[Rondec]

But it would break it. Why make such a slim body and then put an ugly lump on it. They might as well just made a DSLR and no one would complain.

So the Panasonic GH3 is 133mm by 93.4 mm by 82mm and that's OK, but you wouldn't consider a camera that was 133mm by 93.4mm by 102 mm?

Anyway, that's fine if you are going to go that way, just for me ergonomics are more important than tiny size and few of these cameras are truly pocketable, even with prime lenses and definitely not with zoom lenses on board.

[reh321]

But it would break it. Why make such a slim body and then put an ugly lump on it. They might as well just made a DSLR and no one would complain.

Anyway, that's fine if you are going to go that way, just for me ergonomics are more important than tiny size and few of these cameras are truly pocketable, even with prime lenses and definitely not with zoom lenses on board.

And to others of us, CDAF, burst speed, video, and/or EVF are more important..

[Trickortreat]

So the Panasonic GH3 is 133mm by 93.4 mm by 82mm and that's OK, but you wouldn't consider a camera that was 133mm by 93.4mm by 102 mm?

Anyway, that's fine if you are going to go that way, just for me ergonomics are more important than tiny size and few of these cameras are truly pocketable, even with prime lenses and definitely not with zoom lenses on board.

I really dont know what a 44mm lump on a 25mm body has to do with ergonomics...

[Digitalis]

I see what you are getting at Rondec, but it seems to me that making a mount larger to simply accept lens adapters seems to me a rather tedious kludge. M42 placed a lot of lens design restrictions on manufacturers. I don't think the industry will ever go back to a "universal" mount ever again- the shareholders want companies to make money, the best way to do that is to force end users into accepting their solutions - not adapt the camera to work with their competitors products.

I really dont[sic] know what a 44mm lump on a 25mm body has anything to do with ergonomics

It has a considerable effect upon a cameras ergonomics - any excess bulk has an effect upon how the camera fits the hand and balances with various lenses and accessories that may be attached. Why do you think the Canon #D and Nikon D# series cameras have built in vertical grips? not only do the grips provide space for more powerful batteries and offer additional controls for the user, they help the camera balance well when used with long fast lenses. What is added to a camera and what is taken away is no trivial matter to camera designers.


Rondec is just pointing out the nonsense of "compact" interchangeable lens cameras - which, at present, aren't in any way poketable in any practical sense*. I will remind you the spirit of 35mm was "take anywhere convenience" - A break from the tiresome pursuit of hauling a medium format, or 4X5 camera around with you. The Pentax ME super, Olympus OM, Leica M cameras were an exemplars of this design goal, the Nikon F4 was perhaps the most egregious diversion from that concept.


* Insert a crass is that a camera in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? joke here.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-05-2018 at 05:08 AM.

[Trickortreat]

It has a considerable effect upon a cameras ergonomics - any excess bulk has an effect upon how the camera fits the hand and balances with various lenses and accessories that may be attached. Why do you think the Canon #D and Nikon D# series cameras have built in vertical grips? not only do the grips provide space for more powerful batteries and offer additional controls for the user, they help the camera balance well when used with long fast lenses. What is added to a camera and what is taken away is no trivial matter to camera designers.

Im not talking about a grip but about the EF lens mount on a tiny slim mobile phone sized body. What kind of ergonomic benefit would it provide? :/

[Digitalis]

What kind of ergonomic benefit would it provide? :/

Does it have a tripod mount? If so, it would provide the user with the option to use more stable shooting platforms.

[Trickortreat]

Does it have a tripod mount? If so, it would provide the user with the option to use more stable shooting platforms.

That's what a lens collar is for. No need for an ugly lump on a smartphone-like body.

[ThorSanchez]

I don't know.

Half of you act as though the problem is that the mount is too wide and half that it is too long. Probably the biggest issue is the limitation in lenses available for use with adapters. As far as size, you are talking about 2 cm distance in depth and 2 cm distance in width of the lens mount diameter. I know every centimeter counts, but honestly, I can't imagine this will make or break such a camera.

As I said before, the biggest questions will center around functionality. How good is the EVF? Is the auto focus decent? What sorts of helps will be available for manual focusing? What sort of video will it have and what will the still image quality be? Those and many others will determine if people buy this camera or choose to spend a bit more for one from an existing brand.

You may be right. I'm guessing they used this mount because there are so many EF mount lenses in the world. Canon claims 130 million. They weighed that more heavily than smallest possible size.

I'm sure this is my personal bias, I'd want this thing to be a Ricoh GR type pocket camera with the added flexibility of interchangeable lenses. It's not going in most pockets if the smallest pancake lens is now sticking out several inches.

[Digitalis]

That's what a lens collar is for.

Not all lenses have collars, or provide the faculty to use one.

[normhead]

That's what a lens collar is for. No need for an ugly lump on a smartphone-like body.

Even my DA*200 doesn't have a collar.
Are you talking about a real camera for which every landscape lens has a collar?
How about macro, none of my macro lenses (4 of them) have collars, yet most are taken with tripods.
Also lens collars add bulk and weight, not exactly an elegant solution.

So, I'd like to see a link where I can see this system that has lens collars on all their lenses.
Or did you make that up?

[Trickortreat]

And adding a tripod mount to such a tiny body would just make a weak link unless the whole body is made of titanium or something like that, which I sincerely doubt Yongnuo would do.
Besides - there are add on collars that can be attached to any lens providing much better support than a small hole on a (plastic) EF mount lump.

[Rondec]

You may be right. I'm guessing they used this mount because there are so many EF mount lenses in the world. Canon claims 130 million. They weighed that more heavily than smallest possible size.

I'm sure this is my personal bias, I'd want this thing to be a Ricoh GR type pocket camera with the added flexibility of interchangeable lenses. It's not going in most pockets if the smallest pancake lens is now sticking out several inches.

Sure.

The biggest problem is the four thirds sensor combined with this mount. You stick a 25mm lens on it, which should be pretty wide and suddenly its a normal lens. An awful lot of EOS and for that matter Nikon/Pentax lenses end up being telephotos with a four thirds sensor.

I don't have high expectations for this camera. Its goal is to be cheap and little else. People who want a cheap four thirds camera will tolerate the imperfections because they like the price.

[normhead]

And adding a tripod mount to such a tiny body would just make a weak link unless the whole body is made of titanium or something like that, which I sincerely doubt Yongnuo would do.
Besides - there are add on collars that can be attached to any lens providing much better support than a small hole on a (plastic) EF mount lump.

So you're saying foolling around with 3rd party lens collars that won't even work with some lenses is better than and extra 3/4 inch thickness on the camera body?
Funny, my Q has a tripod mount, good enough to support it's tiny little lenses.

So leets summarize, buy-in collars for every lens you will that will take them (and some won't) so a partial solution at best. I spend time putting the DA*60-250 tripod mount on and off depending on my needs at the moment. Doing that for every lens would be a major inconvenience.

And you still haven't linked to they lens collar solution that will work on every lens.
As I asked "Are you making this up?" it actually sounds like you have no experience messing around with lens collars. It's not something most of us enjoy. Even factory designed ones that come on the lens.

And you are claiming this is more convenient, because of an 18mm difference in size?
OK what's your real game here?

But then tripods tend to be used by only the more serious photographers, maybe you are advocating a less serious approach.

[Trickortreat]

So you're saying foolling around with 3rd party lens collars that won't even work with some lenses is better than and extra 3/4 inch thickness on the camera body?

Why it wouldnt work? Its not 3/4 inch its 44mm more than it should be. And you really think that Youngnuo will have a sturdy metal body?

And you still haven't linked to they lens collar solution that will work on every lens.As I asked "Are you making this up?" it actually sounds like you have no experience messing around with lens collars. It's not something most of us enjoy. Even factor designed one that come on the lens.

Universal collars? Never heard about those things?

[normhead]

Besides - there are add on collars that can be attached to any lens providing much better support than a small hole on a (plastic) EF mount lump.

Exactly what are you talking about? Your position kind of depends on this.

How about a link to a landscape lens with attachable lens collar.