Subject: Re: The Race for The FF MILC is ON!
Full headers:
From: David Taylor <>
Subject: Re: The Race for The FF MILC is ON!
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:45:34 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <p41ugu$43n$>
References: <p41rb5$g77$> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:45:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="20e9c671509ead7ff298e4532431adaf";
logging-data="4215"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZHUJNdP8tq64c6S0DBt++atuXnNRJ3Mg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-GB
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rHFEsaNBRZJVABGXm16V3EFjfI0=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 21/01/2018 11:08, android wrote:
> The size and weight can be reducedĀ  and and image quality improved since 
> the nodal point can be moved closer to the sensor giving the enginers 
> more options in the lens design.

Yes, wide-angle lenses could be better (although likely not cheaper!) 
with FF MILC, I agree.  But otherwise I see very little gain.

Had Nikon/Canon offered FF/APS-C several years back it /might/ have been 
different, but I feel they've missed the boat, now.  Unless many 
professionals are demanding MILC, that is.