Ming Thein on mirrorless

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting post on Ming's blog - hard to disagree with his conclusions.

 

For me, Leica has answered much of his criticism of the latest mirrorless offerings.  Sadly, though, the name Leica is unlikely to emerge from his keyboard, which is a shame.  The local dealer, or Leica Vice-President for the region, seems to have upset him - as I recall, it was the rather insulting way it responded to his review of the Various-Elmarit-SL 24-90 zoom.  I understand he was right, and Leica fixed the problem quickly, but refused to acknowledge it.  Instead, they were less than respectful, which is a shame.

 

Anyway, worth reading in my view:

 

https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/09/15/brand-disloyalty-mirrorless-and-why-its-good-for-everybody/ 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Actually, he was right in identifying a problem, he was wrong in determining the cause of the problem. He called it focus shift, which it clearly was not, and missed the fact that the focus point was positioned low in the focus box, causing misfocus on oblique subjects.

I agree that he is missing out on Leica's strategy: they positioned their mirrorless offerings, specifically the CL and the SL, in the core of their palette of cameras, making them a flexible do-it-all. Much more important than keeping up with the Joneses, which M.T. visualizes.

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, I agree.

[Ko.Fe.]

His passage about no benefits of small and light cameras with large lenses on it was to me. I just came home from wading surroundings with light EOS 300 and chunky 16-35L on it.

I feel the difference today. One thing is to write by keyboard on the desktop, another is sweating with it over the neck while working in the field. 

Add second camera and it feels even more.

Ergonomics claim is blah, I could set most of parameters via VF of small digital Rebel. It is matter of learning buttons and only few are needed.  Small camera, chunky lens fine in ergonomics. Just hold the lens, not camera. 

[Jeff S]

I’ll be interested to see how the eventual X2D, and other potential Hassy offerings, fit into the mirrorless playing field, with Ming’s input.

 

The X1D already wins on form factor IMO, with a simple interface and good lens/body balance. Seems the next SL will have more shape appeal, per Kaufmann. Sometimes it’s good to listen and be flexible. We’ll see if Fuji gets the message, which seems likely with the RF version GFX-R, sans the lump (cooling box).

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Sadly, no Leica love from Roger in his mirrorless battle commentary (even though he rents it, and has written some positive things regarding build quality, etc)...

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/09/rogers-rants-my-canonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/

 

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting read, and though it is disappointing he does not comment on Leica's approach, I agree with much of what he writes.

 

He implies that the main driver for customers to switch to mirrorless is the perceived smaller size and weight, but that the advantage may be illusory, especially if you use adapted lenses. Those of us who use the SL have made that choice, though, obviously not for size & weight reasons, and adapted M lenses work well with the SL. So I think Ming misses another reason for going mirrorless: the WYSIWYG shooting experience. The ability to shoot with exposure preview, histogram, and your thumb on the EC wheel, makes life very easy for the less experienced photographer (and the highly experienced but still less than expert photographer, like me). 

 

For the M shooter, when you add the advantages of accurate framing and AF, yielding more keepers and fewer misframed, cropped and poorly exposed shots, it is difficult to ignore these benefits, which are nothing to do with size and weight. I don't intend this as a criticism of the M, which has its own peculiar advantages (e.g. direct OVF, the forced concentration on composition imposed by large OVF and prime lenses, and, yes, size/weight), just a recognition that no one system offers the perfect way of photography for everyone.

[helged]

An interesting read, and though it is disappointing he does not comment on Leica's approach, I agree with much of what he writes.

 

He implies that the main driver for customers to switch to mirrorless is the perceived smaller size and weight, but that the advantage may be illusory, especially if you use adapted lenses. Those of us who use the SL have made that choice, though, obviously not for size & weight reasons, and adapted M lenses work well with the SL. So I think Ming misses another reason for going mirrorless: the WYSIWYG shooting experience. The ability to shoot with exposure preview, histogram, and your thumb on the EC wheel, makes life very easy for the less experienced photographer (and the highly experienced but still less than expert photographer, like me). 

 

For the M shooter, when you add the advantages of accurate framing and AF, yielding more keepers and fewer misframed, cropped and poorly exposed shots, it is difficult to ignore these benefits, which are nothing to do with size and weight. I don't intend this as a criticism of the M, which has its own peculiar advantages (e.g. direct OVF, the forced concentration on composition imposed by large OVF and prime lenses, and, yes, size/weight), just a recognition that no one system offers the perfect way of photography for everyone.

 

 

Fully agree. WYSIWYG - viewed through an large & excellent EVF and with a myriad of different lenses mounted, old and new, specialist and top performers - it's what makes the SL special for me.

 

And any (?) other system, you need to ensure that the lens+body combo is properly calibrated. The M-system is, in many situations, nothing but spectacular. When it is properly calibrated. No calibration problems/worries with the SL...

Edited September 17, 2018 by helged

[pgk]

For the M shooter, when you add the advantages of accurate framing and AF, yielding more keepers and fewer misframed, cropped and poorly exposed shots, it is difficult to ignore these benefits, which are nothing to do with size and weight.

 

Well, speaking as a dRF, dSLR and Mirrorless shooter (yes I do use all) I would disagree with all the the above perceived 'advantages'. I get as many/more viable 'keepers' from my Ms as I do from the other equipment. The 'problem' with mirrorless is, as I have stated before, that until someone comes up with lens solutions which yield small, light, fast lenses for them, then they will be size illusory. To date only Leica have tackled this problem by their use of offset micro-lenses. The main manufacturers who are now into the mirrorless concept have, for the most part, adopted the idea of 'legacy' viability and it is this alongside 'conventional' thinking on lens/(flat, no offset) sensor interaction which will dictate the size of lenses for the foreseeable future. A pity, because the option for utilising smaller, faster (and even, potentially a lot lighter) lenses, has proved viable in the M, and this might have been a way forward especially if lens/software integration had been utilised too.

[mmradman]

Well, speaking as a dRF, dSLR and Mirrorless shooter (yes I do use all) I would disagree with all the the above perceived 'advantages'. I get as many/more viable 'keepers' from my Ms as I do from the other equipment. The 'problem' with mirrorless is, as I have stated before, that until someone comes up with lens solutions which yield small, light, fast lenses for them, then they will be size illusory. To date only Leica have tackled this problem by their use of offset micro-lenses. The main manufacturers who are now into the mirrorless concept have, for the most part, adopted the idea of 'legacy' viability and it is this alongside 'conventional' thinking on lens/(flat, no offset) sensor interaction which will dictate the size of lenses for the foreseeable future. A pity, because the option for utilising smaller, faster (and even, potentially a lot lighter) lenses, has proved viable in the M, and this might have been a way forward especially if lens/software integration had been utilised too.

What makes M lenses small is simple mechanical construction, no bloated barrels for focusing motors.

 

Other hallmark of M lenses is combining top performance with minimalist optical design.  Look no further than Leica L lenses and compare L primes with equivalent M lenses - two different worlds.  

[david strachan]

SLR cameras were close to WYSIWYG, also. But i never understood why they didn't cover 100% usually 93 or 97%, say of the view ultimately captured on the film/sensor.

 

Can someone explain, thanks.

 

Also there must have been so many links to get out of spec, so many images must have been off-focus...but i don't remember photographers complaining about their focus too much.

 

I'm sure it has something to do with pixel-peeping, as we can.

 

 

...

 

...

[jaapv]

SLR viewfinders were usually cropped to about 95-97 %  compensate for the frame of slides and the crop from the average film holder when enlarging.

 

As for the less precise focus on film, yes,  pixel-peeping has to do with it, but also the technology of film. It is never completely flat in the film gate  and the emulsion has a certain thickness, so the plane of focus is not as precisely determined as on a sensor.

[pgk]

What makes M lenses small is simple mechanical construction, no bloated barrels for focusing motors.

 

Other hallmark of M lenses is combining top performance with minimalist optical design.  Look no further than Leica L lenses and compare L primes with equivalent M lenses - two different worlds.  

 

Early AF Nikkors had no built in motors - and the latest Canon EFS lenses with fast AF built in are very tiny (not fast apertures though) so its not the mechanics its the optics and it comes down to the angle of incidence in the corners which currently demand the rear principle point to be as far off the sensor plane as possible. Contrast this with Leica's approach to the M (forced on them by legacy) which is the micro-lens solution which is effective but would require a different lens/sensor design philosophy than the one being used by other systems excepting the M.

 

I have no doubt that a small, light AF body the size of an M could be built and small light, fast lenses too. But a micro-lens array sensor would be central to the whole design philosophy ..... And it would require a larger lens throat to accept electronic contact couplings. 

[david strachan]

Thanks Jaap...never knew that about SLR view cropping for slides...it makes sense.

 

All best...

[harryzet]

thats the problem with the internet. everyone has an opinion about everything. 30 years ago, they all sat in their small flat full of empty pizzaboxes, nowadays the blog their wortless opinions

[mmradman]

Early AF Nikkors had no built in motors - and the latest Canon EFS lenses with fast AF built in are very tiny (not fast apertures though) so its not the mechanics its the optics and it comes down to the angle of incidence in the corners which currently demand the rear principle point to be as far off the sensor plane as possible. Contrast this with Leica's approach to the M (forced on them by legacy) which is the micro-lens solution which is effective but would require a different lens/sensor design philosophy than the one being used by other systems excepting the M.

 

I have no doubt that a small, light AF body the size of an M could be built and small light, fast lenses too. But a micro-lens array sensor would be central to the whole design philosophy ..... And it would require a larger lens throat to accept electronic contact couplings. 

Exactly my point, for instance Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AFD which needs in-camera motor to focus is a very small lens.  Later AFS lenses grew in size.

 

Leica M lenses that were developed in digital age like wide Summilux-es and earlier Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 apparently some work well on 3rd party full frame cameras like Sony Alpha without special filter stack modifications, e.g. Kolari,  indicating that light rays exit at near perpendicular angle.  These lens still follow Leica M philosophy of being as small as practically possible. 

 

You are right about micro-lens array being Leica's solution.  Primarily it is enabling legacy M lenses being compatible with digital full frame M camera. 

[pgk]

Thanks Jaap...never knew that about SLR view cropping for slides...it makes sense.

 

If you look at the history of SLRs you may well also find that the 'pro' SLRs had larger mirrors and covered slightly more of the image area than did smaller SLRs which because of size constraints often had slightly smaller mirrors and so covered slightly less of the image area in their viewfinders. I always remember that the 'pro' SLRs used this in their marketing! Not sure of the coverage of dSLRs but they are still constrained to size requirements so I'd guess few are 100%.

[pgk]

Exactly my point, for instance Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AFD which needs in-camera motor to focus is a very small lens.  Later AFS lenses grew in size.

Take a look at some of Canon's 'pancake' lenses - they are small.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wattsy]

Thanks Jaap...never knew that about SLR view cropping for slides...it makes sense.

 

 

It might make sense but it isn't the reason. The less than 100% view that most SLRs provide is for cost and size reasons. This is also why many lower cost DSLRs have less than 100% viewfinder coverage. Nothing to do with slide mounts.

Edited September 17, 2018 by wattsy

[jaapv]

The official reason given at the time by camera makers - including Leica regarding frame lines.

Whether it was a smokescreen for cost-cutting I don't know, I wouldn't put it past them. However, how much price  and size difference do those 3% make? I would venture - close to nil.