[stevebrot]

That defense is at least ''slim''.

Perhaps, but several assertions in Sator's article are fairly ludicrous when the history of interchangeable lens cameras is considered. "FF-sized lens mount"? Give me a break. With a few notable exceptions, mount diameter for 35mm format cameras have been no more than 48mm since the introduction of the film type and for those that are larger, the size was never a consideration for marketing or review purposes. The talk about mount diameter vs. ability to do IBIS (interview quotes from Fuji folk) is also pretty silly and is a stronger indicator of image circle deficiencies of Fuji lenses then it is on the design constraints of their competitor's product. That the Sony system is deployed in the wild and appears to be working just fine should be proof enough that the laws of physics have been honored.

As for the matter of lens size on a mirrorless camera, many makers have been very successful in producing very petite optics for MILC.* Any bloat associated with the FE mount lenses lies with the design goals and not with the camera type.

Steve

Note: FWIW, the diameter of the lens mount as with the diameter of the rear element does not directly affect image circle or acceptability of IBIS. More important than image circle is so-called cosine^4 law and aspects of sensor design where angle of incidence (calculated from the margins of the exit pupil, IIRC) is critical for edge and corner performance. Those issues exist regardless of image circle and are a concern whenever the rear element sits close to the focal plane.

* Perhaps I am fudging a little here, but lenses for 35mm rangefinder cameras are traditionally quite tiny and manage quite nicely with rather short registration distance, though not quite as short as Sony FE (18mm). For example:

• Leica M (27.95mm)
• Leica Screw, aka M39/LTM (28.8mm)
• Contax G1 (29mm)
• Contax/Kiev Rangefinder (34.85mm)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-05-2016 at 04:04 PM.

[JimmyDranox]

''many makers have been very successful in producing very petite optics for MILC''

Yes, but with what size of sensors? With small, 4/3 sensors, maybe? And the article in question is not about any type of mirrorless camera, but only about A7 family, with their FF sensor.

And yes, short registration distances was used. Why they are not used anymore in DSLR cameras? Maybe there are some reason for this? Maybe digital photography has brought a higher level of image quality, and is easier to built very good lenses with a bigger distance behind them? I remember the time of film cameras very well, and I remember the prices of Leica and Contax lenses. If we count the inflation, most of those lenses would have 5 figure prices today.

The diameter of the mount alone cannot be detrimental used with IBIS, but coupled with a FF sensor and a very short registration distance, I think it can.

Anyway, I would like a camera without mirror flap, and with a hybrid viewfinder, but I would rather have a camera as big as Canon D1X, than a tiny one, like Sony A7, which i find extremely difficult to use with my big hands. But is just my take.

[stevebrot]

Yes, but with what size of sensors?

35mm FF. I own about a dozen in LTM, Contax/Kiev rangefinder, and Leica M, none of which cost me more than $350, but none are labeled Leitz or Zeiss. FWIW, it is difficult to buy an inexpensive lens with the Leitz label. Zeiss (Contax) are often fairly inexpensive.


Steve

[stevebrot]

And yes, short registration distances was used. Why they are not used anymore in DSLR cameras?

Mirror in way? There is some latitude regarding mirror length and size, but adequate coverage with long lenses requires a longer mirror. That may be why both Nikon and Pentax are built around a fairly long register. Canon and Konica have traditionally been shorter than the rest of the pack, but often with mirror clearance issues with some lenses.

The registration distance for Pentax has been the same since the late 1950s. Nikon has used the same registration since the advent of the F mount (~1960).

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-05-2016 at 08:34 PM.

[stevebrot]

Anyway, I would like a camera without mirror flap, and with a hybrid viewfinder, but I would rather have a camera as big as Canon D1X, than a tiny one, like Sony A7, which i find extremely difficult to use with my big hands. But is just my take.

Sony A99 with grip is about the same size as the D1X. Sadly there are no FF cameras with hybrid viewfinders


Steve

[Fogel70]

Sony A99 with grip is about the same size as the D1X. Sadly there are no FF cameras with hybrid viewfinders


Steve

I would not be too surprised if we will see some more large DSLR like E-mount cameras like A3000, but with FF sensors.
Something like A99 but with E-mount instead of A-mount. Now Sony start to have the E-mount lenses to support a camera like this.

[surfar]

The Pano gx85 announced yesterday looks pretty good, the GH5 is due later this year 6k video is the rumour.

One of these or the 3 you mentioned is a good combo with a K1 stills special,mind you the stills of the Panasonic's are quite good.I suppose its the type of stills you shoot that will determine what body to have.

[JimmyDranox]

Stevebrot, sorry. I made a comparison between A7 and Canon D1X, you tell me that A99 is almost the same size with D1X, and so on. So, I will not respond to your messages anymore, and I will unsubscribe from this very much derailed thread, No disrespect, but there is no point to loose my time in this way.

[Scintilla]

Stevebrot, sorry. I made a comparison between A7 and Canon D1X, you tell me that A99 is almost the same size with D1X, and so on. So, I will not respond to your messages anymore, and I will unsubscribe from this very much derailed thread, No disrespect, but there is no point to loose my time in this way.

He was merely responding to what you said you wanted: a FF camera with no mirror flap but just as big as a Canon 1DX (but sadly no hybrid VF).

[virusn3t]

The Pano gx85 announced yesterday looks pretty good, the GH5 is due later this year 6k video is the rumour.

One of these or the 3 you mentioned is a good combo with a K1 stills special,mind you the stills of the Panasonic's are quite good.I suppose its the type of stills you shoot that will determine what body to have.

I dont say the Panasonic stills can be bad, but i want the best high ISO, so the still camera for stills and the more video aproach camera for video, they are small, good looking cameras, im pretty shure i can make someone else carry and use them until i need the video... Maybe when i enter the world of video the gh7 will be on the market, so the Gh4 can be more affordable

[stevebrot]

Stevebrot, sorry. I made a comparison between A7 and Canon D1X, you tell me that A99 is almost the same size with D1X, and so on. So, I will not respond to your messages anymore, and I will unsubscribe from this very much derailed thread, No disrespect, but there is no point to loose my time in this way.

I was also thinking much the same and also no disrespect taken nor intended.


Steve