Hacker News Reader

The "big on purpose" crowd is used to long focal length lenses being super big and heavy, and therefore need a heavy body as a counterweight. I know some would consider this blasphemy, but the micro-four-thirds (m43) platform with its 2x crop factor means that a pro level 600mm equivalent f4 telephoto with exceptional clarity can weigh under 1.5kg (instead of the 3 to 4kg of similar offerings for full-frame). When you factor in the weight of the total package (camera body, lens, accessories), the differences are very substantial. Sure - you won't be able to print your photos on wall-sized posters, but you will get great livability/usability, good performance at an attractive price.

Would you really do sports with an m43, tho?

> 2x crop factor means that a pro level 600mm equivalent f4 telephoto with exceptional clarity can weigh under 1.5kg (instead of the 3 to 4kg of similar offerings for full-frame)

You mean a pro-level 600/f8 equivalent. You can get something similar for full-frame, like the Canon 600/f11 or 800/f11 which are like a kilogram.

The new Nikon 800mm f/6.3 fits in this niche perfectly.

There's a new 400mm f/4.5 on the way too.

If I was starting from scratch I'd totally be taking this route.

That sounds good in theory, but it really doesn't work out in practice. If you want a like-for-like comparison, you end up with similar weights.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X comes in at 850g for the body alone, which puts it squarely between the Canon R3 (~1kg) and the Sony a1 (~750g). Once you adjust for the equivalent light-gathering ability of the whole kit , the Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 is 1245g, versus the Canon 400mm f/5.6's 1250g.

This may be my ignorance showing, but wouldn't the DOF be equivalent and the panasonic is getting more light to the sensor? The pixels may end up larger on the canon thus leading to less noise or something, but I thought in terms of light hitting the sensor Fstops were equal, but for DOF you adjusted for crop factor.

Instead of trying to figure out what's happening by changing the sensor size, a fun hack is to instead think about it in terms of a teleconverter. The micro 4/3 format gives you roughly half the area of a full-frame sensor so let's think in terms of a x2 teleconverter.

Let's assume you have a 200mm f/2 lens, and you put that x2 teleconverter on. The way you get the equivalent of 400mm out of that is that you're taking all the light that comes out of the back of the original lens, then spreading it out into a bigger circle. Same total amount of light, stretched thinner, so the sensor is gathering less light overall. That's why that 2x converter that turns your 200mm into 400mm also takes away 2 stops of light and reduces your effective aperture from f/2 to f/4.

Now, the trick is that with the smaller sensor instead of the teleconverter, you have the exact same situation: You're taking that same amount of light projected by the optics, and cutting a smaller slice in the middle. You're just doing the slicing differently.

I wonder if the "big on purpose" is because photographers got used to the size of previous generation cameras and would rather have a full-sized body to grip than the miniaturized technical wonders like the Sony APS-C cameras which, while highly capable cameras feel like well-built toys. I bought my a6400 because of the reviews on the eye-AF which is flat-out amazing. But I absolutely hate the feel of the body and wish I could have the electronics of an a7-III or a7-IV in the body of a Nikon D700... something that feels like it was designed by a photographer and not an electrical engineer with a specialty in compact design.

I shoot with an A7iii (and I owned a D70s before), and while it's small, it's not uncontrollable or unbalanced for my use.

Bigger (mirrorless) cameras are bigger on purpose because you can fit more batteries inside and control heat better amongst other things, but I wouldn't want my A7iii to be the size of D70s or any DSLR, because it really hinders portability of these devices.

I agree Sony's APS-C cameras maybe miniaturized a bit too much, but A7/A9 series' size is perfect IMHO (and they manage their heat really well).

Reflex mirror assemblies require physical damping that smaller bodies seriously struggle with. Engineering reasons trump Japanese desire for smaller cameras;)

I meant bigger "mirrorless" cameras in my previous comment, sorry. Clarified that comment too.

The most important 'feature' that comes with a large camera body, for me, is that when I operate the controls, I don't lose my grip. This means I can operate controls at the same time, in quick succession, etc. When I'm wanting to use all the tools available to me to get the perfect shot, I want to be able to reach them and operate quickly.

On my smaller-bodied Fuji mirrorless, there's no viewfinder and I almost always shoot in a fully automatic mode. This is great for holiday photos, where it's much more about the memory and much less about the 'art'.

I think this discussion is typically fuzzy because people do not separate weight and size.

As for weight, no sane person wants to carry around more weight than needed. So there's a wide consensus that less weight is better. The counter point that extra weight helps with balance is a bit of a stretch. People often mention long heavy lenses but the truly heavy lenses you will not really support from the camera body anyway. Plus, we're not really talking about cameras where the "light" bodies really are that light as to make handling them unstable.

As for size, if we were to ignore weight for a second, I strongly believe a largish camera body is ergonomically ideal for almost everyone. These cameras are often portrayed to be "huge", but they really aren't as it comes to holding them. A large deep grip allows you to hold it well. A large back plate allows for lots of buttons and room between buttons.

I extend that remark to people with small hands. Even with small hands you can't fully "grip" a compact mirrorless camera. Don't get me wrong, for sure you can accustom yourself to deal with this compromise in ergonomics, I'm just saying that a largish size is the ergonomic ideal, if weight were not a factor.

Of course, the problem is that size and weight do correlate. So you can pick between a large camera that is ergonomically ideal to handle yet heavy to carry or a lighter camera with poor ergonomics.

In the end it's best to just try it. My main point is to keep an open mind towards largish cameras, they have some very strong pros.

I've shot the z9 and it's pretty amazing but definitely not perfect. The teardown was pretty cool, always wonder when they put it back together if it still worked.

Shooting sports side by side with a D5, pro level mirrorless has more to improve upon. The pro dslr's canon 1Dx series and Nikon D4,5,6 series are big and heavy, but that size all translates into a single battery that shoots 3000-5000 shots and numerous custom buttons to quickly change a variety of settings fast which is important. Most have never experienced shooting with these bodies but are quick to whine about every aspect. When it comes to getting a shot they are indispensable with sports, wildlife, events because they just work. Especially in poor weather conditions.

Since covid I skipped the canon 1dx3 upgrade and after shooting the z9 will skip the r3 now. Still sticking with Canon but will wait for R1 in hopes the EVF is flawless when panning shots.

Spot on that these are not hobbyist camera's, but when do you get shoot with them everyday they definitely serve the intended purpose well.

I think that some users are actually expecting their EVFs to magically eliminate motion blur when panning. Have you tried the Z9 since the firmware brought faster refresh? I'm surprised you are passing the Z9 given it appears you shoot heterogeneous. That said I'm seriously looking at D6/120-300_2.8 for the similar reasons, but I think my reasons might be a bit more distilled.

I have too much invested in canon lens, but no hurry to switch a 100% over to mirrorless. D5 is bargain body, D6 is just refined further but super nice. Availability for z9 and r3 is ridiculous.

> always wonder when they put it back together if it still worked

Kolari's whole business model involves disassembling cameras to change the filters on the sensors, so I suspect they know what they are doing.

What do you make of the Sony a1, with its detachable battery grip? Sony made it so that the camera could be compact when needed (ex. traveling or on a gimbal) and full-sized when weight isn’t an issue.

The Sony a1 is of course the choice of the Associated Press, and were heavily used at last year’s Olympics.

https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visua...

All Sony fullframe mirrorless cameras have a detachable grip. I personally love it for just that purpose.

Yeah, I didn’t mention that but I use the same grip on my a9 series cameras that I use on my a1. It really is a nice setup that I think is under-appreciated. I went to a football game pre-a1 and had a 400mm 2.8 on the a9 II without the grip and I had multiple photogs carrying similar lenses with full size DSLRs on the back ask me about mirrorless. The difference in weight alone between my kit and theirs was astounding.

It’s rare that something that game-changing appears in such an established market.

By curiosity, if a camera's body is just too impractical for a specific use, would it work with a body extension ?

I was thinking for instance about the extra grip that can be added on Canon/Nikon's middle range models that make them easier to manipulate for vertical shoots. While the top of the line comes built with grips in both directions, options exist for the smaller bodies.

We already have flash brackets, cinematographic rigs etc., would it be realistic to have an outer frame for your a6400 when it's equipped with your 100-400 telephoto ?

I do have an L-bracket with a built-in grip[0] that I can use with the a6400. It does make the grip itself more comfortable, but the added volume then moves the shutter release too far back relative to the grip, which brings us back to an uncomfortable shooting experience. I don't think fixing ergonomics after the fact works.

0. https://www.amazon.co.uk/SMALLRIG-Bracket-Sony-A6400-A6300/d...

> would it work with a body extension ?

Yes for extra batteries and perhaps vertical shutter release (as per my D850's body extension) but a larger body can have more controls and displays that can't be easily extended. The larger size allows for much more than just a more easily grippable physical object.

I don't know. This comes up all the time in photog discussions but I think it's just a matter of older Pros being used to it. Last Olympics was the first time I saw almost as many Sony cameras as Canon in the stands, so we will see if the pros all go back to CaNikon because they can't live with Sony and their argos - plenty of people have shot Sony now and Canon/Nikon have equal alternatives.

Canon/Nikon and Sony sure have different ergonomic visions. But I think, at the end of the day, it's more about professional support, parts and service availability, turnaround and general reliability than size/ergo.

Personally, I'm in the Sony camp - I use my 200-600 for hours for wildlife with my "bare" A9 or RIV without any issues. I feel like it's really the lens I'm holding and the camera is just an attachment I look through.

Imo, Sony's customizable enough that _anything_ is just a button away without ever taking my eyes off the EVF, no need for a larger body to fit the buttons and dials. But to each their own, and it's a great that we now have all the options.

And wildlife is a bit of specialty field, AF performance ultimately trumps ergonomics for most serious photographers, I think.

Sony's A1 became available almost half a pro body (4yr/2, actually nearer1.5y given pre production) than any other top level mirrorless cameras. This plus very aggressive selling support services to the agencies(which are a negligible number of pros globally especially in the states) gave Sony the home advantage Japanese pride fully deserved. As is self evident the performance level available from the A1 is too good to pass, especially when it's the only show in town.

But the A1 is the first professionally usable Sony period. Tokyo was Act1, Scene 1.

I've been channelling Thom Hogan who I've been reading for over 25 years. Thom is the most rational (and frequently only sensible) publicly available voice in the technical aspects of photography. Thom also worked for Osborne Computer..

Edit: https://bythom.com. by the looks of things about everyone here ought to go catch up with Thom's writings ;)

I only got into photography a few years ago, and I almost immediately felt this issue, so it's clearly not just a matter of habit.

It's also important to note we're not comparing between different brands here, we're comparing models within the same brand. E.g. Canon has the R3 but they also have the R5, which is much more appropriate for all professional uses that don't involve shooting action.

And finally, speaking of Sony ergonomics, e.g. my a6400 can't fit the focus joystick I have on my a7iii.

Yes I agree with all. Indeed I’musing a Leica Q2 for photojournalism. I’m not photographing birds and sport but doing it with a A7 and a 2/300mm long lenses, will result in a heavy unbalanced and hard to handle setup (unless you use a tripod every time).

A big sensor requires a big lens though, it's proportional.

An equivalent APS-C "100-400" lens would be smaller, wouldn't it?

It would, but then it'd lose the light-gathering advantage you get from a larger sensor. There is no free lunch.

Also, for the sensor to have the same resolution as a full-frame sensor means smaller pixel sites, which requires a smaller circle of confusion for the same perceived quality, which puts more pressure on the optics.