented by Sony, it's rather clear that they are confronted with exactly the same challenge. I believe that is what is being discussed on this thread.
If the man holding the 28mm f/2 in his hand at dpr has hands the same size as mine, it's roughly the same size as the AiS version. It's my most used lens on the D810 at the moment, and it's a sharp lens that renders beautifully. The fact that the Sony features AF obviously gives it an edge.You are the one with that fondler cam f6.
You also overlook the size of the 28/2, incidentally smaller than the 28/.2.8AiS which is unpleasant on ff digital.