[biz-engineer]

Thinking about how small are mirror-less camera bodies are. But if lenses are as big/heavy as the one mounted on dslrs, what's the point? For photographers already equipped with a mirrorless system, is there any size/weight advantage of the optics designed for mirrorless versus lenses designed for DSLRs?

[rawr]

is there any size/weight advantage of the optics designed for mirrorless versus lenses designed for DSLRs

Not really. There are a few real tiny Sony NEX lenses (eg the 16mm f2.8 pancake and the 16-50 collapsible kit zoom that came with my A5000), but you can find very close equivalents in Pentax DA pancakes (DA 15/21/40/70) and the new Pentax collapsible DA kit zoom.

But go looking for a f1.4 prime or fast telephoto lens in mirrorless, and you are inevitably in big lens territory, same as just about every other camera format. In the case of Sony mirrorless, mirrorless Sony is still APS-C or FF image circle, after all.

[biz-engineer]

Not really. There are a few real tiny Sony NEX lenses (eg the 16mm f2.8 pancake and the 16-50 collapsible kit zoom that came with my A5000), but you can find very close equivalents in Pentax DA pancakes (DA 15/21/40/70) and the new Pentax collapsible DA kit zoom. But go looking for a f1.4 prime or fast telephoto lens in mirrorless, and you are inevitably in big lens territory, same as just about every other camera format. In the case of Sony mirrorless, mirrorless Sony is still APS-C or FF image circle, after all.

When I looked at Fuji XF lenses, it seems that the shorter FL lenses are a bit smaller / light weigth (given their max aperture), and the longer lenses are heavier then an equivalent lens for DSRL. From an optical design standpoint, I don't know if there is any advantage for wide angle angle lenses on mirrorless due to the shorter flange distance.

[clackers]

Like a rangefinder, a wide angle lens on a mirrorless camera doesn't actually need a retrofocus group, because of that shorter flange distance you're talking about.

[biz-engineer]

a wide angle lens on a mirrorless camera doesn't actually need a retrofocus group, because of that shorter flange distance

Yes, now I get it, that was the thing I forgot.

[UncleVanya]

Micro 4/3 lenses a smaller as are Nikon 1 lenses. The short flange focal distance helps as does the reduced image circle. But apsc sized morrorless don't really save a lot of room. Try camerasize.com and find where you can compare with lenses.

[luftfluss]

An unfortunate consequence of mirrorless coming to the fore with the m4/3 mount... many people consider "compactness" to be an intrinsic aspect of mirrorless, rather than it simply being an alternative to DSLR, on equal footing.

It's part of what killed the excellent K-01.

[mecrox]

An unfortunate consequence of mirrorless coming to the fore with the m4/3 mount... many people consider "compactness" to be an intrinsic aspect of mirrorless, rather than it simply being an alternative to DSLR, on equal footing.

It's part of what killed the excellent K-01.

A good point, but in fact M43 stuff is fairly compact and light while still delivering pretty good quality so I'd say that is a prime attraction. That and a lot of modern bells and whistles which folks may or may not like. For size at least, not so much Fuji and not so much Sony FF again because of the size of many of the lenses. In the end, it is mostly about lenses, I think. The old NEX line strikes me as fairly compact, depending on the lens used of course. Everyone has to strike a compromise somewhere in all this and even then many dedicated photographers will likely need more than one system to cover everything - M43 for travel and street, perhaps, with an FF for more important and considered work where size and weight aren't issues and/or a DSLR for fast sports-type action.

[UncleVanya]

Compact Camera Meter

K01, OMD-5, QS1, NEX-7...

[biz-engineer]

For wildlife, ok , fast AF and reach of long lenses, DSLR shines. For traveling , architecture, landscape, mirrorless is small and very capable in a smaller body, perhaps only when used with short FL prime lenses.

[luftfluss]

For wildlife, ok , fast AF and reach of long lenses, DSLR shines. For traveling , architecture, landscape, mirrorless is small and very capable in a smaller body, perhaps only when used with short FL prime lenses.

Fuji mirrorless lenses are big.

Nikon 1 system, with it's "1 inch class" sensor, has very fast AF. And the 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens is similar in size to the Pentax 55-300.

When Panasonic released the GX8, some people complained that m4/3 mirrorless was getting too big, because they associate the format with "small".

Personally, I think it's all good, and am glad there are choices to match different needs and desires.

[osv]

Mirrorless can be whatever you want it to be... this was shot at 400mm, f/8, using the tamron 150-600 on my a7r:

[biz-engineer]

Ah yeah , I see, it looks like it works damn well.

[rawr]

this was shot at 400mm, f/8, using the tamron 150-600 on my a7r:

Great shot.

Why does the rider have what looks like an antenna protruding from his back-pack? I'm guessing that the two cameras mounted on his helmet are linked to some RF video link?

[osv]

all vehicles must run flags at glamis, so that must be a flag pole, it's weird because i've never seen one attached to the rider before... i have another bike shot that shows a small antenna coming out of a backpack, don't know if it's rf video link or maybe a race radio?? some of these guys are throwing $125k+ at their rigs, a lot of big names come out here to blow off steam, rf video link gear would be a drop in the $$$ bucket.

flags really add color and tension to the photos.


shot this with a dusty Pentax-M 35/2.8 on the a7r:


these are pan shots at 1/1250, even when the focus is right, the car is moving up or down as well as forward... the air was full of fine sand, it was like flour, i think it was giving the af problems at long distances.


Glamis Dunes sand drags photos, Sony a7R Tamron 150-600mm lens