>hurr let's make a mirrorless camera >hurr let's

>>3027184
There are lens elements in there.

What you take out of the body has to be added back in the lens.

File: 1487520528916.png (112KB, 510x778px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 510x778px

>>3027184
>>3027215

But it isn't?

Also there is a /gear/ thread, you should go shitpost there.

>>3027184
i think its cool that sony can adapt other lenses but honestly if i spend 2500 on a sony and then spend 600 on a metabones and then 5000 on canon glass then ultimately canon is benefiting the most from sony bodies lol

>>3027184
Both lenses have that collar, does that mean the first inch in the canon is empty?

The anti sony crew are really grasping at non existent straws these days.

>>3027287
Nope.

The collar is just to make space for the photographers fingers.
Note that the gap between the grip and the lens/mirror box is very similar on both.

File: 1461199345735.png (224KB, 901x680px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 901x680px

Sony has more glass at the back, and needs less glass at the front.
Which is the best, since Front glass are huge and expensive.

tldr; OP is a massive faggot who can' get over his sensor envy.

>>3027308
>retrofocal lenses

Kek, people still use that shit?

>>3027308
>less glass at the front.
>Which is the best
I need sauce on that.

File: sony_sel28f20_fe_28mm_f_2_lens_1425440738000_1126139.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>3027308
Kek
>spending 1,5k to have 7mm less at the cost of one stop and distortion
>manual focus

This one cost 423 bucks. I really doubt a faggot will see a difference in a picture.
>ohhhh look! I can clearly see this picture was taken with a zeiss 21mm f2.8

>>3027350

To be fair, all of the FE primes, even the most basic of them, are optically fantastic. Only one FE lens is arguably 'bad'.

>>3027350
>7mm less
Oh bless, he's a cretin.

>$1.5k is too much money
oh bless, he's poor.

To save you from looking so stupid in the future, the 7mm in this instance equates to a 25% narrower fov, that's the same difference as a 100mm to a 135mm.

And yes, the zeiss 21mm f2.8 has a VERY different rendering than the Sony 28mm, hence why I'm waiting for Sony to release their 20mm later this year so I can decide between the zeiss and the sony, as I desperately need to replace my sigma 20mm f1.8 as it's let me down one too many times. if you can't see the difference, it's because you're new, not because there isn't a difference.

>>3027345
Better vignetting characteristics.
Better distortion characteristics.
Higher sharpness in corner.
54% less weight.
300 USD cheaper, because the Front elements in Milvus is much larger and more expensive (by the way, Zeiss typically has performance tax, they price you according to how good the lens is, this Loxia 21 would have been even more cheap if sold by CV).

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_loxia/loxia_2821.pdf
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_milvus/milvus2821.pdf

>>3027350
Not the point. I was comparing lens from same maker, same focal range, same aperture. The only difference being the mount, and how you need to design different optics due to the mounts.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-02-23 à 11.09.07.png (70KB, 677x565px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 677x565px

>>3027353
Just step back if you want to be wider.

>>3027354
>Not the point. I was comparing lens from same maker, same focal range, same aperture
Sure. I was just making a comment.

Digital technology is a bless.

>>3027373
You can't fucking step back and make shit wider

Haven't you seen comparisons between telephoto and wide angle lenses? You can't just fucking move to emulate zoom this is fucking triggering me stop telling people to fucking zoom with your legs because you fucking can't if you could everyone would just need a 50mm and do every fucking thing with it

>>3027405
Learn composition.

>>3027424
There's a world of difference between boring ass 28 and an actual wide angle.

File: 1529_D3300_left.png (326KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 700x595px

Ok guys its time for a new camera. Been doing this for a while and am wondering if I should upgrade to DSLR.

I finally made the decision but am wondering which one to pick.
The Nikon d3300 or the Canon EOS 1300D.

From what I read online and when comparing the photos the Nikon d3300 is the clear winner. What do you think?

>>3027424
Learn 2 perspective

>>3027557

Canon is shit.

>>3027557
Nikon
>1080p 60fps
>24.2 mp sensor
>better iso performance
>every nikon F mount lens made since 1959 will mount

Pick one the AF-p kit lens for smooth focusing.

>>3027557
The Nikon is better, but both are pretty bad. Get the D7200 or D750 or something instead.

>>3027557
So you want a gimped nikon that doesn't even work with nikons affordable lenses or objectively the worst camera on the market?

Silly anon, just get a sony a7ii

>>3027352
which lens

NIKON IS GOING MIRRORLESS!

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20170224-00010008-newswitch-ind

>>3028388

SEL50F18F.

Optically it is fine, but it autofocuses as slow as a Fuji and makes a loud grinding noise as it does.

Better now since it got a firmware update, but it is still slow.

>>3028391
Full Frame?

Or will they follow Canon?

>>3028407
Who knows? I'm still wating for the new D820 specs

>>3027184
not this shitto again.

>>3028391

>failed at mirrorless once
>failed at launching a compact
>will have no lenses on launch

Yea, no confidence in Nikon anymore.

>>3027707
>every nikon F mount lens made since 1959 will mount
...and only work in full manual mode with no meter.

>>3028563
So what? Someone who buys a 400 dolars body wont spend more than 200 on glass.

File: 61pVNDT6WmL.jpg (117KB, 1732x1154px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1732x1154px

Please help.

I accidentally my whole lens.

>>3028660
Have you tried turning it on and off?
Or sending it for warranty repair?

>>3028660
>mode 2

Found your problem. You initiated the self destruct sequence.

>>3028660
Hey at least you have a prime lens now