Big Body, Light Lens or Light Body, Big Lens

[kshapero]

With the continued onslaught of Mirrorless FF cameras, I wonder have we abandoned the notion of a small light body with a small lens? Everything seems topsy turvy. Look at the New Canon RP, small but with huge lenses. I recently picked up a mammoth Nikon D800 and popped on a small light 50mm/1.8 lens. What does that say to the world? Where are we going?
No flames, please, just home grown thoughts, please.
(Just put another roll of film in my Leica M3/ 'cron 50/2.😀)

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I have done it; Nikon F4 w/50mm autofocus lens. Unless I need the autofocus for speed to stop motion I rarely pick up the F4. The zoom lens I found to be better.

 

[shawn]

With the continued onslaught of Mirrorless FF cameras, I wonder have we abandoned the notion of a small light body with a small lens? Everything seems topsy turvy. Look at the New Canon RP, small but with huge lenses. I recently picked up a mammoth Nikon D800 and popped on a small light 50mm/1.8 lens. What does that say to the world? Where are we going?
No flames, please, just home grown thoughts, please.
(Just put another roll of film in my Leica M3/ 'cron 50/2.😀)

With the mirrorless bodies it is easy to use small lenses on them too. An A7 with a RF lens on it makes for a pretty small combo. When using it with larger lenses add the grip and make the body bigger too.

Shawn

 

[Calzone]

My Leica SL has likely one of the largest and heaviest 50's ever made.

The body by itself is not so big or heavy, but the 50 Lux-SL has a filter ring size of 82mm and is almost the same size as the 24-90 SL zoom.

The rendering is wonderful and is perfect in every way though. This goes under reported. The lens is that good that I don't mind the size and weight. Rigged it is about 5 1/2 pounds.

Compared to a baby Linhof Tech IV with 100/2.8 Planar that weighs about 7 pounds with a 120 film back or 70mm back.

Speaking about bodies my right arm is mighty overdeveloped, and speaking of small cameras, I have an ugly football player neck that looks kinda like a monster feature on an otherwise skinny lanky guy due to carrying three rigged Leicas: Two in a book bag and one in hand.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

With the mirrorless bodies it is easy to use small lenses on them too. An A7 with a RF lens on it makes for a pretty small combo. When using it with larger lenses add the grip and make the body bigger too.

Shawn

Shawn,

Good point.

My 28 Cron makes for a great rig on the SL.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

I prefer a meatier lens with a modest sized body, when using a body that provides TTL viewing and focusing. The lens provides me something to hold onto and balance/stabilize the camera with. So I now use a Leica CL fitted with the mount adapters and Leica R lenses most of the time.

With other cameras that you primarily hold the camera by the body itself (like a Leica M or other small cameras), then the lens should be modestly sized so that assembly is balanced. Thus my M lenses for the M-D are mostly compact and light weight.

G

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Each FFm might be different.
EOS R bodies will accept with full functionality and via not so big adapter any EF lens.
Like 40 f2.8 pancake, small 50 1.8, old, compact 22-55 zoom.
But with FF and AF it is impossible to make very small lenses.
Here comes Cosina CV manual focus lenses.

 

[shawn]

But with FF and AF it is impossible to make very small lenses.

Mirrorless changes that a bit too....

Full frame mirrorless with LTM Summicron.

And here is that 1953 Summicron autofocusing...

https://www.flickr.com/gp/39387871@N06/sg94wj

Shawn

 

[willie_901]

You only need large lenses on small bodies if wide apertures are important to your work. This assumes the small body's sensor has a competitive signal-to-noise ratio. Many small, light cameras offer competitive raw file SNR.

In my case, f 2 is not limiting with lenses having angles of view ~60 deg (i.e 23mm with an APS-C sensor) or less. For wider angles of view f 2.8 meets my needs.

Still, nothing beats the combination of sensor area and lens surface area. So whether the body is small or not, maximizing both offers the most flexibility. The trade-off is an increase in size, weight and cost.

 

[markjwyatt]

When I bought my Fujifilm XT-2 I wanted a compact(ish) mirrorless to take on a trip with a flexible zoom lens. I looked at the 18-55 kit zoom, and it fit the bill. I also considered the 18-135mm, and though tempting, it really violated the initial criteria (compact-ish). Though the cost was not substantially more, I ended up staying with the 18-55mm zoom.

My next new (non-adapted) lens if I buy one would likely be a prime (maybe 23mm f2, or possibly the f1.4). I am enjoying adapting, but do miss the auto-focus, because it is harder to manual focus an adapted lens on a Fuji then to use the adapted lens on the intended film camera.

 

[Gerry M]

Film or Digi:
Small body/small lens
Big body/big lens (leave at home) 😉

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies are small, except the new EM1X, and Olympus makes some tiny primes alongside the giant pro lenses.


I have a Pen-F. Tiny body. I also have three tiny lenses:


PanaLeica 15mm f1.7


Olympus 25mm f1.8


Olympus 45mm f1.8


The Olympus 60mm f2,8 Macro that I have is pretty tiny, too.


Olympus's Pro series lenses, however, are huge. I have the 7-14mm f2.8 and 12-40mm f2.8 pro lenses. They're truly awesome lenses, incredibly sharp and better than the Canon lenses I used before. BUT, they're BIG. Not big by Canon standards, but big on the tiny Pen-F body.


If you want truly small, like a Leica with a 35mm or 50mm summicron, the Pen-F with one of the tiny primes I mentioned will give you that.