Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless

Rich wrote:
> 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?

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless 

"Neil Harrington" wrote in


> Rich wrote:
>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>
>

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless 

Rich wrote:
> "Neil Harrington" wrote in
>
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless 

Neil Harrington wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" wrote
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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

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


> unless you're essentially using the regular 4/3 9-18 optics.

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?


> (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.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless 

Paul Furman wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> "Neil Harrington" wrote
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
> No reason to make a wide prime that way but these are wide to
> normal/short tele zooms; 18-36 & 28-84 'equivalent'.

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.

>
>
>> unless you're essentially using the regular 4/3 9-18 optics.
>
> 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?

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless 

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:34:31 -0500, Rich wrote:
: 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
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon, Canon at a disadvantage for mirrorless