# EF-M 11-22 / 4-5.6 IS STM - officially announced



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/06/canon-announces-ef-m-11-22mm-f4-5-6-is-stm-image-stabilised-wide-angle-zoom-for-eos-m
Yes it's small. And it has IS. And list price is 399,- USD. 
But it's not constant aperture f/4. 
It is not as wide, not as bright but same weight and not a lot smaller than Sony NEX 10-18/4.0
* Canon 11-22mm F4-5.6 220 gram 61 x 58 mm (D)
* Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gram 70 x 63.5 mm (D)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-efm-11-22-4-5p6-is-stm
"Canon is making grand claims for the 11-22mm's optical quality, and saying that its 12 element / 9 group design will offer significantly better image quality than the (already well-regarded) EF-S 10-22mm."

Wait and see ... IF true, it demonstrates that Canon can make and sell an excellent APS-C UWA-Zoom including IS for a list price of € 399. And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> ...And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are.



Or a lack of understanding of lens design by people with that opinion...  Small image circle + less retro focus in the design because of the shorter flange distance means a cheaper lens (the latter is why the EF 50/1.8 is so much cheaper than the EF 35/2). 

Although Canon could also be taking a loss leader approach to get people to but into the M system (possible but not likely, I'd say).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

Build quality of 35 vs 50 is also a factor.

Decent pricing for the M UWA. I'll stick with my 11-16 though as I need the f2.8. And besides, the second you put any zoom lens on any mirrorless camera, you've lost the primary advantage of mirrorless systems. Canon are taking the rip a bit of late, the pricing of the IS versions of the venerable 24 2.8 and 28 2.8 are a point in case.

At least M isn't dead. As many have wrongly predicted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Build quality of 35 vs 50 is also a factor.



Actually, I was referring to the EF 50/1.8, not the more cheaply built 50/1.8 II. The former was equivalent in build to the 35/2 (metal mount, etc.), and cost close to 50% less.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Build quality of 35 vs 50 is also a factor.
> ...


Ah the old little primes, I have both the 35f/2 and 50f/1.8 MkI and they're still a great team of little primes that'll fit in any bag 

Back on topic


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Build quality of 35 vs 50 is also a factor.
> ...



I stand corrected, I think. Curious though, given that they haven't made the mark I 50mm f1.8 in over 22 years.

_Actually_ the 50mm f1.8 mk1 and 35mm f2.0 were only produced concurrently for around 2 months, October to December 1990, when the 50mm f1.8 II was launched.

Maybe it was this small detail and your use of the present tense when you said "...the latter _*is*_ why the EF 50/1.8 _*is*_ so much cheaper than the EF 35/2.." that made me think you were talking about the present version of the 50mm f1.8. 

_Actually_, you would have been clearer writing "...the latter _*was*_ why the EF 50/1.8 _*was*_ so much cheaper than the EF 35/2.."

But I apologise in any case.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are.
> ...



If they wanted, Canon could sell M-pancakes at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake - with excellent IQ and "good enough for me" build quality - and still make tons of money. 

And for € 399 they could just as well have built an EF-M 11-22 IS with a constant f/4 aperture. All the difference would have been a slightly larger front element and a 62 filter thread instead of 55. 

But lets wait what image quality the 11-22 will really deliver. And as long as there is no adequately performing EOS-M body, I am not interested anyways.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



If they wanted, Canon could sell the EF 600mm f/4L IS II at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake. Or they could sell actual pancakes made from batter for thousands of dollars. If they wanted. Whatever. They're going to charge what they think the market will bear, and if you don't like the price, don't buy it. Oh wait you're not interested, so why do you even care?


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 6, 2013)

Lookign forward to seeing some reviews of this lens... if it is as good or better than the 10-22, combined with the 2.3x AF increase in the M certainly makes an appealing combo.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> If they wanted, Canon could sell M-pancakes at prices very similar to the ultra-compact FF-capable EF 40/2.8 pancake - with excellent IQ and "good enough for me" build quality - and still make tons of money.
> 
> And for € 399 they could just as well have built an EF-M 11-22 IS with a constant f/4 aperture. All the difference would have been a slightly larger front element and a 62 filter thread instead of 55.
> 
> But lets wait what image quality the 11-22 will really deliver. And as long as there is no adequately performing EOS-M body, I am not interested anyways.



And a 62mm front element would have retracted into the barrel how? If they make the barrel wider and longer, then it has little advantage over EF-S/EF designs. Canon favored compactness for this design, and I think it's right for the target market. What would a constant f/4 do for you? 3 stops of IS will more than offset the decreased shutter speed, and if you need shallower DOF, then the lenses are a lot bigger (i.e. Tokina 11-16), and your better off using FF anyway.


----------



## zim (Jun 6, 2013)

ok maybe it's just me but doesn't this lens look like it's straight out of the Sigma 'art' design look.... very nice


----------



## traveller (Jun 6, 2013)

As always when Canon release anything, the naysayers get another chance to vent their spleens! There are some great lines going around at the moment: 

"But it's not constant aperture f/4. It is not as wide, not as bright but same weight and not a lot smaller than Sony NEX 10-18/4.0" 

Are we also neglecting to mention that it is nearly half the price? Oh no.. Wait.. You're not: 

"...it demonstrates that Canon can make and sell an excellent APS-C UWA-Zoom including IS for a list price of € 399. And how grossly overpriced most of Canon's EF-S and EF lenses really are."

Talk about difficult to please, how about if Canon gave you one for free? I bet you'd still find something to moan about.


----------



## clicstudio (Jun 6, 2013)

*Can't shoot the world at 4.5-5.6....*

You can't really shoot the world at 4.5-5.6... Maybe during the day.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

*Re: Can't shoot the world at 4.5-5.6....*



clicstudio said:


> You can't really shoot the world at 4.5-5.6... Maybe during the day.



This is why I'll stick with my 11-16 f2.8.

That said: the 10-22, Sigmas 8-16 & 10-20 and 12-24 all have medium and variable apertures (I know there is the f3.5 version of the 10-20, but anyway..) so Canon are really no worse off than the competition, in price or spec.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jun 6, 2013)

i like this. if the image quality is really on par with the 10-22 ef-s than this is a real winner at 400 bucks and a lot smaller. with the 2.3 faster AF potentially coming, the M series is starting to sound a lot more tempting. I just wish Canon would just make a full frame eos-M.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 6, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> i like this. if the image quality is really on par with the 10-22 ef-s than this is a real winner at 400 bucks and a lot smaller. with the 2.3 faster AF potentially coming, the M series is starting to sound a lot more tempting.


+1


EchoLocation said:


> I just wish Canon would just make a full frame eos-M.


I think we will see full frame mirror less cameras within a year or 2 at most ... just my gut feeling.


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 6, 2013)

*Re: Can't shoot the world at 4.5-5.6....*



clicstudio said:


> You can't really shoot the world at 4.5-5.6... Maybe during the day.



It is aimed at landscape photographers. IS helps with getting additional light especially if it is 4 stops on a light kit.


----------



## hmmm (Jun 6, 2013)

We only had three days advance notice of this via rumor. It looks like Canon is getting better at keeping secrets. 

This lens looks like a nice step forward in building an M- ecosystem.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

Old IS debate.

But it doesn't stop subject motion or even camera shake blur at very slow shutters. So 4 stops on an effective 16mm lens. Think you'll get sharp shots at 10mm and 1s handheld?

Theoretically possible using the 1/focal length rule with 4 stops applied.

I don't like IS much.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm a bit skeptical that the traditional 1/focal length rule applies to these mirrorless cameras with no viewfinder. I know that when I try to use live view on any of my DSLRs handheld I lose a 'stop' or two of stability due to the loss of the third contact point at the viewfinder.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 6, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I think we will see full frame mirror less cameras within a year or 2 at most ... just my gut feeling.



Not in a compact format like the EOS-M you won't - maybe a full sized DSLR style mirrorless, but there would need to be another full range of EF lenses to make a EOS-M as a full frame because of the flange distance issues.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 6, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I think we will see full frame mirror less cameras within a year or 2 at most ... just my gut feeling.
> ...



+1. If the M is any indication, the transition from EF to EF mirrorless will take years.


----------



## noncho (Jun 6, 2013)

Seems good lens, but I would be really happy with 12 2.8 + 22 2 + 100 2 combination for this system.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

noncho said:


> Seems good lens, but I would be really happy with 12 2.8 + 22 2 + 100 2 combination for this system.



I wish manufacturers would do this. Keep em prime, keep em compact.

A collapsable 50 or 60 would actually do me over a 100 (although 100 f2 is lovely on my aps-c slrs)


----------



## JoeDavid (Jun 6, 2013)

What Canon may be saying by releasing this lens alone is that the rumored new EOS-M body is no where in sight. Otherwise, if it was close, I'd expect them to announce at the same time...


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Seems good lens, but I would be really happy with 12 2.8 + 22 2 + 100 2 combination for this system.
> ...



YES!

Canon, give me an EOS-M body with a built-in EVF and give me selection of primes!

I'd love to see something like a 10mm f/2.8 IS...

Also, for those decrying IS on a wide-angle. This is a godsend for those of us that dabble in video and aren't always able to use a tripod/afford-advanced-stabilization. And who wouldn't want to to get some creamy waterfall shots without having to use a tripod? ;0


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 6, 2013)

I find three things very interesting and enticing about this new lens:

1) The size
2) The very reasonable price (a fraction of the cost of 10-22mm or 17-40mm)
3) The [seemingly] good build quality, this stuck out to me especially (courtesy of DP Review, http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-efm-11-22-4-5p6-is-stm/2):



> The 11-22mm bears more than a passing resemblance to Canon's EF-M 18-55mm kit zoom, and shares all of the same design cues. So *the entire 'skin' of the barrel is made of metal, including the zoom and focus rings* which have finely-patterned grips. The mount is metal, and the extending portion of the barrel is plastic. Both zoom and focus rings operate satisfyingly smoothly - the overall impression is of a nicely-made product.



All the EF-M lenses so far have a metal barrel and metal mount, this seems to indicate that Canon will not be producing cheaply-made lenses for this camera system. And the prices for these lenses are very reasonable. Bravo, Canon, bravo.

Now let's all discuss what Canon will do to fill the following segments in EF-M mount:
- Telephoto zoom
- 'Fast 50' (or fast 35, as the case may be)
- Macro
- Fisheye
- TS-M Tilt-shift (although I'm not sure the flange distance would work, nor would Canon want to step on the toes of their $1200-2500 line of TS-E lenses)

If Canon produces a fisheye and fast 35mm for the EF-M mount before the EF-S mount, that will speak volumes for its support of the mirrorless format and market. What will also speak volumes are the huge numbers of APS-C DSLR owners that have patiently waited for the same thing for their mount since it was created nearly a decade ago (March 2003).


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 6, 2013)

Can't really see the specials being brought to market by Canon, what I can imagine though, are a fast normal prime something in the 35-40mm region with f1.4 glass, a telephoto 55-150mm perhaps, plus a do it all 18-100mm perhaps. I'm hopeful that Lensbaby bring out a mount, that will feed a small niche market of selective focus, fisheye and perhaps even follow the micro 4/3rds example of tilt shift !

Other than that, I eventually see a three body lineup, entry (plastic body), mid (where the EOS-M is now) and higher end (slightly bigger body, evf, perhaps even tilt screen and built in wifi/gps.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 6, 2013)

LOALTD said:


> Also, for those decrying IS on a wide-angle. This is a godsend for those of us that dabble in video and aren't always able to use a tripod/afford-advanced-stabilization. And who wouldn't want to to get some creamy waterfall shots without having to use a tripod? ;0



Em, that would be me then.

I shoot video professionally, and I always use a camera support of some description, these vary depending on the shoot circumstances, some of solutions are 'pricey' like a dedicated video tripod, some are simple and portable and inexpensive, like a monopod or superclamp, for run and gun the cvp sm-1 is proving a minor hit with me, although you'll need a camera with a flip out screen to make the most use of it, and this is very modestly priced. I've always meant to buy a 'pod', you know the bean bag with the tripod screw, and these cost around £8.

IS looks great on the screen because the screen is small. But it can induce sea sickness on a large screen as the frame drifts. Support means supported movements as well as just anti-shake, and unsupported movements (as you get with IS) are often as amateurish looking as wobbly footage.

Each to their own, of course, I've detailed what works for me, and IS just doesn't. Or at least, isn't worth the extra cash when I'm already supporting my kit in other ways (which don't always play nice with IS)

Broad church, horses for courses etc.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 7, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/06/canon-announces-ef-m-11-22mm-f4-5-6-is-stm-image-stabilised-wide-angle-zoom-for-eos-m
> Yes it's small. And it has IS. And list price is 399,- USD. _(Nope)_
> But it's not constant aperture f/4.
> It is not as wide, not as bright but same weight and not a lot smaller than Sony NEX 10-18/4.0
> ...



Just for some clarification, 399 Euros = $528. Just sayin'...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Just for some clarification, 399 Euros = $528. Just sayin'...



Just for some additional clarification, that may be how a currency converter works, but that's not how Canon's global pricing works. It's very common for a lens to have the same numerical value list price in $ and €.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 7, 2013)

Don't know if this was mentioned previously, but I just saw this minor detail in DPreview's preview of the lens:



> We're told the lens isn't going to be available in the USA, at least for now.



For those of us "stateside", I hope at least the firmware will be offered. The lens I don't mind so much.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Just for some clarification, 399 Euros = $528. Just sayin'...
> ...



+1

We get robbed at every turn here in the UK. My white M is actually Grey. Is is my Black 7D, Black T3i and cream 70-200. At some point you just have enough.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Just for some clarification, 399 Euros = $528. Just sayin'...
> ...



Bummer for Europe. Is that _including_ or _before_ VAT?


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 7, 2013)

brad-man said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



If it's anything like product anouncements from other companies, that should include VAT already.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Bummer for Europe. Is that _including_ or _before_ VAT?



Yes. "Recommended Retail Prices" must be quoted inclusive of VAT [~ "Sales Tax"] in EU-countries. 
Applicable VAT standard rates as of May 2013 are between 15% (Luxembourg) and 27% (Hungary) depending on country. Typical rates are in the 20-22% range. 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 7, 2013)

Uk equivalent likely to be $625us.

Or more like $400 if you are prepared to wait a few days and buy from somebody like DigitalRev.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 7, 2013)

*Re: Can't shoot the world at 4.5-5.6....*



paul13walnut5 said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > You can't really shoot the world at 4.5-5.6... Maybe during the day.
> ...



or with tripod (or mini-pod or gorrilla pod) unless you're shooting moving things which I think isn't the primary intention of the 11-22 and of EOS-M given its crappy AF.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 7, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> or with tripod (or mini-pod or gorrilla pod) unless you're shooting moving things which I think isn't the primary intention of the 11-22 and of EOS-M given its crappy AF.



Sorry, you've lost me. I'd use the tokina for it's wider aperture and greater flexibility over exposure (handy for fixed shutter video) I use a tripod or support almost always, for stills and for video, and I'd use them no matter the lens.

EOS M AF isn't all that crappy if you set it up properly and understand how AF works. For video I wouldn't use AF ever. The massive depth of field of UWA lenses is mitigating. You could probably set half hyperfocal, certainly towards the 11mm end, and get away with it if your subjects more than a couple of meters from your lens.


----------



## steliosk (Jun 7, 2013)

its obvious canon doesn't want to hit the market of mirrorless making making a very late entry and making such toys.

Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gram
Canon 11-22mm F4-5.6 220 gram


alright the canon might be cheaper, but the sony is better and you pay what you get.!

Sony nex is the king of mirroless, PLUS sony nex can take EF lenses with a converter and support AF!!

So i wouldn't bother with any canon eos-m stuff.

The ef-m 22mm 2.0 is interesting though, i wish there would be an EF version as well! Pancakes are useful. Toys are not.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 7, 2013)

steliosk said:


> alright the canon might be cheaper, but the sony is better and you pay what you get.!
> 
> Sony nex is the king of mirroless, PLUS sony nex can take EF lenses with a converter and support AF!!
> 
> ...



Can you give me a link to your lens charts, or real world examples comparing the the Sony 10-18 and the Canon 11-28? Interested to know how you reach your definitive conclusion about the canon lens that I thought had only just been announced.

Sony N cameras are a more mature product, the M is generation 1. You might not like the specific M camera, but to write it off as a toy, is in my opinion, short of the mark.

I remember folk knocking Canon for being slow to launch an AF camera. 25 years on, here we all are, they held off and got it right and led the market for most of those 25 years.

The thing that would put me off the Sony N series is the coalition between Sony and Olympus... will both m43 and N continue to be supported? With my M I've got the brilliant little pancake, and my EF lenses which I had already and will work on any EOS camera, even if they stop making the M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gram
> ...


+1. Pretty assinine to make a pronouncement like that with no supporting data. 

Here are the MTF curves...

Sony 10-18mm






Canon 11-22mm


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2013)

that 11-22 MTF chart indeed looks a lot better than the EF-S 10-22 ... http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200501/200501-02.html

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 7, 2013)

Would be nice if Canon makes some 11mm f2.8 or f4 in pancake style. 

Small body goes with small len :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Would be nice if Canon makes some 11mm f2.8 or f4 in pancake style.
> 
> Small body goes with small len :


+1


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 12, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Also, for those decrying IS on a wide-angle. This is a godsend for those of us that dabble in video and aren't always able to use a tripod/afford-advanced-stabilization. And who wouldn't want to to get some creamy waterfall shots without having to use a tripod? ;0
> ...



I’m a hobbyist videographer at best, but almost all of my video is taken during alpine climbing, so there is no real time to setup anything, nor does anyone want to carry more weight than necessary! My partners already think I’m insane for using a DSLR instead of a point-and-shoot. The 28mm f/2.8 IS allows me to hand-hold shots that look like they were on a monopod.

Maybe someday a climbing company will give me a Sherpa team to rig and carry some stabilization but..until then…IS please!

here is something I threw together from a recent trip: https://vimeo.com/68106828


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 13, 2013)

Do you use a walking pole?, the pods can be filled with anything. Including snow.

IS is not for me. I'm glad it's for you.

I'm right. You're right. Horses for Courses or Sherpas for helpers.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Do you use a walking pole?, the pods can be filled with anything. Including snow.
> 
> IS is not for me. I'm glad it's for you.
> 
> I'm right. You're right. Horses for Courses or Sherpas for helpers.



I do use a trekking pole! But only for approaches! Technical ice/rock sections are where I'm interested in getting footage the most usually. Someone on vimeo told me to get one of these to help with steadiness, do you have any experience?

http://store.zacuto.com/target-shooter/


pods? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, please elaborate?

I like that saying, I have never heard it before, where's it from?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 13, 2013)

Pods:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/jessops/the-pod-camera-support-3100/show.html


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 13, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Pods:
> 
> http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/jessops/the-pod-camera-support-3100/show.html



Ah yes, I've heard of "bean bags" before! I'll have to get one of these for sure.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 14, 2013)

A gopro might be a better solution. Pretty much everything sharp, can be worn so stabilised to an extent...


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 14, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> A gopro might be a better solution. Pretty much everything sharp, can be worn so stabilised to an extent...



Not sure if I want to be known as a GoProBro


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 14, 2013)

Behind all the razzamataz they are solid little cameras. No exposure controls to fumble with, no extra supports to carry. Good IQ. Modestly priced.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 14, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Behind all the razzamataz they are solid little cameras. No exposure controls to fumble with, no extra supports to carry. Good IQ. Modestly priced.



Definitely going to try one out! I'm going on an 8-day climbing trip to the Bugaboos, it will probably be very challenging to use a DSLR all the time as it's pretty much 100% technical rock-climbing. A friend is going to let me borrow a GoPro, I'll probably try to integrate the footage in. 

Do you have one? Any GoPro tips in general? Do you usually shoot at 60fps? I'm thinking that would be great for slow-mo options, on the other hand I dont' want to be continually taking my helmet off to adjust settings! Also, I'm thinking 60fps is going to hog a ton of SD space...what am I saying though, there is no way in hell it could be worse than RAW video!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm in a PAL region, so I tend to use 25 or 50 fps, but the theory is largely the same.

I prefer to shoot 1080x1920 at 25p as this intercuts with my DSLR footage, I've yet to do a project entirely in GoPro as I'm not a surfer or skateboarder.

I have the original HD Hero and the HD Hero 2, and the frame rate is tied to the resolutions, so you only get 50fps (or 60 for you) in 720 mode, so the data rate kind of balances out.

The Hero2 has a ProTune mode which gives much higher data rates if you are happy juggling around with grading etc. I think the latest top spec version offers 60fps at 1080, you would need to check the website though.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Jul 5, 2013)

I use a GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition as a fourth camera for video shoots.

You can shoot at 60fps at 1080 and it amazes me how much footage you will get on a Class 10 (has to be C10 if using ProTune) 32G Micro SD card. I use SanDisk Mobile Ultra UHS-I Micro SD SDHC 32GB which are insanely cheap.

In this, the drummer is being shot with the GoPro (1080P @ 25FPS). Admittedly I have done a lot of noise reduction in post, but this was a stupidly dark gig. 

http://youtu.be/rPvIGg5Q7P0?t=20s

Slowmo at 720p @ 120FPS is excellent but WVGA @240FPS is only worthwhile with great light and the right source material. 

Bloody great fun either way.


----------



## nubu (Jul 5, 2013)

I read all the time GoPro but was hoping for an update on the 11-22 shipping date..


----------



## nubu (Jul 14, 2013)

Just got the e-mail from amazon.de that I will receive my 11-22 on Wednesday! Hurray!!!! Guess what, we have Robbie Williams tickets for Wednesday evening and on the ticket it says: "professional cameras not allowed". Perfect for my new little "m" looking as harmless as it gets...


----------



## nubu (Jul 16, 2013)

Nice built and handling! The beauty was delivered this morning here in Vienna, Austria. Now let's get out...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 16, 2013)

nubu said:


> Nice built and handling! The beauty was delivered this morning here in Vienna, Austria. Now let's get out...



Post some pics


----------



## nubu (Jul 17, 2013)

Here are the first images I could capture last evening: developed in DPP, neutral style, noise and sharpening=0, no vignetting or geometrical corrections, DLO data not available anyway by now. 3 focal setting at two apertures, the naming explains it anyway:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23832864/EFM11_22.zip


----------

