Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Rich, Jun 28, 2011.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Didn't think of this, but someone on Dpreview did. Panasonic can't make
    lenses as compact as Olympus, if those lenses contain I.S. electronics and
    parts. Nikon and Canon, who use this exclusively in their DSLRs. I wonder
    if they'll bend their rules (lens I.S. is a money-maker) and shift to the
    bodies when they release mirrorless?
     
    Rich, Jun 28, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Seems very, very unlikely to me. Nikon uses lens-shift VR in most of their
    pocket-sized compacts; they're certainly not going to ditch it in their ILC.

    The Panasonic m4/3 O.I.S.14-45 is a very small and lightweight lens, as
    compact as one could wish for. Surely Nikon can do as well.
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Not that small. Well-designed and better-built than the 18-55mm kit
    lenses from the APS people, which has allowed some size reduction, but it
    isn't compact. Olympus's 14-42mm is collapsible and as such, more
    compact.
     
    Rich, Jun 29, 2011
    #3
  4. It's collapsible, but it doesn't look any smaller to me. Apparently it's
    collapsible (in the Micro 4/3 style) primarily so they can use the same
    optics as the lens for the 4/3 SLR. With essentially nothing but empty space
    behind the actual elements, making it collapsible is easy to do.

    Likewise the Olympus m4/3 9-18, which I've mentioned before. It's
    collapsible, but take the lens off the camera and extend it into taking
    position, and there's about 20 mm of empty space behind the rear element.
    There's no reason to make an ultrawide zoom that way unless you're
    essentially using the regular 4/3 9-18 optics. (Actually there is evidently
    a slight difference in the optical design, but I'll bet it's just a
    refinement of the original 9-18 design.)

    Compare the Panasonic m4/3 14-45 with the Olympus 4/3 SLR 14-42 here:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page3.asp

    The Panasonic lens is a bit smaller, even with O.I.S.
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 29, 2011
    #4
  5. Rich

    Paul Furman Guest

    No reason to make a wide prime that way but these are wide to
    normal/short tele zooms; 18-36 & 28-84 'equivalent'.

    Yeah, this is a good point. Possibly telecentric goals are part of the
    reason though I couldn't say, in theory if it's telecentric you wouldn't
    need the gap! Perhaps the long end of the zoom contributes though.

    Is there fixed glass at the back when extended?
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 29, 2011
    #5
  6. Really an ultrawide zoom in the case of the 9-18. Every other ultrawide zoom
    I've ever seen has the rear element close to the flange at the shortest
    setting. Generally, ordinary kit zooms do as well.
    Nope. When popped into taking position, there's considerable empty space
    behind the rearmost element even at the shortest setting. That's what
    persuades me it's basically a Four Thirds design adapted to Micro Four
    Thirds just by adding the telescoping part. Saves them having to completely
    design a new lens.

    I think being "telecentric" is just a bonus they get by doing it this way.
     
    Neil Harrington, Jun 29, 2011
    #6
  7. Rich

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Didn't think of this, but someone on Dpreview did. Panasonic can't make
    : lenses as compact as Olympus, if those lenses contain I.S. electronics
    : and parts. Nikon and Canon, who use this exclusively in their DSLRs.
    : I wonder if they'll bend their rules (lens I.S. is a money-maker) and
    : shift to the bodies when they release mirrorless?

    Nikon used to have their IS in the body, and they switched. Doesn't it seem
    unlikely that they'd switch back?

    If your argument is that Nikon switched so that they could build more
    expensive lenses, that strikes me as far-fetched. It would be giving up a
    competitive advantage they might have had vs. Canon.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 6, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.