So, I just "nonsensically" tried my other lens and body caps of different mounts and brands to see if they would fit. To my surprise, the K-mount lens caps do fit well for the Sony E-mount lens!
Here it is:-
In fact, I've found that the width of space from the mount flange to the bayonet petals are almost identical. So, the lens cap does fit very well and tight when "mounted". I have also tried EF and micro-4/3 ones, but there is no luck and they do not fit in any ways, completely.
However, a more careful inspection will reveal that the mounted Pentax lens cap is actually slightly de-centred, which I suspect is caused by a minor difference in the inner diameters between the mounts.
To compare the outer and inner diameters of the E-mount against the K-mount, I put a semi-transparent original Pentax body cap onto my NEX body:-
Well, it can be seen that the outer and inner diameters are almost the same! The Pentax body cap does NOT fit the NEX body though, as it has more depth.
So, all these coincidences are just interesting, aren't they?
Logging you in...
mow · 761 weeks ago
David · 761 weeks ago
Make no mistake, the body of the NEX is small, incredibly small, and really gives m/43 a run for the money as far as being very tiny. And that's part of the point of ILCs/EVIL mounts, right? There is that group of people who grew up with digital, who don't want to carry a heavy camera around, who don't want to use a viewfinder.
So the body of the NEX is incredibly small. But the body on its own does not make a camera system. THere is the lens, and this is where it appears Sony has made what I think as a mistake. If we look at this NEX lens, it looks roughly the size of Pentax mid-level lenses (would be nice to see it compared to the 18-55 DA). In Rice's picture of the Kx next to the NEX, while the Kx looks huge in contrast, the Pentax Limited lens is smaller than the NEX lens.
I can't believe that the same people who by EVIL cameras want to carry around a big lens. Us SLR users have no problems (well some of us anyway).
This leaves the door open I think. Now Olympus seems to have small lenses for their system. And if Pentax does make a mirrorless system, well, they know how to make their lenses small.
Antonio Rojilla · 760 weeks ago
Sony could well release slower lenses, like a f/5.6-8 zoom, and you would get the same results as with a one stop faster m4/3 zoom (a f/4-5.6). The -usually- better results at higher ISOs and the -usually- higher resolution of APS cameras (that will always let you scale down) would compesate for the slower lens speed, and the DOF would be finally be the same (if for consumers the DOF of a f/5.6 m4/3 lens is acceptable, so would the DOF of an micro APS f/8 lens then).
This was the same with 4/3: there was not perceived size, weight or benefit despite a smaller sensor (they finally had to release fast f/2 zooms -14-35, 35-100- to offer pros real equivalents to their f/2.8 28-70 and 70-200 lenses, and while really good optically they ended up being bigger, heavier and more expensive). And this will happen again. The -well deserved- success of m4/3 may be because it is the first mirrorless system in the market (if you don't count rangefinders) and it offers a good features/size/weight ratio. But once mirrorless APS systems start to fill in the niche, and they will in one year or two, m4/3 will be facing the same problems as the bigger 4/3 system. And we can guess the result.
Oh, and don't forget the 'software tricks' used by Panasonic to hide the bad results of their m4/3 lenses.
Adam · 760 weeks ago
The reality? Normal zooms don't get much smaller. Wide zooms do because they lack the retrofocus size increase that makes wides so large on SLR's vs non-retrofocus LVIL and RF wides.
Abraham · 760 weeks ago
Diameter 63.5 x 83mm - Olympus
Dimensions (Max. Diameter x Length) : 76 x 102mm - Sony
Then the lenses zoom, and when that sony zooms, it really zooms. I actually wonder if sony chose a 16mm prime to launch as ti would appear smaller than say a 35mm prime, or a 45mm prime. Leaving comsumers thinking that future primes would be as small.
But lets see how the systems develop, they are really quite cost effective compared to DSLRs.
ab
Antonio Rojilla · 760 weeks ago
The Sony zoom wins hands down in quality to any similar Olympus m4/3 zoom -still, I can't find a 14-140 in their range, I have a Panasonic 14-140 for my GH1- even in construction quality, and unlike the Olympus, the Sony has a built-in image stabilization system, which adds to the weight. But this has nothing to see with the sensor format but with the stupid decision from Sony of not using stabilized sensors instead (just like the stupid Panasonic decision).
Antonio Rojilla · 760 weeks ago
Get over it: the weight or size benefit of m4/3 is too small as it is the APS bigger sensor's higher image quality benefit. But I'd take the image quality advantage any day. And this from a former Olympus E-1 user (I ditched the system because I didn't like it's progression, that's it, the E-3 was not what I expected, it was just a 'me too' trying to directly compete with Nikon and Canon, when I was expecting something unique, not better but different -if it was to be the same, then I'd directly use Nikon instead, and that's what I did-), and a curretn GH1 user, a camera I love but that I'd chage for any equivalent with bigger sensor the minute one is available.
History Documentary · 541 weeks ago