juliancamilo

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree but I really don’t think that’s what Sony did. I think their aim was “DSLR quality in a pocket camera”.

I maintain APS-C is not the format you pick if small and light lenses is your top aim/priority.

Also, if you look at the pictures and/or the MTF charts, you can see no lens made for the above cameras is a match for the Fuji lenses

I don’t know how to read MTF charts (and would like to keep it that way) so have no idea how they stack up in terms of numbers, but I would still confidently throw the Leica 25mm f/1.4 into the ring with this Fuji 35mm f/1.4.

I agree with all of this, but I’m still not sure.

The flange focal lengths of NEX and M4/3 are near enough the same, so that leaves the sensor size as the main difference, and I guess that’s why I pin the difference in lens size and weight on the sensor size difference, not the marginal flange focal length difference.

I guess time will tell whether what’s keeping the NEX lenses larger and heavier is the sensor size, or other factors such as cost/technique etc.

To be honest, I think if it was up to Canon, they would much prefer to stay out of it. I remember reading comments from them late last year where they questioned the need for a mirrorless camera to have interchangeable lenses (I guess pre-empting the G1X), and talked about filling the MILC gap by making compact cameras better and DSLRs smaller. However I think the growth in the market has forced their hand somewhat and they will have to jump in with something proper.

Absolute safe mode: APS-C, EF mount
Make a splash mode: G1X sensor, new smaller mount
Zero chance mode: joining an existing system

That’s sort of my point, they stuck with a size whose only reason for existing in the first place was cost.

Slightly off-topic (but relevant to this off-shoot), rumour has it Canon will be announcing their mirrorless entry next month, so it will be interesting to see where on the spectrum they put down their marker.

The reduction in size and weight of lenses that is gained from building a system around APS-C as opposed to 135 is very small.

Scratch that, I wouldn’t call the reduction “very small”, that’s wrong, it’s more than that. I just mean (though I don’t think I’ve worded it as well as I would like) I don’t think if you had the chance to build a digital system from scratch, with the aim of reducing size and weight of lenses, that you would pick the APS-C size.

The advantage of APS-C is it’s smaller, so if you were going to build a new camera system around it (like NEX), you can make smaller lenses for it.

This is why I don’t see it lasting. Like I said earlier, APS-C was a price compromise made at the advent of digital. It was not made with consideration for camera size or lens size, but simply price. If for some magical reason, 135 sensors were always cheap and easy to make, then the first (and all subsequent) DSLR bodies would have been 135. No question about it.

The reduction in size and weight of lenses that is gained from building a system around APS-C as opposed to 135 is very small. We can see this perfectly in the NEX system, where the size and weight of bodies is significantly reduced, but the size and weight of lenses is only minimally reduced. There are of course other reasons to go with it, such as if you are already manufacturing/buying/using APS-C sensors in other cameras, or it’s what people are used to, or the fact that you can use “DSLR quality” as a bullet point and not have to sweat too much about backing it up.

This is why I think smaller sensors like M4/3 have a future alongside 135. The reductions in size/weight of both bodies and lenses are significant. M4/3 is a sensor size which has actually been chosen with these size/weight reductions in mind, a decision unencumbered by legacy. Whereas APS-C was originally adopted and later continued mainly due to price, with the other slim advantages being mere bonuses.

Like I said, it is clearly more difficult and more expensive to make full frame sensors. I just have faith (misguided or otherwise) that prices will keep dropping as is almost always the case with technology. It’s not specifically the price difference which is keeping APS-C afloat, but rather that APS-C is able to hit the right price points. Once full frame reaches these price points, it won’t matter how many magnitudes cheaper APS-C is at that point.

Does this mean there is effectively a “bottom” they will reach and then fall no more? If so, that’s a real shame, but not something I can see happening. Maybe I don’t understand the specific difficulties (aside from knowing it is of course more expensive than making an APS-C sensor), but I just assume that it will be like all other technology, and only get cheaper as we make more of it and get better at making it. It may not drop quickly, but if the rumours are true and Nikon is able to get a full frame body out the door, this year, for $1500, then that’s already a huge step. Who is to say we won’t be seeing one for under $1000 in a few years time?

Would be nice to get rid of the APS-C size in a DSLR, and get back to being a 35mm camera.

I agree. APS-C was a compromise that was maybe necessary at the advent of digital. But as full frame becomes ever more affordable, and smaller sensors continue to improve, I don’t see it having a lasting place in photography at all (not even mirrorless).

Again,

If you’re familiar with the technique, you’ll understand that [having that info in] the OVF/ EVF isn’t quite the match

that’s the reason why the lens is bigger because it’s further away from the sensor

By this logic, the NEX system would have even smaller lenses (having as it does an even smaller flange focal distance than M system). This is of course not the case, quite the opposite in fact.

A smaller flange focal distance will save you some size and weight, but nowhere near as much as having a smaller sensor (and for that matter, making the lens manual focus, as the M system does).

What did they do wrong?

Thanks, I really appreciate it.

There’s something about this that’s overdone. Is it the “clarity” slider? Or maybe contrast. But the way the petals on the left have dark areas around them gives this a bit of a HDR look.

I guess so. Just the fact it has a ring for aperture on each lens (electrical or mechanical) is probably good enough.

Ah! I didn’t know that… sort of disappointed now.

That’s what I thought, there needs to be some way to switch between one or the other. Although I agree that manual focus on a system like this should be mechanical.

I’m not really aware of the lenses you mention so can’t say either way, but purely logistically I can’t understand how you can have both mechanical focus and AF at the same time. The only way to do it would be to have the barrel constantly spinning with the AF. So the only way is either to have AF and by-wire manual, or be able to switch between AF and mechanical.

Or am I just being really thick?

Your comment regarding lenses leaves me scratching my head. Fuji is the only one who nailed when it comes to selection of lenses available at launch – 27, 50 and 90

I agree. For the type of photography/photographer this is aimed at, there’s arguably not many more needed. A super-wide 21-ish, and maybe a 135-ish, but there’s not much else.

I have no no no idea why Fuji stuck with fly by wire and did not include a mechanical focussing

I’m not sure it’s as easy as that. I mean have you thought about how to marry AF with mechanical focus in a practical way? The best implementation I can think of would probably be something like the Olympus 12mm f/2, in which the focus ring can be switched between by-wire when the camera is in AF, and mechanical for manual focus.

But I do agree that with everything else the camera is saying (by the way it looks, by having a dial for shutter speed, by having an aperture ring etc), mechanical focus would have been congruent.

Metering on the LC-A is not done through the viewfinder (or the lens), so masking it causes no issues in that respect. I will email you about it when I get a bit more time.

If we compare OEM lenses, the Canon/Nikon 24-70s are both about $1800, whilst this Panasonic will likely be about $1200. I’m not saying it’s cheap, but I think the main problem in terms of pricing is that Sigma/Tamron aren’t yet making cheap 3rd party alternatives.

Somebody else gets it! I’m still improving it, but if you don’t mind posting an address, I can email you about it.

This pushes many of my buttons. Dereliction, grid lines, new/old, life/death, copious amounts of green, contrast between squares/circles, warm colour temperature. So I really like it. The only thing that bugs me is the portrait format! Especially when even a crop would not help as it would remove essential bits.