small cameras, big lenses

gazonk · 08-12-2010, 04:54 AM

Sony has announced an 18-200 lens for NEX: ¤•i‚Ì“Á’· | SEL18200 | ƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹ˆêŠáƒJƒƒ‰gƒ¿hiƒAƒ‹ƒtƒ@jmEƒ}ƒEƒ“ƒgn | ƒ\ƒj[

...but it's significantly longer, thicker and heavier than the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses. In fact, compared to a K-x with the Tamron or Sigma mounted, about half of the weight and depth advantage of the NEX-5 is lost.

If only Pentax at this point could release a really compact super zoom to match the K-x (and the possible "K-r") which is even smaller and lighter than the Tamron and Sigma lenses, P&S upgraders who are looking for an all-in-one solution offering similar range to their P&S camera may be convinced that they really lose nothing in portability by choosing the K-x instead of a NEX...

Adam · 08-12-2010, 05:09 AM

They had the rebadged DA 18-250mm, so I'm sure one will be made available in the future.

gazonk · 08-12-2010, 05:33 AM

The DA 18-250 has been discontinued for quite a while now, let's hope they have something ready for this fall.

thibs · 08-12-2010, 05:34 AM

Yeah, How to make a mirrorless completely ridiculous

Fogel70 · 08-12-2010, 05:47 AM

I don't think the Sony NEX superzoom will be used much on NEX3/5, but more of a lens for the NEX camcorder. This lens is optimized for video as optical stabilization has more space for movement, but it also shows how much bigger a lens with optical stabilization can be.

Edvinas · 08-12-2010, 06:43 AM

This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway.

If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR.

Fogel70 · 08-12-2010, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR.

DSLR and mirrorless cameras are IMO optimized for different types of applications.

Bigger DSLR work best for normal and tele lenses, but not very well optimized for wide angle lenses. (And it is even worse if using APS-C sensor).

Small mirrorless work best for wide angle and normal lenses as the shorter register distance makes it easier to design these lenses. For longer lenses the balance of the camera gets worse, and without EVF it is more difficult to handle the camera. So mirrorless cameras are more of an alternative to RF than DSLR.

Small cameras are optimized for use with small lenses and big cameras for use of big lenses.

stanleyk · 08-12-2010, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway.

If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR.

But what if you are never going to use a long lens? For example I have a Sigma 120-400, a Series 1 70-210, and the Penax 55-300. I can count on both hands the number of times I've used them. On the other hand I use the DA 15-70mm all the time or I did until I got the E-P2 with the Olympus 9-18mm, Panasonic 20mm and Panasonic 45mm. That's all the lens I'll ever need. The whole E-P2 kit fits in this tiny National Geographic shoulder bag. The same coverage in a Pentax kit would definitely necessitate a larger bag. I'm not sure where this EVIL camera has to fit in your pocket thing comes from. That said all the micro four thirds stuff would fit in a jacket pocket.

If I was a person who used a 70-200, no I probably wouldn't buy an E-P2. I usually just use the Panasonic 20mm and have the 45mm in case I want to do a macro shot. Really good lenses.

konraDarnok · 08-12-2010, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder .

True WYSIWYG and reduced cost.

emergo · 08-12-2010, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway.

You're assuming that everyone uses zoom lenses. I haven't owned a zoom lens in about 15 years. I considered zooms to be way too big to be convenient - and the small ones are so slow as to hinder their versatility.

I didn't use them with my Pentax, Canon or Nikon film cameras nor do I use them on my DSLR. Mirrorless is likely the next logical evolution for me considering the way I like to shoot - high quality, very compact with exchangable lenses.

Yes, I'm still considering a move back to Pentax for the K7 Super, if it comes out and meets my needs - I love what Pentax is doing with their camera designs and amzing primes - but mirrorless has a hold on me and I may go that way if the next generation of cameras have the features I want.

thibs · 08-12-2010, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

True WYSIWYG and reduced cost.

No more wysiwyg than OVF IMO, just different (somewhat better and somewhat worse at the same time).

thibs · 08-12-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

I'm not sure where this EVIL camera has to fit in your pocket thing comes from. That said all the micro four thirds stuff would fit in a jacket pocket.

Probably from DSLRs users (like me) who don't see the point in having a camera which wouldn't fit into pocket (lens attached) but perform worse than their current DSLR. Something like having disadvantage of both P&S and DSLR in one machine.

I agree with you, if one is prime user only, small primes (pancakes) on mirrorless has a lot of sense (speaking sizewise only).

konraDarnok · 08-12-2010, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by thibs

No more wysiwyg than OVF IMO, just different (somewhat better and somewhat worse at the same time).

Even with DOF preview, it can be hard to judge what your picture will look like in once it's taken. It's why people "chimp" the lcd preview all the time. I know I do.

A well implemented EVF will make that a thing of the past -- even going so far as use special effect filters in real time. It would be nice to shoot BW pictures in BW. And you'll know how the exposure will come out every time.

But I agree, there are strengths and weaknesses either way. Although EVF seems to get a bum rap.

paul.e.crome · 08-12-2010, 10:27 AM

Usually I would agree with Edvinas, but somehow recently I'm also changing my mind. In this Sony NEX-5 First Impressions Review Michael Reichmann points out that Sony has been innovative, both because they have not been influenced by film camera design and because trying to converge still and video cameras design.
I'm absolutely no good at forecasting how the market goes, but just wondering if "beginner's" DSLR (whatever this means) are going to disappear in favor of mirrorless-interchangeable lens cameras, where there still is room for experimenting different form factors.
I find quite obvious that most compacts look the same, ad so do most of DSLR. This is not true for mirrorless. Maybe a design will emerge that will fit where current entry level DLSR do (If I had to choose I would be in favor of having a viewfinder anyway

).

Wheatfield · 08-12-2010, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

Even with DOF preview, it can be hard to judge what your picture will look like in once it's taken. It's why people "chimp" the lcd preview all the time. I know I do.

A well implemented EVF will make that a thing of the past -- even going so far as use special effect filters in real time. It would be nice to shoot BW pictures in BW. And you'll know how the exposure will come out every time.

But I agree, there are strengths and weaknesses either way. Although EVF seems to get a bum rap.

EVFs gets a well deserved bum rap at their present level of implementation. Optical viewfinders are still superior.
You would chimp less if you learned more about the relationship between DOF and aperture, not that the screen on the back of a camera is much good for determining DOF anyway.

08-12-2010, 04:54 AM	#1
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	small cameras, big lenses Sony has announced an 18-200 lens for NEX: ¤•i‚Ì“Á’· \| SEL18200 \| ƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹ˆêŠáƒJƒƒ‰gƒ¿hiƒAƒ‹ƒtƒ@jmEƒ}ƒEƒ“ƒgn \| ƒ\ƒj[ ...but it's significantly longer, thicker and heavier than the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 lenses. In fact, compared to a K-x with the Tamron or Sigma mounted, about half of the weight and depth advantage of the NEX-5 is lost. If only Pentax at this point could release a really compact super zoom to match the K-x (and the possible "K-r") which is even smaller and lighter than the Tamron and Sigma lenses, P&S upgraders who are looking for an all-in-one solution offering similar range to their P&S camera may be convinced that they really lose nothing in portability by choosing the K-x instead of a NEX...

08-12-2010, 05:09 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597	They had the rebadged DA 18-250mm, so I'm sure one will be made available in the future. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best way to carry multiple small lenses for quick reach.	pcarfan	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	44	07-18-2010 04:13 AM
For Sale - Sold: 12 MF Lenses, 3 film cameras, 3 winders, 2 AF lenses...	dumrox	Sold Items	18	01-14-2009 01:22 AM
Waterfalls, big or small, I love them all	soccerjoe5	Post Your Photos!	13	11-07-2008 05:10 AM
macro shooting with small focal length lenses	pete_pf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	11-04-2008 04:35 AM
Are all DA lenses built for small sensor?	Hannican	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	12-14-2007 07:32 AM

08-12-2010, 05:33 AM	#3
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746 Original Poster	The DA 18-250 has been discontinued for quite a while now, let's hope they have something ready for this fall.

08-12-2010, 05:34 AM	#4
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Yeah, How to make a mirrorless completely ridiculous

08-12-2010, 05:47 AM	#5
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	I don't think the Sony NEX superzoom will be used much on NEX3/5, but more of a lens for the NEX camcorder. This lens is optimized for video as optical stabilization has more space for movement, but it also shows how much bigger a lens with optical stabilization can be.

08-12-2010, 06:43 AM	#6
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway. If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR.

08-12-2010, 07:12 AM	#7
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by Edvinas If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR. DSLR and mirrorless cameras are IMO optimized for different types of applications. Bigger DSLR work best for normal and tele lenses, but not very well optimized for wide angle lenses. (And it is even worse if using APS-C sensor). Small mirrorless work best for wide angle and normal lenses as the shorter register distance makes it easier to design these lenses. For longer lenses the balance of the camera gets worse, and without EVF it is more difficult to handle the camera. So mirrorless cameras are more of an alternative to RF than DSLR. Small cameras are optimized for use with small lenses and big cameras for use of big lenses.

08-12-2010, 09:41 AM	#8
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by Edvinas This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway. If you need small camera - get point and shoot, it's going to fit in your pocket and you can carry it anywhere. If you get camera which won't fit into your pocket and you are going to carry it in bag/backpack - get DSLR. But what if you are never going to use a long lens? For example I have a Sigma 120-400, a Series 1 70-210, and the Penax 55-300. I can count on both hands the number of times I've used them. On the other hand I use the DA 15-70mm all the time or I did until I got the E-P2 with the Olympus 9-18mm, Panasonic 20mm and Panasonic 45mm. That's all the lens I'll ever need. The whole E-P2 kit fits in this tiny National Geographic shoulder bag. The same coverage in a Pentax kit would definitely necessitate a larger bag. I'm not sure where this EVIL camera has to fit in your pocket thing comes from. That said all the micro four thirds stuff would fit in a jacket pocket. If I was a person who used a 70-200, no I probably wouldn't buy an E-P2. I usually just use the Panasonic 20mm and have the 45mm in case I want to do a macro shot. Really good lenses.

08-12-2010, 10:03 AM	#9
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by Edvinas what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder . True WYSIWYG and reduced cost.

08-12-2010, 10:08 AM	#10
emergo Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Coloroado Photos: Gallery Posts: 271	Originally posted by Edvinas This perfectly illustrates my arguments in EVIL discussions: what is the point of loosing optical viewfinder and getting small camera if you have to attach large lens to that small body anyway. You're assuming that everyone uses zoom lenses. I haven't owned a zoom lens in about 15 years. I considered zooms to be way too big to be convenient - and the small ones are so slow as to hinder their versatility. I didn't use them with my Pentax, Canon or Nikon film cameras nor do I use them on my DSLR. Mirrorless is likely the next logical evolution for me considering the way I like to shoot - high quality, very compact with exchangable lenses. Yes, I'm still considering a move back to Pentax for the K7 Super, if it comes out and meets my needs - I love what Pentax is doing with their camera designs and amzing primes - but mirrorless has a hold on me and I may go that way if the next generation of cameras have the features I want.

08-12-2010, 10:10 AM	#11
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by konraDarnok True WYSIWYG and reduced cost. No more wysiwyg than OVF IMO, just different (somewhat better and somewhat worse at the same time).

08-12-2010, 10:15 AM	#12
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by stanleyk I'm not sure where this EVIL camera has to fit in your pocket thing comes from. That said all the micro four thirds stuff would fit in a jacket pocket. Probably from DSLRs users (like me) who don't see the point in having a camera which wouldn't fit into pocket (lens attached) but perform worse than their current DSLR. Something like having disadvantage of both P&S and DSLR in one machine. I agree with you, if one is prime user only, small primes (pancakes) on mirrorless has a lot of sense (speaking sizewise only).

08-12-2010, 10:20 AM	#13
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by thibs No more wysiwyg than OVF IMO, just different (somewhat better and somewhat worse at the same time). Even with DOF preview, it can be hard to judge what your picture will look like in once it's taken. It's why people "chimp" the lcd preview all the time. I know I do. A well implemented EVF will make that a thing of the past -- even going so far as use special effect filters in real time. It would be nice to shoot BW pictures in BW. And you'll know how the exposure will come out every time. But I agree, there are strengths and weaknesses either way. Although EVF seems to get a bum rap.

08-12-2010, 10:27 AM	#14
paul.e.crome New Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Torino, Italy Posts: 5	Usually I would agree with Edvinas, but somehow recently I'm also changing my mind. In this Sony NEX-5 First Impressions Review Michael Reichmann points out that Sony has been innovative, both because they have not been influenced by film camera design and because trying to converge still and video cameras design. I'm absolutely no good at forecasting how the market goes, but just wondering if "beginner's" DSLR (whatever this means) are going to disappear in favor of mirrorless-interchangeable lens cameras, where there still is room for experimenting different form factors. I find quite obvious that most compacts look the same, ad so do most of DSLR. This is not true for mirrorless. Maybe a design will emerge that will fit where current entry level DLSR do (If I had to choose I would be in favor of having a viewfinder anyway ).

08-12-2010, 11:01 AM	#15
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Originally posted by konraDarnok Even with DOF preview, it can be hard to judge what your picture will look like in once it's taken. It's why people "chimp" the lcd preview all the time. I know I do. A well implemented EVF will make that a thing of the past -- even going so far as use special effect filters in real time. It would be nice to shoot BW pictures in BW. And you'll know how the exposure will come out every time. But I agree, there are strengths and weaknesses either way. Although EVF seems to get a bum rap. EVFs gets a well deserved bum rap at their present level of implementation. Optical viewfinders are still superior. You would chimp less if you learned more about the relationship between DOF and aperture, not that the screen on the back of a camera is much good for determining DOF anyway.