Another boost to A7/R

[bakubo]

Here's another comparison, both similarly-sized with small zoom lenses, but the Oly is cheaper:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#382.409,478.360,ha,t

If you go back and reread my post you will see I used the word "system."

If you need more reach, then the difference in lens sizes becomes more noticeable with longer focal lengths. With the shorter lenses, not so much. I don't have to cherry-pick a prime, I can just use the kit lens my Nex-6 came with.

Here is the list of m4/3 lenses:

http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

IMO, you cherry picked. Go through the list and find the closest equivalents for E-mount (it is okay to use A-mount lenses and the Sony LAEA4 or LA-EA2 adapter). It would be cool to see how without cherry picking you can find similar lenses that are as small.

When walking about, I often don't bother with the bag. I can put the camera in a pouch on my belt, and my 55-210 or other extra lens in another pouch.

Walking about is quite different from backpack, close to the ground travel.

[Greg Beetham]

The E-mount aps-c 18-55 on the NEX is roughly equivalent to the mft 14-42.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#478.88,382.409,ha,t
Greg

[Birma]

I love my Nex cameras and their size makes them much easier to have on your person when photography is not the only/primary reason for being out and about. However, if I was starting from scratch looking for an interchangeable lens camera, and size was the most important factor, then I think the mft system has it quite clearly. The lens size is the clincher. Physics means they will always be smaller than aps-c lenses.

All of the mirror-less systems offer a size advantage over traditional dslrs so you pay your money and take your choice

[Vidgamer]

Here is the list of m4/3 lenses:

http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

IMO, you cherry picked.

I "cherry-picked" the kit lens vs. kit lens, both designed for compactness over IQ. If you want a compact Nex system, you're not going to go out and buy, say, the 18-200.

I already said that M43 has a lens choice advantage and a size advantage as you move out to longer focal lengths. But, you could do a lot worse than the Sony 16-50. If you must have pancake lenses, it's either this, or the 16mm or 20mm primes. The Sigma 30mm is pretty compact, though. These are the lenses I'd look to on e-mount if I wanted to keep things really small. I'm sure there are M43 equivalents and the overall camera plus lens would not be significantly different. What strikes me is not that the lenses are smaller -- they SHOULD be, but that the bodies aren't smaller than they are. At these shorter focal lengths, the Nex system can be compact.

If you want to argue that when adding tele zooms the M43 system becomes more compact, sure, although, even there I might argue that it matters much less once you can't fit it into your jacket pocket. A Nex kit can still be a lot smaller than a DSLR kit.

The Nex-5 with a pancake is just a fantastic size. With the 18-55, it's a bit bulky, but it's still worth it to have the saving vs. a DSLR.

[Vidgamer]

The E-mount aps-c 18-55 on the NEX is roughly equivalent to the mft 14-42.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#478.88,382.409,ha,t
Greg

I thought the 5t came with the 16-50? Why, if you're trying to have a compact system, would you not get the discounted compact kit lens and instead get the older, larger kit lens? This seems like cherry-picking!

[Vidgamer]

I love my Nex cameras and their size makes them much easier to have on your person when photography is not the only/primary reason for being out and about. However, if I was starting from scratch looking for an interchangeable lens camera, and size was the most important factor, then I think the mft system has it quite clearly. The lens size is the clincher. Physics means they will always be smaller than aps-c lenses.

Yes, although e-mount does allow shorter focal lengths to still be pretty short, but at longer lengths, not much can be done and Nex lenses are going to be longer, although I think it matters less at that point, as a practical matter.

Obviously, people's individual priorities will differ.

All of the mirror-less systems offer a size advantage over traditional dslrs so you pay your money and take your choice

Yeah, I think it's all good -- all of these systems are a huge step from DSLR in both size and weight savings. Now we're just nitpicking.

[bakubo]

IMO, there is no reason to feel inferior or sensitive about gear size. Some people like smaller gear for their specific uses and some people prefer bigger gear. I like both, but for different uses and circumstances. I am willing to have slightly worse ergonomics with the E-M5 in order to gain the other long desired qualities. Be happy about large gear. Years ago some people disliked those little FF 35mm cameras and lenses and went with things like the 120 Pentax 67. So, just go with what you like and try not to feel angst about size. There is no right size; just what you prefer.

Darn, that makes a whole lot of sense. I sure agree with you.

A smaller sensor allows a smaller system size. m4/3 is going to be smaller then APS-C, in general. A Pentax Q would allow a smaller system than m4/3, in general. Smaller doesn't mean "better" since "better" is totally subjective.

[Greg Beetham]

I thought the 5t came with the 16-50? Why, if you're trying to have a compact system, would you not get the discounted compact kit lens and instead get the older, larger kit lens? This seems like cherry-picking!

Because I converted 14-42 over to APS-C and the figures matched 18-55 closely not 16-50 and the 18-55 is the one I found first in the list, here is the 16-50 and it’s much better size wise but it’s not equivalent to the 14-42, it’s wider at the short end and shorter at the long end. How can the almost direct equivalent be cherry picking?
http://camerasize.com/compact/#478.360,382.409,ha,t
Greg

[Vidgamer]

I thought the 5t came with the 16-50? Why, if you're trying to have a compact system, would you not get the discounted compact kit lens and instead get the older, larger kit lens? This seems like cherry-picking!

Because I converted 14-42 over to APS-C and the figures matched 18-55 closely not 16-50 and the 18-55 is the one I found first in the list, here is the 16-50 and it’s much better size wise but it’s not equivalent to the 14-42, it’s wider at the short end and shorter at the long end. How can the almost direct equivalent be cherry picking?
http://camerasize.com/compact/#478.360,382.409,ha,t
Greg

That's pretty arbitrary -- who says that the Nex must conform to the M43 lens? Why not the other way around? Same difference.

Instead, I took what seemed to me to be their smallest standard zoom lenses for comparison, both which seem to be included as part of a kit. That Oly pancake zoom is new, and the thinness of the thing is incredible. The older Oly lenses are larger. Even the older collapsible 14-42 makes the camera as large as the Nex with the uncollapsible 18-55, according to this link:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#382.92,478.88,ha,t

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but it still doesn't seem like much of a size difference until you start bringing in the longer lenses. That's all I'm saying. There are compromises with each, to be sure, each better at something than the other, etc. Like with all camera/system purchases, you decide which features are more important to you and which negatives you don't care so much about.

[bfitzgerald]

Looks like ILC/CSC sales are again dropping hugely in the UK...AP reports

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... with-video

At this stage it's looking like the DSLR beast is going to be around a long long time at least in Europe buyers are basically not very interested.
Making something, and making something people want are not the same thing.

[classiccameras]

One photo magazine has been less than praising of Olympus for making the new E-M10 too darn small and its now style over substance.
Although the DSLR market is shrinking world wide they still have good markets in the US and UK, comparitively that is.
As bad a press as some give Nikon, they are still immensely popular as are Canon and they both out sell other makes.
I'm still tempted by Canon only because of the vast used market in lenses and bodies. One thing in my favour with Canon, Canon UK are about a 10 minute drive from where I live if any thing did go wrong.

[Vidgamer]

Looks like ILC/CSC sales are again dropping hugely in the UK...AP reports

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... with-video

At this stage it's looking like the DSLR beast is going to be around a long long time at least in Europe buyers are basically not very interested.
Making something, and making something people want are not the same thing.

Well, I don't want a DSLR if I can buy a small camera with a large sensor. The fact that DSLRs are popular is about as relevant as the fact that the Ford pickup is the most popular "car" in America for decades. No doubt that a pickup is more useful in many situations than a smaller car. And yet, I prefer a smaller car.

The DSLR doesn't have to "die" in order for mirrorless cameras to be useful and appreciated. But I would predict that DSLRs become strangely mirrorless in the future -- it's just a matter of time at this point. Whether or not you would consider DSLRs dead would be perhaps semantics.

[Vidgamer]

...
I'm still tempted by Canon only because of the vast used market in lenses and bodies. One thing in my favour with Canon, Canon UK are about a 10 minute drive from where I live if any thing did go wrong.

E-mount is going to be a bit short on lens types for a very long time compared to the long-established mounts. And DSLRs do work great. For me, it's just a matter of size and weight. If you don't mind a DSLR, get a DSLR and be done with it. I often minded. I kind of thought I'd use the two camera types together or alternating depending on the situation but the Nex is good enough for most use, and the sensor improvements make it worth favoring over my DSLR. But the availability of used lenses is really huge; I did enjoy that.

[classiccameras]

I still like my A37 for its size and weight and the lenses are reasonably light and smaller than Canikon, plus I think they have the edge on IQ.

I tried out the Canon 100D and its much to small and a poor shape for gripping with a big lens, there's nothing to get hold of.

I'm reluctant to go down the M/4/3 route for reasons I can't explain, I just prefer APS-C, but I also don't like holding NEX bodies as good as they are.
The only camera so far that ticks a lot of boxes for me, is the Samsung NX20, its great to hold, it looks and performs like a DSLR, its small and light and enough lenses for what I need plus it gets very high marks for performance and IQ. But, there's always a but, its the name and its the new kid on the block, its lens base is small and its not a Canikon.

[bfitzgerald]

Looks like ILC/CSC sales are again dropping hugely in the UK...AP reports

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... with-video

At this stage it's looking like the DSLR beast is going to be around a long long time at least in Europe buyers are basically not very interested.
Making something, and making something people want are not the same thing.

Well, I don't want a DSLR if I can buy a small camera with a large sensor. The fact that DSLRs are popular is about as relevant as the fact that the Ford pickup is the most popular "car" in America for decades. No doubt that a pickup is more useful in many situations than a smaller car. And yet, I prefer a smaller car.

The DSLR doesn't have to "die" in order for mirrorless cameras to be useful and appreciated. But I would predict that DSLRs become strangely mirrorless in the future -- it's just a matter of time at this point. Whether or not you would consider DSLRs dead would be perhaps semantics.

It's not about what you or I want, but what the general public want.
I don't have a problem with mirrorless, but I see it for what it is, an alternative and in some cases it might make an ok addition to DSLR users.

What I don't see is a compelling reason for users like myself to ditch their DSLR type bodies and go for an ILC model. I just don't see the advantages.
If you need small that's great travel shooter completely understand it.

But from a practical perspective what does mirrorless offer me that I can't do with DSLR?
Bar a far smaller range of lenses. There are adaptors out there for older glass fine bargain hunters might find some use for it.

How small is small enough? If I put a flash on a mirrorless body it's unbalanced big time.
I've expressed a passing interest in Fuji in the past and I do have an interest..but
Looking at the lenses coming out that 16-55mm f2.8 (broadly equivalent to either the Sony or Tamron fast zooms)
77mm filter?

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Fuj ... 521-2.jpg/

Def looks quite a lot bigger than the Tamron I have. And I'd expect the price to be quite a bit higher.
Even looking at their 18-135mm lens, again bigger filter and it looks larger to me than the Sony I have, and again I suspect it's going to cost more than the other makers equivalent lenses (they all do lenses in this range now)

So where is the size advantage? Only body really.
Biggest problem is wallet. Cost of moving to something like X mount would cost me a fortune trying to replicate my current line up of lenses (they do have some interesting lenses and the 35mm f1.4 isn't a bad price)

Onto Sony they've never really developed the E mount APS-C lens range that well anyway.
I saw a NEX 6 on ebay brand new for £399, I can get it if folks pick one of those up not a bad price and a nice enough camera on a deal.

As for buying into the system I'm not seeing it, no real advantage bar MF glass adaptor users.
Same for all the ILC systems I'm just not seeing why a DSLR users (who might not necessarily be using a huge sized body anyway) would dump their current rig and lenses. Until ILC makers find a real reason to tempt people I for one remain quite unconvinced with the entire strategy.