EVIL marches on

[El Cabong]

Sony's entry into the Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) camera foray is finally out, with the appropriately-named E Mount format:
http://www.slashgear.com/sony-nex-5-review-round-up-1185090/

Whither the Alpha Mount? Thoughts?

 

[carlgo]

Finally! Good for Sony to have the courage to jump in first. This will end up being the future and the eventual end of the big DSLR with its flapping mirror and huge lenses.

I wonder about the giant lenses shown in the photos. One of the advantages of having such a thin camera, much like a rangefinder in that way, is that the lenses can be made smaller. Check out those tiny Leica lenses, and they are for an FX-sized 35 mm sensor.

And that is what I am waiting for, an FX EVIL with its own purpose-built line of lenses, both fixed and zoom. If they want to come out with a truly affordable model with a medium format sensor, fine with that as well.

 

[El Cabong]

Yeah, the real appeal of EVIL cameras (at least to me) is the compactness, yet the majority of lenses available are zooms, which unfortunately still extend a fair distance from the body. I understand that consumers are accustomed to zooms in their cameras (as my non-photog friends are confused whenever they try to frame a photo with my camera when a prime is attached), but the difference in size between a pancake prime and a zoom is pretty substantial:

 

[jampat]

but the difference in size between a pancake prime and a zoom is pretty substantial:

The difference becomes much smaller as equivalent max focal lengths. It's not really fair to compare a 16mm prime and a 200 mm zoom. Longer focal lengths require longer lenses. The prime should always be smaller, but the gap quickly narrows as the focal length increases.

The EVIL concept is certainly interesting, but I can't see it replacing SLR's anytime soon. The picture never looks the same on screen and the battery life should be significantly reduced because the screen and sensor are on. They can work out some system where the screen sleeps until you press the shutter, but that's one more step before the camera is ready to shoot. Part of the appeal of the SLR is being able to instantly shoot.

 

[Gold89]

Good on Sony. This is one area of photography where there is some real innovation happening.

 

[unid]

Good to see Sony catching up with Panasonic and Olympus. Of course they don't really qualify as an EViL any more than the GF1 or Pen do, due to the lack of built in EVF. NEX looks pretty amazing, I'd still choose the GF1 though.

 

[HBOC]

What would take some getting used to is the weight distribution. I am sure the body weighs next to nothing, but the lens does. I am sure Canon and Nikon have something to show at PMA or PEMA this year.

I know that Canon (and Nikon, etc) offer a grip to add of the bodies to balance the weight of the lens/body combo. It will be interesting to see this in person. When does this go on sale?

 

[unid]

no date as yet, summer say sony.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The lenses look oversized compared to the Olympus/Panasonic M4/3's

Based on the DPR preview.. wonder how that tripod mount will hold up

 

[El Cabong]

The difference becomes much smaller as equivalent max focal lengths. It's not really fair to compare a 16mm prime and a 200 mm zoom. Longer focal lengths require longer lenses. The prime should always be smaller, but the gap quickly narrows as the focal length increases.

I know that focal length dictates size to a large extent (hence the name), but all I'm saying is that I'd prefer a set of pancake primes to a zoom for this size of camera (say, a 16mm+24mm+50mm combo vs. an 18-55mm zoom). If there were more lenses like this

for a given EVIL system (plus autofocus, of course), I'd be onboard in a heartbeat. Until then, I'll stick with prosumer compacts.

What would take some getting used to is the weight distribution. I am sure the body weighs next to nothing, but the lens does. I am sure Canon and Nikon have something to show at PMA or PEMA this year.

It'll be interesting to see if a third lens format will accompany Canon/Nikon entries into the mirrorless market. I think the EF-S/DX lines are weak as it is, and should be phased out. (How many dozens of 18-xxmm lenses does Nikon have now?) I imagine that there will be pressure to preserve the EF/F mount for whatever new lenses come out, instead of coming up with a new one without any backwards compatibility (a la the E mount, u4/3, and whatever the NX mount is called).

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I know that focal length dictates size to a large extent (hence the name), but all I'm saying is that I'd prefer a set of pancake primes to a zoom for this size of camera (say, a 16mm+24mm+50mm combo vs. an 18-55mm zoom). If there were more lenses like this

for a given EVIL system (plus autofocus, of course), I'd be onboard in a heartbeat. Until then, I'll stick with prosumer compacts.

It'll be interesting to see if a third lens format will accompany Canon/Nikon entries into the mirrorless market. I think the EF-S/DX lines are weak as it is, and should be phased out. (How many dozens of 18-xxmm lenses does Nikon have now?) I imagine that there will be pressure to preserve the EF/F mount for whatever new lenses come out, instead of coming up with a new one without any backwards compatibility (a la the E mount, u4/3, and whatever the NX mount is called).

Give the mirrorless compacts some time to mature. Think was pretty daring on Sony's part to offer a 16mm pancake lens from the start. Already Olympus has the 17mm 2.8 (35mm FOV). Panasonic the 20mm 1.7 (40mm FOV) and the 45mm 2.8 Macro (90mm FOV) and is rumored to have a 12mm 2.8 later this year. All of course for the M4/3's format.


In regards to EF-S and DX mount lenses, don't expect them to go away till the APC sensor cameras go away - which I think could be a long time. Those mounts may not be as strong as you might like them, but they do lead to smaller lens designs that hold up pretty well in image quality for some of them.

For any mirrorless compact camera to succeed a new lens mount is needed to make the lenses smaller. Hopefully Canon and Nikon will learn from the mistakes of Sony and allow AF with "legacy" lenses. Unlike what Olympus and for in some part Panasonic has done for what I think you call the E-mount and u4/3 (or micro 4/3's of M4/3's as it is sometimes called).

Optical physics currently do not for a camera body with a shorter flange to "film plane" to allow its lenses to be used on a camera with a longer one. What is possible however is to use older legacy lenses on these smaller bodies. Witnessed by the M4/3's cameras having adapters to use most any mount out there - Nikon (including G mount lenses), Canon FD, Canon EF (all thought only at open aperture at this point), Contax/Yashica, Contax G, Leica M and SM, Minolta MD, Pentax SM and K mount (with aperture rings IIRC), and Olympus OM mount to name a few - which covers a lot of ground. LOL

In your comment about just how many 18-xxx lenses have. There are officially only three - the 18-55, the 18-105, and the 18-200. Each has their own price points and uses. Discontinued are the 18-70 and 18-135.

 

[toxic]

I know that focal length dictates size to a large extent (hence the name), but all I'm saying is that I'd prefer a set of pancake primes to a zoom for this size of camera (say, a 16mm+24mm+50mm combo vs. an 18-55mm zoom).

ok, sure. but Sony is marketing their camera towards P&S users, who don't know that fixed lenses exist, much less want to use them over a zoom.

It'll be interesting to see if a third lens format will accompany Canon/Nikon entries into the mirrorless market. I think the EF-S/DX lines are weak as it is, and should be phased out.

the purpose of EF-S/DX/DC/Di II/whatever lenses is to give the appropriate FoV range for APS-C cameras. nothing you wish will change the fact that lenses designed for 35mm make for compromised lenses on a smaller format.

I imagine that there will be pressure to preserve the EF/F mount for whatever new lenses come out, instead of coming up with a new one without any backwards compatibility (a la the E mount, u4/3, and whatever the NX mount is called).

sure, they can come out with backwards compatibility, but in the end there will have to be a 3rd line of lenses for a smaller camera. would you want to carry a 17-55 on an LX3?

 

[El Cabong]

ok, sure. but Sony is marketing their camera towards P&S users, who don't know that fixed lenses exist, much less want to use them over a zoom.

I understand that consumers are accustomed to zooms in their cameras (as my non-photog friends are confused whenever they try to frame a photo with my camera when a prime is attached)

I should have added, "and thus I understand why Sony and others need to fill that consumer demand," but at the time, I thought it was implied.

the purpose of EF-S/DX/DC/Di II/whatever lenses is to give the appropriate FoV range for APS-C cameras. nothing you wish will change the fact that lenses designed for 35mm make for compromised lenses on a smaller format.

No, the purpose of lenses designed for subframe sensors is size optimization, in that the same angle(s) of view is provided with less glass. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens; the 35mm f/2 AF-D gives the same angle of view on a DX camera as the 35mm f/1.8 DX AF-S, but the 35mm DX won't fill an FX sensor.

sure, they can come out with backwards compatibility, but in the end there will have to be a 3rd line of lenses for a smaller camera. would you want to carry a 17-55 on an LX3?

I never said there wouldn't be a third line of lenses. The question was whether EF-S/DX/etc would continue to exist. As for backwards compatibility, until Nikon/Canon fill out their respective EVIL lens lines, it would be nice to be able to use older lenses. I wouldn't particularly want to have a 17-55 f/2.8 on there, but I'd be pretty happy with a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S or any other small prime (even that manual focus f/2 Voigtländer pictured above).

Optical physics currently do not for a camera body with a shorter flange to "film plane" to allow its lenses to be used on a camera with a longer one.
[...]
In your comment about just how many 18-xxx lenses have. There are officially only three - the 18-55, the 18-105, and the 18-200. Each has their own price points and uses. Discontinued are the 18-70 and 18-135.

Yeah, Canon was playing around with Diffractive Optics for a bit there, but I guess the image quality didn't hold up. Still, I want more pancake lenses (even though I know there may be optical compromises made). Dammit.

As far as the 18-x lenses (I count the 16-85mm in that bunch, by the way), it was just annoying to see them keep coming out with new ones. I think Nikon's gotten it out of its system, for now, at least until they start doing it again with their EVIL line.