Mirrorless system - shallow DOF possible?

Charlie wrote in post #18208246
canon has no small bodies. Mounted on the older A7 which is 500g + 300g for the zoom, you've got a modern Full frame combo, which weighs only ~30g more than a 6D camera body.

that's camera AND zoom lens, the same weight of the SMALLEST FF DSLR canon makes, body only. There isnt any doubt it's smaller and lighter, but what you're wrestling with is whether the amount in size savings is worth it. All of sony's bodies are smaller than the DSLR FF bodies, and most of the lenses are smaller than DSLR version or smaller when mounted and flange distance taken into equation.

Going back to the Petapixel first FOUR photos in Claim 1, http://petapixel.com …mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
does it matter if the body is thinner, if the zoom lenses for the Sony are longer or larger diameter, or heavier in the bag.
And if you think the Petapixel article was biased in its selection of lenses to compare, then I submit my random selections chosen for FL range and max aperture

I chose same FL range zooms, and found little to no benefit in having the mirrorless camera. https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18176490
And comparing APS-C format mirrorless vs. dSLR lenses https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18176592

The more lenses you carry in your bag, the worse the size disadvantage becomes.
Look, we're not debating religion, with qualitative claims that can be endlessly debated because of centuries of biases in the preachings.
We're simply comparing observable physical characteristics of a kit full of lenses, and body+lens hanging from shoulder, where the same FL ranges and max apertures have been chosen, rather than simply cherry picking single FL lens for its low size and weight.
Mirrorless ≠ smaller & lighter (lenses). Mirrorless = smaller & lighter bodies.
The ONLY way so far for mirrorless = smaller & lighter kits is when

• the format size is reduced, so shorter FL lenses can be used, too.
  

Charlie wrote in post #18208246
canon has no small bodies. Mounted on the older A7 which is 500g + 300g for the zoom, you've got a modern Full frame combo, which weighs only ~30g more than a 6D camera body.

that's camera AND zoom lens, the same weight of the SMALLEST FF DSLR canon makes, body only. There isnt any doubt it's smaller and lighter, but what you're wrestling with is whether the amount in size savings is worth it. All of sony's bodies are smaller than the DSLR FF bodies, and most of the lenses are smaller than DSLR version or smaller when mounted and flange distance taken into equation.

I get what you are saying, but I think in the broad scheme of things Wilt is closer to correct for most users.

If you are really interested in a smaller, lighter, setup coming from Canon EOS 35mm, then you will probably wind up at Fuji (if small enough) or m4:3 or even a fixed lens camera.

The Sony 35mm bodies are only a little bit smaller than the EOS bodies, and most of the lenses are just as big. Sure, you might be able to pick around and find some kind of smaller setup or one or two small primes that work with it. But if you are sticking with 35mm format it is probably because you are picky about certain aspects of what you get with the larger format, and this means you are likely to chafe at lens limitations trying to keep small.

What I'm saying is that a small kit and a 35mm format are working against each other, and if you are going to compromise on lens selection to get to a small rig, you should probably think about compromising on format size instead.

I'm not anti-small...I loved my Olympus OM kit!

JeffreyG wrote in post #18208252
I get what you are saying, but I think in the broad scheme of things Wilt is closer to correct for most users.

If you are really interested in a smaller, lighter, setup coming from Canon EOS 35mm, then you will probably wind up at Fuji (if small enough) or m4:3 or even a fixed lens camera.

The Sony 35mm bodies are only a little bit smaller than the EOS bodies, and most of the lenses are just as big. Sure, you might be able to pick around and find some kind of smaller setup or one or two small primes that work with it. But if you are sticking with 35mm format it is probably because you are picky about certain aspects of what you get with the larger format, and this means you are likely to chafe at lens limitations trying to keep small.

What I'm saying is that a small kit and a 35mm format are working against each other, and if you are going to compromise on lens selection to get to a small rig, you should probably think about compromising on format size instead.

uh yeah, 800g total for camera AND stabilized zoom lens can be considered small....

probably most on this enthusiast board wont be satisfied with a variable aperture body

you're really going out of your way by introducing absolutes that dont really exist

he's a typical point and shoot combo that ranges from 650g - 800g, it's not some incredible size and weight differences although 150g is worth consideration. Sony has a sensor 2x the size of the fuji and 4x the size of the OM....

all of these camera bodies are significantly smaller than DSLR bodies.

Wilt wrote in post #18208261
I'm not anti-small...I loved my Olympus OM kit!

I griped about the size of my 20D exceeding the size and weight of what were sledge hammers in their day among SLRs (Topcon Super D, Nikon F Photomic)

and the lenses...

AF has brought us lens monsters. But I will not be fooled that mirrorless brings us less bulk and weight of kit.

I have the OM 200/5 so I'm familiar with small. The lens is tough as hell to use on DSLR, borderline unusable, however, I've traveled and have many nice captures from that lens.

in practice, it IS a small usable lens on the sony system, good luck trying to use on DSLR.......

The above photo (post 49) proves the point, that if you truly want to decrease size (and weight), you have to go with a smaller sensor and correspondingly shorter FL lenses to match.
We have already seen in the Petapixel article that FF mirrorless vs. FF dSLR is 'about the same' size. The posted photo is proof that smaller format (APS-C) can net some size decrease (and presumably weight) yet we can also see that further format size decrease (down to 4/3) is not necessarily even smaller still (than APS-C) in overall size\although the FL is shorter still.

But getting back to the topic title (shallow DOF), it takes a lens with proportionally larger max f/stop to get the same DOF...bigger diameter optics offsetting improvement in weight that came with the shorter FL.

• 4/3 format 25mm f/1.2 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  
• APS-C format 31mm f/1.4 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  
• FF 50mm f/2.5 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  

Wilt wrote in post #18208317
The above photo (post 49) proves the point, that if you truly want to decrease size (and weight), you have to go with a smaller sensor and correspondingly shorter FL lenses to match.
We have already seen in the Petapixel article that FF mirrorless vs. FF dSLR is 'about the same' size. The posted photo is proof that smaller format (APS-C) can net some size decrease (and presumably weight) yet we can also see that further format size decrease (down to 4/3) is not necessarily even smaller still (than APS-C) in overall size\although the FL is shorter still.

But getting back to the topic title (shallow DOF), it takes a lens with proportionally larger max f/stop to get the same DOF...bigger diameter optics offsetting improvement in weight that came with the shorter FL.

• 4/3 format 25mm f/1.2 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  
• APS-C format 31mm f/1.4 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  
• FF 50mm f/2.5 = 7" DOF zone at 10'
  

you're telling me, I have to jump down to m43 to have a meaningful size and weight reduction? The OM vs Sony combo in post 49 show only 150g weight difference and <1" longer......

Charlie wrote in post #18208310
I have the OM 200/5 so I'm familiar with small. The lens is tough as hell to use on DSLR, borderline unusable, however, I've traveled and have many nice captures from that lens.

I would like to know something about that lens used on your mirrorless camera; do you get the same depth of field that you would if using a 200mm lens at f5 on a full frame DSLR, or is the depth of field not as shallow?

I mean, f5 is already very, very slow for the 200mm focal length - if you got even worse (deeper) depth of field with a mirrorless camera, then you would really struggle to isolate subjects from their backgrounds when the background elements are pretty close to the subject, wouldn't you?

I guess what the OP (and myself) would ultimately want is a system that is significantly smaller and lighter, but that doesn't compromise even one little bit when it comes to image quality and depth of field......is this available, or are we still at the point where some compromises have to be made?


.

Charlie wrote in post #18208324
you're telling me, I have to jump down to m43 to have a meaningful size and weight reduction? The OM vs Sony combo in post 49 show only 150g weight difference and <1" longer......

I'm not familiar with those lenses on the smaller formats, but I can read the one on the Sony. It's a 24-70 f/3.5-5.6.

I guess my supposition here is that if you are willing to use an f/5.6 zoom on your 35mm format camera in order to save on size and weight, why are you not looking at a smaller format?

If you put lenses like 85/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on the Sony, it is pretty huge. And if you don't ever need those kinds of fast lenses for DOF or low light......then why not just use a smaller format?

When you want long, fast, large format, shallow DOF......hey, there is no gain with mirrorless.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18208341
I would like to know something about that lens used on your mirrorless camera; do you get the same depth of field that you would if using a 200mm lens at f5 on a full frame DSLR, or is the depth of field not as shallow?

I mean, f5 is already rather slow for the 200mm focal length - if you got even worse (deeper) depth of field with a mirrorless camera, then you would really struggle to isolate subjects from their backgrounds when the background elements are pretty close to the subject, wouldn't you?

I guess what the OP (and myself) would ultimately want is a system that is significantly smaller and lighter, but that doesn't compromise even one little bit when it comes to image quality and depth of field......is this available, or are we still at the point where some compromises have to be made?

.

Landscape shooting, travel. The smallest you will get is a 70-300g which I do love for general photography, but it is 800 grams, so kind of big.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18208351
I'm not familiar with those lenses on the smaller formats, but I can read the one on the Sony. It's a 24-70 f/3.5-5.6.

I guess my supposition here is that if you are willing to use an f/5.6 zoom on your 35mm format camera in order to save on size and weight, why are you not looking at a smaller format?

If you put lenses like 85/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on the Sony, it is pretty huge. And if you don't ever need those kinds of fast lenses for DOF or low light......then why not just use a smaller format?

When you want long, fast, large format, shallow DOF......hey, there is no gain with mirrorless.

Hosted photo: posted by JeffreyG in
./showthread.php?p=182​08351&i=i119785747
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Aside from DOF, you get rich tones, sharper photos, and more flexible Raw files with a larger format.

Why get another system, that's incompatible with lenses, produces lower quality files, different ergonomics? I don't have to juggle with multiple Eco systems. Multiple chargers, high ISO weakness, less DOF options.....

I have a single system that works as a small travel/casual setup, and big DOF monster when it needs to be. I have different tools for different scenarios, but simplicity of a single sensor size, the one I prefer.

Charlie wrote in post #18208498
Landscape shooting, travel. The smallest you will get is a 70-300g which I do love for general photography, but it is 800 grams, so kind of big.

I'm sorry, Charlie, but your response didn't answer my question. In fact, I have read your response again and again, and it doesn't seem like it was even attempting to answer my question directly. I wonder if you meant to reply to someone else instead, yet it is me that you quoted, so I figure that you must have, perhaps in some indirect way, been trying to answer my question. But I would really like a direct answer, as I am not only interested in knowing for my own sake, but also because I think that it relates directly to what the OP was seeking to learn when he started this thread.

So, let me re-state my question:
I was asking if lightweight mirrorless systems offer image quality and shallow depth of field that is precisely equal to, or better than, that which is offered by full-size full frame DSLR systems. Or, are there some compromises that have to be made in those areas if one wants to have reduced size and weight?

I was asking this as a general question, but also wanted to know specifically about the 200mm f5 that you have. Does that lens, combined with the camera you use it on, produce depth of field that is just as shallow as a 200mm on a full frame DSLR, when shooting at f5? Or is there a change in DOF due to small sensor size or other factors?

Charlie wrote in post #18208298
probably most on this enthusiast board wont be satisfied with a variable aperture body

Charlie, what is a variable aperture body? I have never heard of such a thing. I thought that aperture was only a function of the lens.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18208600
I'm sorry, Charlie, but your response didn't answer my question. In fact, I have read your response again and again, and it doesn't seem like it was even attempting to answer my question directly. I wonder if you meant to reply to someone else instead, yet it is me that you quoted, so I figure that you must have, perhaps in some indirect way, been trying to answer my question. But I would really like a direct answer, as I am not only interested in knowing for my own sake, but also because I think that it relates directly to what the OP was seeking to learn when he started this thread.

So, let me re-state my question:
I was asking if lightweight mirrorless systems offer image quality and shallow depth of field that is precisely equal to, or better than, that which is offered by full-size full frame DSLR systems. Or, are there some compromises that have to be made in those areas if one wants to have reduced size and weight?

I was asking this as a general question, but also wanted to know specifically about the 200mm f5 that you have. Does that lens, combined with the camera you use it on, produce depth of field that is just as shallow as a 200mm on a full frame DSLR, when shooting at f5? Or is there a change in DOF due to small sensor size or other factors?
.

I can answer that, it is exactly the same. The Sony A7 line of cameras use a 35mm format sensor and so they will make an image with the same aspect ratio, AOV and DOF as a dSLR of the same format when used with the same focal length and aperture.

The viewfinder mechanism (EVF vs OVF) is really the only difference, and while that changes how the user works the camera it doesn't change the image capture.

So 200mm and f/5 would look the same on either a Sony A7 or Canon 35mm EOS.

^I've been reading this thread like somehow I must be overlooking something because I've always heard the same size sensor no matter the camera body will produce the same dof. But we got pages discussing this issue and even more pages trying to determine if Sony mirrorless is small.

elitejp wrote in post #18209149
^I've been reading this thread like somehow I must be overlooking something because I've always heard the same size sensor no matter the camera body will produce the same dof. But we got pages discussing this issue and even more pages trying to determine if Sony mirrorless is small.

I addressed the format size issue back in post 4! Then much later (in post 7 ) also clarified how different size formats could still have same DOF, but only at different shooting apertures. So the 'debate' is about relative camera+lens size differences (and now about APS-C vs. FF camera+lens size differences), since the same-format mirrorless vs. dSLR difference has already been shown to be negligible and not related to the 'mirrorless' characteristic. Thread fighting for continuing reason for existence?!