Is there any compact full-frame mirrorless camera?

Question

I want to give mirrorless a shot (I have always and only used DSLRs), especially because I'm enthusiastic for street photography and I want something agile when traveling. I'm also a time-lapse fan.

I see that Sony a7s is full-frame (never had one, would like to try!), but I see also many people (e.g., here) complain that big lenses make it big as a DSLR.

I found also the Fujifilm X-T3 very interesting, it looks more compact when using lenses (is it?) and well-reviewed, but it's not full frame and doesn't seem so good for timelapses (or is it?).

Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion (even if it looks perfect for street photography).

What do you think about this? Are any valid alternatives for what I am looking for?

Answer 1

I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.

I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)

If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.

You say:

Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion

Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.

You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.

All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.

Answer 2

It would be helpful for you to rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Priorities cannot be equally important by the definition. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.

Size and Weight

Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 

FujiFilm X-T2    507g
FujiFilm X-T20   383g

Sony A7S         489g
Sony A7S II      627g

Sony A7          474g
Sony A7 II       599g
Sony A7 III      650g

While it is possible for full-frame cameras to be made smaller and lighter, it is unlikely to happen any time soon because:

• Sony has been increasing the weight of the A7 line with each generation, though the size has remained about the same.
• FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame.

• New cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.

  Canon EOS R      660g
  Nikon Z6/Z7      675g
  

Lens Size

Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type.

• FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
• There is currently no 24-70/2.8 lens in FujiFilm's lineup, but if there were, it would be about the same size as all the other 24-70/2.8 lenses.

Crop-sensor kit lenses tend to be smaller than full-frame kit lenses because they have different specs. When the aperture is kept about the same, the size of the lens will increase with the focal length. (It's pretty much because of the definition of aperture.)

• MFT kit lenses are typically 14-42/3.5-5.6.
• APS-C kit lenses tend to be 18-55/3.5-5.6.
• Full-frame kit lenses tend to be 24-70/4 or 24-105/4.

Fast, constant-aperture zooms are large because they need to be. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.

Answer 3

Keep in mind that any claims of compactness apply only to the camera body.

Due to focal length being... well... focal length, the body/lense combination has to be the same length. A 100mm focal length lense, for example, needs 100mm between the point of convergence and the sensor. If the camera body is, say, 2mm narrower because it is mirrorless, the lense has to compensate by getting 2mm longer. If it doesn't, it the lense doesn't work anymore.

This is also a good time to think about the ergonomics. I started photography in the film era, and camera bodies at that time were more compact - take a look at a Canon AE-1 for example. With a zoom or a telephoto on the front, they became unbalanced and there was a whole industry selling grips to make life easier. Camera bodies got bigger for a reason! They are easier to hold.

For these reasons, I am not convinced that a mirrorless body + a longer lense is going to give you the "something agile when traveling" you are looking for. For that, you need a smaller sensor which will give you a more compact body and more compact lenses.

Answer 4

Having picked up a Nikon Z6 just last weekend, I can tell you this: It's amazing how light it is, and in every spec and test I've been able to find, or run myself, it outshines the Sony A7 III. And the weight and dimensions are identical to the Z7 (the tradeoff between the two being that the Z7 has a higher mp, but slower max FPS, and the Z6 has a smaller mp, but faster FPS).

I've been shooting with it for only about a week now, and the gigantic upgrade over my Nikon d800 is readily apparent every minute I'm using it.

Answer 5

Canon has just announced the new Canon EOS RP mirrorless camera last month. It’s the smallest and lightest full-frame EOS camera ever made.

the EOS R measures 5.3×3.9×3.3in (135.8×98.3×84.4mm) and weighs 23.2oz (660g).

Answer 6

I think the combination of these three might get close to being compact, full frame and mirrorless:

• Canon EOS RP, $1300, 485 g
• RF-EF adapter, $100, 125 g, 24mm
• Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens, $180, 130 g, 23mm

Total weight 740 g; not sure if you call that "compact".

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a native RF mount pancake lens. Some day, I guess, such a lens will become available, and that day you could say there's a compact full frame mirrorless camera.

If you accept APS-C, the two will be lightweight and compact:

• Canon EOS M100, $450, 302 g
• Canon 22mm f/2 pancake lens, $230, 105 g, 24mm

Total weight 407 g. But, that is not full frame.