[Trickortreat]

Ok. The market shift is going to mirrorless now.
How that translates that up till recently ef-m system was best selling mirrorless system even tho most review sites trashed (yes dpr too) it and it has the least attractive lens lineup?

[UncleVanya]

Sadly i never caught that quote that they dont have interest in fast primes. Would have saved me a system switch and I would be happy bitching on Nikon forums for lack of DX primes as i have 0 interest in zooms and FF. That was the reason i jumped to Pentax as i had high expectations. Only lenses i own are DA 35 and DA 50 as i find they cover my needs. If there was a 23is f1.8 that isnt overly larhe i would be perfectly happy. Ye i konow there are some 24s f1.4-1.8s for Pentax but they are huge and would feel awkward on my KS1. Besides, if we look at Fuji 23mm 1.4 it shows that a fast moderatly wide lens doesnt have to be big and heavy

You need to understand that on a dslr a wide angle is retrofocal. This makes large aperture wide angle lenses much larger on a dslr than on short registration distance mirrorless systems.

[Trickortreat]

You need to understand that on a dslr a wide angle is retrofocal. This makes large aperture wide angle lenses much larger on a dslr than on short registration distance mirrorless systems.

bummer

[normhead]

bummer

Not to worry, everything is a trade off. Just as it's easier to do a 20mm lens without a mirror, you won't get a 40 mm pancake either, because you have to ad elements to compensate the other way. And bottom line, my 21 ltd is really small, my 40 xs is tiny, and that's great walking combination. You can say a shorter registration distance is better for wide angle. Many of the long lenses for short registration cameras look like the same lens as for a DSLR with an adapter tacked on the end, to make up for the shorter registration distance.

You win here you lose there, there's no real advantage one way or the other.

One of the beauties of DSLRs is their aprrox. 40mm registration distance makes lenses from 35-55mm, (the ones you are likely to use) most, compact, relatively distortion free and sharp.

The 20 mm advantage of mirrorless is kind of against the grain. Small size for the lenses most of us use the least.

[Trickortreat]

Not to worry, everything is a trade off. Just as it's easier to do a 20mm lens without a mirror, you won't get a 40 mm pancake either, because you have to ad elements to compensate the other way. And bottom line, my 21 ltd is really small, my 40 xs is tiny, and that's great walking combination. You can say a shorter registration distance is better for wide angle. Many of the long lenses for short registration cameras look like the same lens as for a DSLR with an adapter tacked on the end, to make up for the shorter registration distance.

You win here you lose there, there's no real advantage one way or the other.

One of the beauties of DSLRs is their aprrox. 40mm registration distance makes lenses from 35-55mm, (the ones you are likely to use) most, compact, relatively distortion free and sharp.

The 20 mm advantage of mirrorless is kind of against the grain. Small size for the lenses most of us use the least.

Hmmm.. well, my faw focal lengths are between 24 and 50 equivalent (16-35mm on a crop body) and I do like small lenses. That puts me in a strange position that for lenses a mirrorles system would be my choice, but for body itself a DSLR as I cant stand EVFs
Gah... Im thorn apart

[UncleVanya]

Not to worry, everything is a trade off. Just as it's easier to do a 20mm lens without a mirror, you won't get a 40 mm pancake either, because you have to ad elements to compensate the other way. And bottom line, my 21 ltd is really small, my 40 xs is tiny, and that's great walking combination. You can say a shorter registration distance is better for wide angle. Many of the long lenses for short registration cameras look like the same lens as for a DSLR with an adapter tacked on the end, to make up for the shorter registration distance.

You win here you lose there, there's no real advantage one way or the other.

One of the beauties of DSLRs is their aprrox. 40mm registration distance makes lenses from 35-55mm, (the ones you are likely to use) most, compact, relatively distortion free and sharp.

The 20 mm advantage of mirrorless is kind of against the grain. Small size for the lenses most of us use the least.

Different not better I agree. The fact is that a fast wide angle on dslr is large because of physics not poor design.

I'd also suggest that 20mm may be the most used by some people and least by others.

[BigMackCam]

bummer

Not to worry, everything is a trade off. Just as it's easier to do a 20mm lens without a mirror, you won't get a 40 mm pancake either, because you have to ad elements to compensate the other way. And bottom line, my 21 ltd is really small, my 40 xs is tiny, and that's great walking combination. You can say a shorter registration distance is better for wide angle. Many of the long lenses for short registration cameras look like the same lens as for a DSLR with an adapter tacked on the end, to make up for the shorter registration distance.

You win here you lose there, there's no real advantage one way or the other.

One of the beauties of DSLRs is their aprrox. 40mm registration distance makes lenses from 35-55mm, (the ones you are likely to use) most, compact, relatively distortion free and sharp.

The 20 mm advantage of mirrorless is kind of against the grain. Small size for the lenses most of us use the least.

Bingo. Both DSLR and mirrorless systems have their strengths and weaknesses, as do the various sensor formats - m43, APS-C, full frame, medium format etc. The best we can do is to choose equipment appropriate to our most frequent use cases.

Sometimes, going with just one type (DSLR or mirrorless) and format (APS-C, full frame etc.) of camera really isn't the best approach. Depending on your range of use cases, it can make sense to mix and match. You'd never expect one single car to be ideal for every use case, right? Show me the car that's compact enough for city driving, spacious enough for five, fast and comfortable for highway cruising, is great at off-roading, carries enough luggage for a two week vacation, can tow a heavy trailer, performs and handles like a sports car, with zero emissions...

[Trickortreat]

Bingo. Both DSLR and mirrorless systems have their strengths and weaknesses, as do the various sensor formats - m43, APS-C, full frame, medium format etc. The best we can do is to choose equipment appropriate to our most frequent use cases.

Sometimes, going with just one type (DSLR or mirrorless) and format (APS-C, full frame etc.) of camera really isn't the best approach. Depending on your range of use cases, it can make sense to mix and match. You'd never expect one single car to be ideal for every use case, right? Show me the car that's compact enough for city driving, spacious enough for five, fast and comfortable for highway cruising, is great at off-roading, carries enough luggage for a two week vacation, can tow a heavy trailer, and handles like a race car...

Hmmm... i think a solution for me to buy a Fuji X-pro with a 23mm f1.4 lens and hope that parallax error wont bother me much to complement my KS1 with a set of small DAs

[Rondec]

Hmmm... i think a solution for me to buy a Fuji X-pro with a 23mm f1.4 lens and hope that parallax error wont bother me much to complement my KS1 with a set of small DAs

Why not get a DA 21 and a KP? The improvement in high iso will save you the stop you lose because your lens is a little slower.

[beholder3]

You need to understand that on a dslr a wide angle is retrofocal. This makes large aperture wide angle lenses much larger on a dslr than on short registration distance mirrorless systems.

My judgement on the internet myth you repeat is : nonsense. There is zero evidence for the claim in real life.


Feel free to compare Nikon Z 35/1.8 (73x86mm, 370g) lens versus retrofocus Nikon F 35/1.8 lens (72x71.5mm, 305g). The wide angle DSLR lens is significantly shorter and lighter (and cheaper).

Look at the excellent DSLR Laowa 12mm F2.8. Both the extreme wide angle plus the fast speed by internet myth would make it a huge lens. It isn't. It is a great performer and small. I love it for travel.

Retrofocal lenses seem to be a bit more difficult to design, but that certainly is not anything of interest to me as a buyer.

[Trickortreat]

Why not get a DA 21 and a KP? The improvement in high iso will save you the stop you lose because your lens is a little slower.

KP is a bit of a heavy side form me. Ill never again buy a camera thats heavier than 600g.

[BigMackCam]

Hmmm... i think a solution for me to buy a Fuji X-pro with a 23mm f1.4 lens and hope that parallax error wont bother me much to complement my KS1 with a set of small DAs

I can't say whether that would be a good solution or not... I'm sure it's an option. What I think is important, though, is not to get too tied up in trying - or expecting - to achieve absolutely everything with one type of camera. And that can extend to brand.

More than anything, I'm a fan of Pentax gear - I just so happens that I really like and gel with the cameras and lenses, and find they do a lot of what I want extremely well, in a manner I find very enjoyable. More than half of my investment in cameras, AF lenses and brand-specific accessories is in Pentax or compatible gear. So, when that equipment fits my use case on a particular day, that's what I carry by choice.

But, there are times when I'm better served by something else... perhaps my Sony A7 MkII with adapters if I'm shooting vintage lenses, or my little FujiFilm XF-1 if I want something pocket-sized with decent image quality at moderately-wide to short-tele focal length for casual use... or even the Panasonic bridge camera I bought from my Dad if I want a long equivalent focal length and don't care about raw capture or premium IQ at larger reproductions

My point being... I'm a Pentax fan, but I don't expect everything in its product catalogue to be ideal for every situation I might find myself in. And that's absolutely fine. It's to be expected, in fact

[Rondec]

KP is a bit of a heavy side form me. Ill never again buy a camera thats heavier than 600g.

Well, each to his own. The extra 100 grams might be worth it.

[Trickortreat]

Well, each to his own. The extra 100 grams might be worth it.

Yeh, but i needed to draw the line somewhere. 100g on top of KP and boom - one can get a FF DSLR. 600g is my line for better or for worse

[UncleVanya]

My judgement on the internet myth you repeat is : nonsense. There is zero evidence for the claim in real life.


Feel free to compare Nikon Z 35/1.8 (73x86mm, 370g) lens versus retrofocus Nikon F 35/1.8 lens (72x71.5mm, 305g). The wide angle DSLR lens is significantly shorter and lighter (and cheaper).

Look at the excellent DSLR Laowa 12mm F2.8. Both the extreme wide angle plus the fast speed by internet myth would make it a huge lens. It isn't. It is a great performer and small. I love it for travel.

Retrofocal lenses seem to be a bit more difficult to design, but that certainly is not anything of interest to me as a buyer.

Thats not why the z 35 1.8 is larger. The difference is also in performance. It is like comparing the FA 50 1.4 with the DFA 50 1.4, you need to compare two lenses with similar performance. I do agree the Laowa 12mm is great smaller lens but not exactly fast.