Thoughts on mirrorless FF camera with interchangeable lenses in 2013?

[KenLee]

For me, 24 MP is the minimum, and it's wonderful that we can carry a camera in the pocket which makes decent-sized prints.

At 4000 x 6000 pixels, if we want to make a print at 360 dpi, we can make an 11x17 image and retain critical quality - as long as we don't crop.

That's the bare minimum for me, since my prints are usually 11x14 or larger. The limit here is the 4000 pixels, the smaller number.

I normally shoot 4x5 and 5x7 film where the numbers are a bit higher: even with an affordable consumer-grade scanner, 4x5 images are 45 MP or higher, and 5x7 are over 80 MP.

 

[slungu]

If there were a mirrorless camera like the NEX ,with an APS-C sensor that got 36 MP (or more) - and which had no problems with short lenses - would anyone care about full-frame ?

is it full-frame for its own sake, or the notion that full-frame promises better image quality ?

I care about FF because it is easier to get good WA lenses for them. I want a 28mm and would have a lot to choose from, plus a great ZM25. With the crop I have the ZM18, but it is slower and way bigger than let's say the 28 Elmarit.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Why is a mirrorless FF camera important? There are plenty of FF cameras with a mirror, and even though a mirrorless body can be made smaller, the lenses most probably won't (look at the size of the Fuji X-mount lenses and multiply that with...), at least not if the optical quality is going to be kept high. If Sony wants to kill the A99 and the current NEX cameras, they can of course make a mirrorless FF camera, but why would they want to do that? And who will develop and make the lenses? I doubt that it would have a high priority at Sony, a company with enough financial challenges to avoid anything that isn't certain to generate a healthy profit.

The M and the A99 are both more or less mirrorless and they're available soon. I believe that's the closest we'll get for the time being, unless Ricoh surprises us with an updated GXR.

 

[douglasf13]

Why is a mirrorless FF camera important? There are plenty of FF cameras with a mirror, and even though a mirrorless body can be made smaller, the lenses most probably won't (look at the size of the Fuji X-mount lenses and multiply that with...), at least not if the optical quality is going to be kept high. If Sony wants to kill the A99 and the current NEX cameras, they can of course make a mirrorless FF camera, but why would they want to do that? And who will develop and make the lenses? I doubt that it would have a high priority at Sony, a company with enough financial challenges to avoid anything that isn't certain to generate a healthy profit.

The M and the A99 are both more or less mirrorless and they're available soon. I believe that's the closest we'll get for the time being, unless Ricoh surprises us with an updated GXR.

+1 :thumbup:

 

[Shashin]

DSLRs can also be made smaller. It isn't the mirror adding to the volume, but customers wanting a big ugly grip and important looking cameras. The size is just as much a function of fashion as anything else.

 

[KenLee]

I care about FF because it is easier to get good WA lenses for them. I want a 28mm and would have a lot to choose from, plus a great ZM25. With the crop I have the ZM18, but it is slower and way bigger than let's say the 28 Elmarit.

That makes good sense!

Because I shoot only longer lenses, it never occurred to me. Now I see that what is advantageous for one, is a hindrance to the other.

That would explain the ultimate appeal of Full Frame: a sweet-spot of sorts with regards to lens size.

 

[douglasf13]

I care about FF because it is easier to get good WA lenses for them. I want a 28mm and would have a lot to choose from, plus a great ZM25. With the crop I have the ZM18, but it is slower and way bigger than let's say the 28 Elmarit.

The problem is, even if Sony ever does make a FF still NEX, I'd be willing to bet that it won't play well with wide M lenses. So, you'll either be forced to go Leica M (unless maybe Ricoh makes something,) or you can just buy the Sigma 19/2.8 for NEX, which is a good performer and small.

 

[Vivek]

Why would that be a problem? Who makes Ricoh/Pentax' sensors? It is Sony.

 

[Shashin]

I care about FF because it is easier to get good WA lenses for them. I want a 28mm and would have a lot to choose from, plus a great ZM25. With the crop I have the ZM18, but it is slower and way bigger than let's say the 28 Elmarit.

But you could actually buy lenses designed for APS rather than use lenses designed for 35mm. Just sayin'.

 

[douglasf13]

Why would that be a problem? Who makes Ricoh/Pentax' sensors? It is Sony.

I simply mean that MAYBE Ricoh would make a module with a Sony sensor tuned to perform well with M lenses, since they're a smaller market, but we haven't heard much from them, lately.

 

[slungu]

The problem is, even if Sony ever does make a FF still NEX, I'd be willing to bet that it won't play well with wide M lenses. So, you'll either be forced to go Leica M (unless maybe Ricoh makes something,) or you can just buy the Sigma 19/2.8 for NEX, which is a good performer and small.

Douglas, I know that, but I really like these nice manual focus lenses ( I like the old C/Y Zeiss lenses even more, but don't like carrying them ), and this and of course the optical performance is reason enough for me to stick with such lenses, and that leads to searching for a cam that can accommodate them. Ideally, I would be great if there were more manufacturers that can provide a sensor for the lenses, this is why I do not want to invest heavily in a electronic mount that would be binding me to a "system" ( also one of the reasons I have not been tempted by the new SLR offerings from Zeiss ). Maybe it is a strange approach on my side, but I am trying to make the best out of it

 

[douglasf13]

Douglas, I know that, but I really like these nice manual focus lenses ( I like the old C/Y Zeiss lenses even more, but don't like carrying them ), and this and of course the optical performance is reason enough for me to stick with such lenses, and that leads to searching for a cam that can accommodate them. Ideally, I would be great if there were more manufacturers that can provide a sensor for the lenses, this is why I do not want to invest heavily in a electronic mount that would be binding me to a "system" ( also one of the reasons I have not been tempted by the new SLR offerings from Zeiss ). Maybe it is a strange approach on my side, but I am trying to make the best out of it

Oh, I understand. I was doing the same thing for a long time. The problem these days is that, not only do we have several sub-medium formats to deal with, but we also have specific lens-to-sensor problems to worry about, so there are a multitude of factors getting in the way. That's why I gave up on M wides for NEX, because the Sigma 19 is nearly as good as anything I've tried, and it is designed for the digital sensor. I'm assuming that the upcoming NEX Zeiss 12mm will be good, too, but we'll see.

Unless Ricoh surprises everyone with a FF GXR M option, I think that you're really only going to be happy with the Leica M for the lenses that you speak of, because I can't imagine another company tuning their sensor for M lenses, even if we do see a FF EVIL in the future.

 

[Godfrey]

.. Unless Ricoh surprises everyone with a FF GXR M option, I think that you're really only going to be happy with the Leica M for the lenses that you speak of, because I can't imagine another company tuning their sensor for M lenses, even if we do see a FF EVIL in the future.

I tend to agree with that. The camera manufacturers probably make more margin on lens sales than body sales, so tuning your latest product to be useful with someone else's lenses is an unusual thing to do. Ricoh, playing their own niche market, did an unusual and brilliant thing with the GXR-M ... but whether they'd be successful with a FF camera unit development effort is a question mark.

People seem to be passing off the notion of a FF sensor with RF lenses as if it were now a done thing and a piece of cake, but the fact is that it remains a very difficult engineering and development job to produce sensors in quantity, at a reasonable price, that can work well with the multitude of lens designs available for LTM and M-bayonet mount registers. It is FAR easier to design sensors and new lenses as a matching pair, and likely quite a lot more profitable.

I chose the GXR and the M9 because I want to use the lenses I have now, I'm standardized on them as my system kit. I don't want to, and won't, buy another system for the very marginal gain that it might provide. And I emphasize might.

When the new M is available, providing it meets my expectations, I'll buy it. I like the electronic TTL camera's versatility but deep down I really prefer the optical viewfinder and rangefinder more.

 

[douglasf13]

Another thing to consider is that smaller sensors require lenses of a higher MTF to compete with their FF counterparts, and it is easier to make smaller lenses sharper. According to the imatest test over at lesnrentals, the silly little Sigma 30/2.8 is as good or better than the 50 Lux at comparable apertures on the NEX-7, and it's hard to beat the 50 Lux in the M line.

 

[Shashin]

The trade off to resolving power is contrast. So small format lenses have really nice resolution, but tend to be flatter than their bigger brothers.

 

[Dan Ortego]

Well, I did have some thoughts and hopes of a FF mirrorless, right up until the RX1. I have no idea how this will progress but I understand the pre-order ranking is already number two on Amazon. It’s very tempting since I can’t swing another go at the M-series with a prime. Did it and regretted it, and then regretted even more when I sold it.
:deadhorse:

 

[douglasf13]

The trade off to resolving power is contrast. So small format lenses have really nice resolution, but tend to be flatter than their bigger brothers.

I don't think there's anything to preclude smaller lenses from having more contrast. Those are just design decisions dependent on individual lenses.

 

[Vivek]

Another thing to consider is that smaller sensors require lenses of a higher MTF to compete with their FF counterparts, and it is easier to make smaller lenses sharper. According to the imatest test over at lesnrentals, the silly little Sigma 30/2.8 is as good or better than the 50 Lux at comparable apertures on the NEX-7, and it's hard to beat the 50 Lux in the M line.

Unless you are referring to the actual size of the glass, the Sigma 30/2.8 is neither silly nor small.

It would seem that the 30/2.8 in the DP2-M is even a better lens than the E version.

 

[douglasf13]

Unless you are referring to the actual size of the glass, the Sigma 30/2.8 is neither silly nor small.

It would seem that the 30/2.8 in the DP2-M is even a better lens than the E version.

I called it silly simply in regard to it being a $199 lens vs. the price of M lenses. I don't mean to disparage it. It is certainly a good performer, and my most used lens, currently. In terms of size, I meant in regards to image circle coverage.

It's hard to say which lens is better between the Sigma 30 and DP2-M, or if it is just a matter of sensor differences. Either way, the lens designs are very, very similar, outside of the DP2-M's rear correcting elements, which are required to get the lens so close to the sensor. The lenses likely perform quite similarly in the center and middle portion of the frame, at least.

 

[Vivek]

Doug, They are different (even discounting the similar design and the extra element in DP2M). The glass elements that makes up the lens in DP2M is different. The cheaper E mount lens has no ED elements.

Nevertheless, the 30/2.8 (E-mount) is a telecentric lens, the same can not be said of fast Leica M mount lenses.