Canon finally joins the Mirrorless crowd

[Lonnie]

^^^ I think you're correct.

[Todds]

Sure - USM motors are gonna add to the bulk, but I think the flange to focal plane distance may be the factor. Those old Leicas had the film all the way in the back of the camera body with only the pressure plate between the FP and the back plate.

I think that's why the M8 didn't have a full-frame sensor, even tho the film bodies with the same dimensions (some, like the Minolta CL were actually smaller) were 35mm. Don't know how they changed that for the M9, but I'm assuming the body is thicker or they repositioned the sensor farther back.

Thanks for the help.

I'm not sure I get what you are saying. My old nikon 35mm film camera had the film way in the back of the body and the leica lenses were smaller and also using 35mm film. Are you saying the leica body was even deeper than my old nikon film camera (or rather film to flange distance was larger)?

I keep seeing these tiny bodies with relatively large lenses and wondering if it will really save me any space or weight in my bag. Sure it is a lot smaller than a pro level body, but it isn't that much smaller than an entry level body.

[Tippster]

Here's Ken on the subject: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm

[The AD]

I keep seeing these tiny bodies with relatively large lenses

Are you basing this on photos of the mirrorless systems or actually seeing them in person? I was pretty astonished how small the lenses were when I got my Olympus PEN.

[jm2e]

/\ /\
That's kind of my reaction after seeing a few of these in person. The lenses are tiny. It's the thing that makes such a big difference between MFT and Sony really. The Sony bodies are slim, but it's negated by their bigger lenses.
I wonder if Todds is referring to the Sony? Not only are the native lenses big, but since the selection is so shitty you see loads of pics with converted L series lenses that look stupid as shit.

[Todds]

Here's Ken on the subject: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm

Thanks for the link.

"Rangefinder lenses are smaller and lighter
.... are often tiny because they don't need to be designed to clear a flipping mirror."

Awhile back I read a long article explaining why the rangefinder lenses were smaller and imagined that once we go mirrorless we would get smaller, lighter and simpler lenses.





Look how small the mount is and narrow the lens was. This lens works with full frame 35mm. A m43 lens could be even smaller since it needs a much smaller image circle.

Are you basing this on photos of the mirrorless systems or actually seeing them in person? I was pretty astonished how small the lenses were when I got my Olympus PEN.

I've only touched an olympus pen with a pancake fixed lens and that combo was very small. The pictures online with the other lenses just look large. Maybe it's because the body is small. I need to go to a store and play with the smaller version of the 14-42.

I was wondering why the lenses are as big a diameter as they are.

A canon 18-55 SLR APS-C lens is 2.7" x 2.8"
A canon 18-55 SLR EF-M lens is 2.4" x 2.4"
The canon EF-M lens is smaller than the EF lens, but not as much as I would have imagined.

A panasonic m43 14-42 lens is 2.39" x 2.50". It is smaller than the above lenses, but I wonder why it is as big as it is.

[jm2e]

I'm finding it very difficult to put my hands on the MFT gear. Big box stores have the Sony and Nikon displays and "Camera" stores are all Canon and Nikon SLRs or P&S

[Hugh Conway]

Thanks for the link.

"Rangefinder lenses are smaller and lighter
.... are often tiny because they don't need to be designed to clear a flipping mirror."

Awhile back I read a long article explaining why the rangefinder lenses were smaller and imagined that once we go mirrorless we would get smaller, lighter and simpler lenses.





Look how small the mount is and narrow the lens was. This lens works with full frame 35mm. A m43 lens could be even smaller since it needs a much smaller image circle.



I've only touched an olympus pen with a pancake fixed lens and that combo was very small. The pictures online with the other lenses just look large. Maybe it's because the body is small. I need to go to a store and play with the smaller version of the 14-42.

I was wondering why the lenses are as big a diameter as they are.

A canon 18-55 SLR APS-C lens is 2.7" x 2.8"
A canon 18-55 SLR EF-M lens is 2.4" x 2.4"
The canon EF-M lens is smaller than the EF lens, but not as much as I would have imagined.

A panasonic m43 14-42 lens is 2.39" x 2.50". It is smaller than the above lenses, but I wonder why it is as big as it is.

zoom lenses won't be as small as primes, and it appears a bunch of the lenses are plastic fantastics designed for low cost production not minimal space. the cosina made m43 lenses are smaller, I think.