S9, S5, S5ii/x, S1Rii... what's next?

[dirk]

Different people have different use cases and therefore different preferences for big or small bodies, big or small lenses, fast lenses or slow lenses, zooms or FFL etc.

We have atm enough bigger bodies. Both in L-Mount and in MFT.

I would say the L-mount needs small lenses before it needs smaller cameras,

We have a lot of choice for small lenses already. The Sigma i-series for FFL and some Sigma zooms for L-Mount are the proof. Of course there are gaps, but it is already a great choice for L-Mount.

What is definitely missing are smaller bodies with EVF. Nobody has to buy them, if he does not want to

A lot of people don't want their cameras to be very small because they still equate large with high quality.

I am not sure about this. What is very small? In fullframe this will be not really very small, because of sensor size, cooling, IBIS, size of EVF etc. Small is relative. I guess the Sony A7c is the smallest you can get.

I do not know any amateur photographer, who is willing to carry more than he absolutely needs. Since most camera, big and small, are made out of plastic nowadays, they do not feel better, just because they are bigger.

But the sales numbers of Fuji X system with its smaller bodies and of Sony A7c etc. cameras are the proof that smaller is selling really good.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I love the I-series lenses, I have the 24/2, 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8 and previously owned the 24/3.5, but they are not small except for the 24/3.5, 45/2.8 and 90/2.8. Maybe compared to modern f/1.4 primes or f/2.8 zooms but in absolute terms small would be along the lines of a vintage 28mm or 50mm lens.

 

[dirk]

in absolute terms small would be along the lines of a vintage 28mm or 50mm lens.

These sizes will not come back again. Vintage lenses have been designed for the resolution and requirements of film.

Not for a digital sensor, not for modern AF and not for enlarging it to 200% in Photoshop.

No matter where you look, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica. All newer lenses are bigger than the vintage lenses for film of the same company. The only exception is Leica M, but these are manual focus.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

All newer lenses are bigger than the vintage lenses for film of the same company. The only exception is Leica M, but these are manual focus.

So if I deduct well you claim that the AF motor takes up that much space now a days compared to manual focus lenses? If Leica can make pixel-peel worthy lenses within the same size as they used to, so could others, unless the AF is much bigger then before.

I think that Lumix 100/2.9 and 28-200 show that it is possible with modern lenses, and that we could expect smaller lenses.Maybe not as small as the early AF lenses, because the motor was within de SLR body, with a screwdriver system. So if that is what you mean, yes. But the body already is smaller than the typical AF SLR body. Maybe we should not be that concerned about the lens size or weight, but of the total weight of body and lens.

What does happen with this in lens motor support is that now each lens has his own motor. In the SLR days we had one motor, inside of the body. So that is a trade-off weight wise. But the gain is much faster and much more accurate focus.

 

[dirk]

I think that Lumix 100/2.9 and 28-200 show that it is possible with modern lenses,

It depends on which image quality you do expect to get.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

It is interesting that Fujifilm makes a medium format lens for the GFX bodies - the GF 50mm f/3.5 - that is 48mm tall and weighs 335 grams. Sot it's actually a little shorter than the Sigma 24mm f3.5 (but not lighter). And that is for medium format.

But there is a common thread here, and that is the f/3.5 aperture. So, it will be interesting to see if Sigma (or somebody else) will create more f/3.5 or f/4 prime lenses. I suppose, like the compact bodies, it just depends on what they believe the market up-take would be. But I yes, those f/2 primes do look a little ridiculous on the BF.

For me, as a zoom shooter, I'd like a compact body that I would mount the 24-200 & 14-28 on. So that's why I'd like to see that first.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

It depends on which image quality you do expect to get.

Yes, that is the other factor. Lenstip quite clearly shows that the Sigma 24/3.5 is less resoving than the 24/2. And my S-Pro 70-200 f/2.8 (The Beast) out-resolves my 70-300. But for most use cases (i.e., social media and small-to-medium prints) it just doesn't matter. People just like the experience of shooting with a small body and a small lens.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Yes, that is the other factor. Lenstip quite clearly shows that the Sigma 24/3.5 is less resoving than the 24/2. And my S-Pro 70-200 f/2.8 (The Beast) out-resolves my 70-300. But for most use cases (i.e., social media and small-to-medium prints) it just doesn't matter. People just like the experience of shooting with a small body and a small lens.

And depends also a lot on the sensor. Lot's of lenses are very good on 24mp but kind a fall apart on 47mp of an S1R. The other way is always fine if a lens review on a high mp body is very good then chances are it is even better on a 24

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

And depends also a lot on the sensor. Lot's of lenses are very good on 24mp but kind a fall apart on 47mp of an S1R. The other way is always fine if a lens review on a high mp body is very good then chances are it is even better on a 24

They test Sigma lenses on a 42 MP Sony. Sadly, they do not test any L-mount lenses. Perhaps if the S1RII is successful enough that would change.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

They test Sigma lenses on a 42 MP Sony. Sadly, they do not test any L-mount lenses. Perhaps if the S1RII is successful enough that would change.

dpreview tested the sigma 28-70 on a S1R. I think the Sigma lenses behave better on L-Mount bodies then on Sony, because of the Alliance and I think the auto-correction Is better on l-mount bodies. But I guess we are way off topic

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

dpreview tested the sigma 28-70 on a S1R. I think the Sigma lenses behave better on L-Mount bodies then on Sony, because of the Alliance and I think the auto-correction Is better on l-mount bodies. But I guess we are way off topic

Yes, it's entirely possible that the Sigma lenses perform better on L-mount bodies. But at least, with the Lenstip tests, you can get an idea of how they perform relative to one another, as well as how their sharpness, vignetting, coma etc. changes as you stop the lens down.

 

[Pete_W]

But for most use cases (i.e., social media and small-to-medium prints) it just doesn't matter. People just like the experience of shooting with a small body and a small lens.

That's where I am at. I purchased the 24mm f3.5, 45mm f2.8 and 90mm f2.8 lenses to use on my S9 and small size was an important criteria.