Jump to content

Ming Thein on mirrorless


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

It's not a "smokescreen". I rather doubt that Canon and Nikon claim that the less than 100% viewfinder coverage coverage of their low-to-mid-range DSLRs is to match the view of a cropped slide. I don't recall any manufacturer 'back in the day' making that kind of claim for their film SLRs either.

 

100% viewfinder coverage has always been the preserve of the more expensive, and better engineered, pro and semi-pro SLR models and that remains the case for DSLRs. Your point about Leica RF framelines is not relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I should have said in my first post that it is my experience that I get more keepers with my CL and SL than I do with my M240. I don't doubt that others may find a different outcome, but I don't think my experience is particularly unusual either - others here have made similar comments.

 

I agree with your comments on size.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Not familiar with Canon, you say small, what F stop; f2, f2.8?

 

Couple of pictures comparing compact M and compact SLR lens; Summilux 50mm ASPH and Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AFD.  Some distortion is due to phone camera wide angle lens.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have said in my first post that it is my experience that I get more keepers with my CL and SL than I do with my M240. I don't doubt that others may find a different outcome, but I don't think my experience is particularly unusual either - others here have made similar comments.

 

I agree with your comments on size.

Keeper rate can be anything, sometime it is the camera and sometime it is the photographic occasion.  In terms of focusing precision SL is difficult to beat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not familiar with Canon, you say small, what F stop; f2, f2.8?

 

Search for Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM - the lens is barely thicker than the back cap and yet it has an AF motor inside. Whilst its an f/2.8 lens it illustrates that small lenses can be AF. There are many other examples too. AF technology has progressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% viewfinder coverage has always been the preserve of the more expensive, and better engineered, pro and semi-pro SLR models and that remains the case for DSLRs.

100% coverage requires huge mechanical precision, so that's why it isn't offered in cheaper cameras. The viewfinder optical path needs to align precisely with the direct path (film or digital sensor) to within a fraction of a millimeter, at all temperatures, even after years of hard use.

Back in the film days, you pictures would be cropped slightly by slide frames, and more so when printed. That means that 100% coverage was a disadvantage for almost all users: you could try to frame accurately, but the end results would be cropped.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ming is repeating one of the fallacies of mirrorless: that it necessarily leads to smaller cameras and lenses. That's a marketing line going back to the original micro 4/3 cameras, but it was rarely realized in actual product. Only a few "pancake" lenses and slow kit zooms were noticeably smaller (but not that much smaller than SLR pancake lenses).

 

I find that the real advantages or mirrorless are (in order of importance)

the ability to compose in black and white - this is an advantage even if your final images are in colour.

the ability to view exposure in real time - great in high-ratio lighting (like shooting against a window)

the ability to "see in the dark"

the ability to focus at 1:1 for critical shots

 

The main downsides are the viewing delay and the poor viewfinder performance in bright/contrasty lighting.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ming is repeating one of the fallacies of mirrorless: that it necessarily leads to smaller cameras and lenses. That's a marketing line going back to the original micro 4/3 cameras, but it was rarely realized in actual product. Only a few "pancake" lenses and slow kit zooms were noticeably smaller (but not that much smaller than SLR pancake lenses).

 

I find that the real advantages or mirrorless are (in order of importance)

the ability to compose in black and white - this is an advantage even if your final images are in colour.

the ability to view exposure in real time - great in high-ratio lighting (like shooting against a window)

the ability to "see in the dark"

the ability to focus at 1:1 for critical shots

 

The main downsides are the viewing delay and the poor viewfinder performance in bright/contrasty lighting.

I also glanced over the Ming's article but i thought he said not to expect reduction in lens sizes with compact mirrorless cameras.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also glanced over the Ming's article but i thought he said not to expect reduction in lens sizes with compact mirrorless cameras.

 

Yes, but he mentions size several times on his way to that point, as if it were a critical factor.

It's a non-issue. My hands are a certain size, and the camera has to fit that. A camera that is too small or too big won't be comfortable.

 

The useful info from his blog post, which will not surprise to Leica users, is that you shouldn't expect top performance from adapted legacy lenses, and that UI is important.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ming will explain in his next post that he no longer works for Hasselblad. Here’s what he wrote in the comments section of his Z7 review....

 

“Tor says:

October 1, 2018 at 12:46 AM

For the same reasons you needed to inform your readers about joining Hasselblad, I think you should be clear on your current position: Are you working for Hasselblad or not?

Reply

Ming Thein says:

October 1, 2018 at 7:09 AM

No, and I’ll explain why in the next post.”

 

 

That should be an interesting read.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ming will explain in his next post that he no longer works for Hasselblad. Here’s what he wrote in the comments section of his Z7 review....

 

“Tor says:

October 1, 2018 at 12:46 AM

For the same reasons you needed to inform your readers about joining Hasselblad, I think you should be clear on your current position: Are you working for Hasselblad or not?

Reply

Ming Thein says:

October 1, 2018 at 7:09 AM

No, and I’ll explain why in the next post.”

 

 

That should be an interesting read.

 

Jeff

It is either money or question of freedom of expression, i would assume the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ming will explain in his next post that he no longer works for Hasselblad. Here’s what he wrote in the comments section of his Z7 review....

 

“Tor says:

October 1, 2018 at 12:46 AM

For the same reasons you needed to inform your readers about joining Hasselblad, I think you should be clear on your current position: Are you working for Hasselblad or not?

Reply

Ming Thein says:

October 1, 2018 at 7:09 AM

No, and I’ll explain why in the next post.”

 

 

That should be an interesting read.

 

Jeff

 

 

 

 

Ming's explanation - https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/10/03/moving-on/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...