# Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 27, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16572"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16572">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We were alerted to the fact that Canon USA has removed the EOS M camera from their web site. They still list two of the 3 EOS M lenses, but there doesn’t appear to be any reference at all to the EOS M camera.</p>
<p>Are we going to see a mirrorless from Canon back in North America? At this point, I wouldn’t think so. Unless they completely revamp the product concept, it seems to be a lame duck system for Canon shooters.</p>
<p>There’s the possibility we see an EF based mirrorless system, maybe an even smaller SL1 style DSLR. I love the SL1 and I think removing the prism and introducing a few more pancake style lenses with an EF mount would be welcomed.  I’m speculating, as I haven’t heard anything to actually support such a concept.</p>
<p>Or maybe Canon is going to concentrate on the prosumer level of cameras and lenses, as that appears to be where the money is for companies in this industry at this time.</p>
<p><em>thanks Tom</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Dylan777 (May 27, 2014)

40mm pancake is a great lens. I'm sure Canon shooters won't mind adding few more to their kit. UWA pancake - like 19mm would be awesome.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 27, 2014)

meh. The EOS-M was replaced last December by the M2. this should be no surprise if canon USA doesn't have plans currently to distribute the EOS-M2.

CR .. you're mixing canon and canon usa up in this post / announcement quite a bit. canon USA doesn't have plans. canon as afar as we know are still going ahead with EOS-M. Huge difference.

it's also still listed on Canon Canada.

So perhaps change also your "north america" part too - unless there was a huge geopolitical change here after I went to bed last night.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 27, 2014)

Still listed on th UK Canon site...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

After burning stock with insanely low prices, it seemed inevitable. I would love to mirrorless options fully compatible with EF / EF-S lenses. 
Could be the size of the current SL1, or even lower, accompanied by new pancake lens EF-S, and would make great success.


----------



## D. (May 27, 2014)

Bummer...I really like the EOS M despite its limitations. I was hoping ver. 3 would be released in the US with the 70D sensor, improved AF, EVF and some new lenses.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 27, 2014)

*Hello Kitty Kameras don't sell well in the USA!* There should have been a *Pro M* from the start. Canon could have given us an A6000, an X-Ti, a GH4, or an OM-D E-M1, but they choose not too.

I've been using Canon cameras/lenses for over twenty years -- but no more. Cameras are just tools, and for me, Canon doesn't make the best tools any more. I'm keeping my *Full Frame Film* Elan 7n, but all of the DSLRs have already left the building.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 27, 2014)

D. said:


> Bummer...I really like the EOS M despite its limitations. I was hoping ver. 3 would be released in the US with the 70D sensor, improved AF, EVF and some new lenses.



it could be, but considering that M2 was released as regional only canon usa taking it down since it's no longer in production probably makes sense.


----------



## dcm (May 27, 2014)

The M and all three lenses are still on the Canon site in Canada.


----------



## Etienne (May 27, 2014)

I could go for a mirrorless FF, even with EF mount. There are already some nice little lenses: 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS, 40 2.8 pancake, 50 1.4, 85 1.8

OR bring on an EOS-M Pro , but don't compromise. Make it the best you can deliver, and price it accordingly


----------



## weixing (May 27, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, the only advantage of mirrorless camera is the smaller size. By decreasing the price of entry level DSLR, the entry level lenses, entry level full frame DSLR, making smaller DSLR and lenses and making good high end compact camera (G16 and G1X Mk2), I think Canon had successfully "limit" the grow of mirrorless market share... only those who want a mirrorless camera or those who really need a small interchangeable camera will go for the mirrorless camera now. 

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Etienne (May 27, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> IMHO, the only advantage of mirrorless camera is the smaller size. By decreasing the price of entry level DSLR, the entry level lenses, entry level full frame DSLR, making smaller DSLR and lenses and making good high end compact camera (G16 and G1X Mk2), I think Canon had successfully "limit" the grow of mirrorless market share... only those who want a mirrorless camera or those who really need a small interchangeable camera will go for the mirrorless camera now.
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> ...



Small size and weight can be really important, as long as ergonomics and IQ is still good.
In fact, size and weight are the only reasons I'm interested in mirrorless.


----------



## bholliman (May 27, 2014)

This may or may not be the end of the EOS-M line for Canon USA, time will tell. Personally, I think its a great little complementary camera system, but Canon probably is losing money on every sale under $400.

I'm hoping Canon does continue to develop the M or another line of a really compact camera's with APS-C sensors. Whether the future design is mirrorless or a small DSLR similar to the SL1, I don't really care. I think there is a market for a small camera system that is compatible with Canon EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## Over40yearsofCanon (May 27, 2014)

D. said:


> Bummer...I really like the EOS M despite its limitations. I was hoping ver. 3 would be released in the US with the 70D sensor, improved AF, EVF and some new lenses.


+1 ^this
I've been holding off on a small mirrorless camera so I can use Canon's _flash_ system, actually. I have several Canon wireless Speedlites that I distribute around a room when I have small indoor events, and they work very well for getting even light front-to-back throughout the room, but my SLR (5D+grip+L lenses) is large and heavy. The focussing speed is what lets me catch fleeting moments and expressions; sure the Rebels are smaller, but the prospect of phase-detect focussing speeds coupled with a smaller mount (and correspondingly smaller lenses, body, etc.) is _very_ appealing. (Little cameras are much less intimidating and attention-getting, and tend to get more natural reactions, if they're noticed at all.) Add in an EF mount adapter (for occasional use) makes it much easier to stay in the Canon family. I've been visiting CR frequently largely on the hope of an imminent M3 announcement or even rumour. (That, and an _old_ hope of the return of ECF... but that's another topic. :-\)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 27, 2014)

Canon has made no secret of the poor mirrorless sales in the USA and Europe, and the likelihood that we will not be seeing them. 

The sales figures seem to support this, mirrorless sales have dropped drastically in the USA and Europe, while holding up in Asia. Its expensive to stock and distribute a camera system, and when times are tough and dollars are tight, dropping poor selling products is going to happen.

This is no reflection on the camera itself, its just that American buyers have small cameras on their phone, and want something big to get professional images. Obviously, to those who are informed, that's not true, but the buyers dictate what sellers will offer.
I'd like to see a 5D MK IV with dual pixel sensor that is mirrorless, as long as its big and looks professional, it will sell.

The other thing that sells is a wide zoom. The SX50 is not only a good camera, but a huge profit maker for canon.

Because Americans have proven that they will pay for more, we might even see more mp in a camera. computers are now able to handle the load, but tablets and smartphones might have a issue with 200mb files.


----------



## mvrbnsn (May 27, 2014)

I really like the M and wish Canon would continue it in the US. I'm not a pro, just an avid shooter; I love the size, form factor, light weight and touch screen. 

As recently as yesterday a guy with a a large DSLR stopped me and commented on what a cool camera I had--noticing the size and the smaller lens, mentioned liking a lighter weight camera. 

Maybe it will take a while to really catch on but I still think there is ongoing potential for the smaller high quality camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 27, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> CR .. you're mixing canon and canon usa up in this post / announcement quite a bit. canon USA doesn't have plans. canon as afar as we know are still going ahead with EOS-M. Huge difference.



OK, yet another wild guess. First, Canon USA does indeed have plans. They control the marketing of Canon products in the USA, which includes product positioning relative to their marketplace and setting prices. Effectively, they sit between Canon corporate and US customers. I've worked for multinationals. It is not a good idea to ignore the local marketing divisiions.

Consider the following possibility: (1) At long last, Canon USA has cleared the stockpiled inventory of M-bodies and kits. (2) Canon is planning their M-system "relaunch", whatever that means, in August, in time for Photokina. (3) To provide an M-system body for the next three months, they would have to import M2 bodies and kits, actions which incur substantial marketing and support costs. And, oh yes, they would have to charge prices that the US market finds unacceptable.

So what does Canon USA do? Exactly what it appear they have done. CR thinks (2) above won't happen. I think it will. We'll know soon enough.


----------



## Quackator (May 27, 2014)

I'm pro, and initially skipped the M because of 
the discrepancy of AF performance and price.

Now that it dropped so dramatically in price, 
buying it was a no-brainer.

And wow - I can't remember having had so much 
fun with a camera ever before.

Unless Canon really bogs it with a hypothetical M3,
I would be sure to buy it for any price within reason 
or at least below 1000 dollars, body only.

And I would definitely buy a 55-250 IS STM in M mount.

Hear me, Canon?


----------



## unadog (May 27, 2014)

Quackator said:


> Now that it dropped so dramatically in price,
> buying it was a no-brainer.
> 
> *And wow - I can't remember having had so much
> fun with a camera ever before.*



THIS!

I am a former pro, 30 years out from getting an undergraduate degree in Photography.

I bought 2 EOS M a couple of months ago. It is the first camera that I just pick up and play with every day in at least 10 years. It is just such a great little camera!

I am eagerly looking forward to an EOS M3 with Dual Pixel Auto Focus. I hope we get one soon, probably at Photokina?

The EOS M2 is $660 on eBay direct from Japan. I'd like to see the entry level EOS M at a bit less than that with the 18-55 kit, then I think it would be more of a success in the US. The NEX 6 looks like it is selling pretty well at $525 with the kit lens.

We will see!


----------



## rrcphoto (May 27, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > CR .. you're mixing canon and canon usa up in this post / announcement quite a bit. canon USA doesn't have plans. canon as afar as we know are still going ahead with EOS-M. Huge difference.
> ...



agreed.

the way CR wrote this up though implies that what canon USA does directly impacts canon japan overall - or is canon japan.

The M is out of manufacturing, so it was a matter of time before it disappeared off the regional site lists.


----------



## zlatko (May 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 40mm pancake is a great lens. I'm sure Canon shooters won't mind adding few more to their kit. UWA pancake - like 19mm would be awesome.



Yes! I would love to see more small primes in the EOS system. For example, I love the tiny size of the SL1, but how about some more small lenses for it? Currently there is only one really small lens (the 40mm pancake) and only one EF-S prime (the 60mm macro). It would be cool to have a few EF-S primes, like a 22/2, 55/2 IS or an 85/2 IS. They could be EF too, but would be even smaller with the EF-S image circle. Making them smaller would make them more viable as alternatives to small mirrorless cameras.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 40mm pancake is a great lens. I'm sure Canon shooters won't mind adding few more to their kit. UWA pancake - like 19mm would be awesome.
> ...


Yes, I would buy each of the hypothetical lenses you suggested. I'll imagine beyond:
EF-S 15mm F2.8 STM - $ 400
EF-S 22mm F2 STM - $ 400 
EF-S 30mm F1.8 IS STM - $ 350 
EF-S 55mm F1.8 IS STM - $ 400 
EF-S 90mm F2 IS STM - $ 450 

Dreaming does not cost anything.


----------



## brad-man (May 27, 2014)

So now you're telling me that the EF-M35 and the EF-M55 pancakes that I've been waiting for aren't right around the corner? Well that just sucks...
Hopefully Canon USA is just waiting for Canon Global to release some more lenses and a more versatile body before "relaunching". Two similar basic bodies & three lenses do not a _system_ make.


----------



## AvTvM (May 27, 2014)

What's really missing is a kick-ass M3 with truly tracking-capable AF and top notch EVF and 500 shots battery charge. That would very quickly end the Fuji X-games as well as Sony ex-nex alpha stuff. Not to mention dwarf-sensored micro four-thirds. And it would drive a lot of 1 inch nails into the nikon 1 coffin. 

Can't be that hard, Canon ... Just do it! ;-)


----------



## linus (May 27, 2014)

Being an EOS M shooter I'd be disappointed to learn that Canon has dropped the line in the US or even worse altogether.

But the fact of the M2 not being sold here (it isn't that different from the first one which famously didn't sell that well) or the disappearance of the M from the US site (it is by now I gather not still actively in production [unless maybe to fulfill any outstanding orders]) don't yet convince me that the system has been dropped let alone should be. 

I'm still hoping we'll see an evf version released worldwide over the next year or whatever. By virtue of its image processing and near-native glass (all EOS I mean by adapter) it is still I believe the best mirrorless system out there. Despite lackluster M1 sales and a sluggish mirrorless market right now can you really be the top photo company and not have a mirrorless camera option?


----------



## zlatko (May 27, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Absolutely! All good stuff.

I'd consider an EOS M if it had an EVF like Olympus or Fuji, great autofocus, and if there were a proper M lens line (like the above). In the absence of an EOS M, I'd love to have such a line up of EF-S lenses for the SL1 and for other APS-C cameras.


----------



## zlatko (May 27, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> What's really missing is a kick-ass M3 with truly tracking-capable AF and top notch EVF and 500 shots battery charge. That would very quickly end the Fuji X-games as well as Sony ex-nex alpha stuff. Not to mention dwarf-sensored micro four-thirds. And it would drive a lot of 1 inch nails into the nikon 1 coffin.
> 
> Can't be that hard, Canon ... Just do it! ;-)



Don't underestimate micro 4/3rds or Fuji or Sony. I also use micro 4/3rds and find it quite good and useful. I don't think Canon could "end" any other manufacturer's success just by introducing a good mirrorless camera like the one you describe. However, I do think that Canon could sell quite a lot of mirrorless system cameras if they designed a good one. They have a large base of users that appreciates the EOS system, but sometimes wants something smaller and lighter.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 27, 2014)

zlatko said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...


What prevents EOS-M to dominate the market is the lack of a line of lenses with size and price proper for it. Sony Nex and Fuji X, has a good range of compact lenses, but EOS-M only have 3 (2 in the USA). It would be very easy for Canon to make a M3 with the same sensor 70D, eletronic viewfinder, and longer battery life, but the size and the price would be much higher than the current M. Canon has to decide whether to build a pretty decent line of EF-M lenses, or will completely abandon the idea of ​​mirrorless cameras pocket.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (May 28, 2014)

Was looking for it this weekend and thought I was just not current


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (May 28, 2014)

Just give us a mirrorless EF or EF-S DSLR and the problem is solved. A mirrorless Digital Rebel or even a mirrorless G-series type body with interchangeable lenses would be a big seller in my opinion.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 28, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 40mm pancake is a great lens. I'm sure Canon shooters won't mind adding few more to their kit. UWA pancake - like 19mm would be awesome.
> ...



*For me* the main attraction of mirrorless is the *lack of an optical viewfinder.* When I got my NEX 5n (2011), one of the things that impressed me was the WYSIWYG nature of the screen. Good enough to set exposure. Sometime later, Austin Tx Pro Kirk Tuck, coined the word *pre-chimping*. There is no way I'll ever buy a camera without an EVF. YMMV.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 28, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Don't underestimate micro 4/3rds or Fuji or Sony.



Got that right. For those that think you can't get *good bokeh* with M4/3, check-out Robin Wong's work with a 75mm f/1.8 http://robinwong.blogspot.com *How to Box a Chicken* and *Portrait of a Stranger*, they look good to me.


----------



## jdramirez (May 28, 2014)

Rip. I'm quite fond of my daughter's sl1 and the short 40 combo. 

All things considered, I considered the Canon m, but having to pay for the adapter is what swayed me to do otherwise.


----------



## Phenix205 (May 28, 2014)

I never really liked the EOS-M until I put the 100 2.8L Macro on it. Both were my least used gear and I had been seriously thinking about selling them. This combo is absolutely fantastic for still or near still subjects. You can shoot pretty much from any distance. The APS-C sensor gives you greater working distance for macro. And the all-time live view is great for manual focus.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


+1, it'll be fantastic


----------



## Quackator (May 28, 2014)

About battery life: For longer tripod based video recordings
I have an AC adapter, and 5x 3rd party batteries to go when
I'm out on the road. I paid 38 dollars for the 5 batteries with 
a dedicated charger that can not only charge from mains 
power but also charge from USB and car plug adapter.

I prefer carrying a bunch of small spare batteries over lugging
a bigger camera.

Also, the battery dummy of the AC adapter can be hooked to 
a professional power supply plate like the Lanparte and be 
fueled by either V-mount or Anton/Bauer gold mount batteries.


----------



## bod (May 28, 2014)

Quackator said:


> Now that it dropped so dramatically in price,
> buying it was a no-brainer.
> 
> *And wow - I can't remember having had so much
> ...



+++1

I read the initial EOS M reviews with interest as I had been wanting a camera that dropped in my pocket or bag but delivered high IQ and DSLR functionality with controls that I was familiar with. Sure dubious AF performance in the reviews was not ideal but on the other hand I was not planning to shoot wildlife with it on a long telephoto. The package price in the New Year sales made it a steal with 2 lenses and a flash. So entertained by Surapon's posts on CR I made the purchase (thank you Surapon!) and what fun the EOS M is.

Went on a trip to Nepal on a charity build with Habitat for Humanity and could not take the DSLR and Lenses so gave the EOS M a field trip. Impressed with both the body and the lenses and pleased with the images that I came back with. One reason I purchased the EOS M was to try out the touch screen and I find this really excellent even in bright daylight I rarely encountered issues. I want this functionality in any future body I purchase, loved the ease of positioning AF point with it.

I also experienced that several other keen photographers with me on the trip were really impressed by the small format of the camera and the images from it as regards IQ.

I would a jump at a FF version with EF mount but I will not be parting company with my DSLR and L lenses for many of my photographic activities such as wildlife. What I want out of the EOS M range is small size and portability, IQ and a familiar canon interface. Compatibility with my other Canon Lenses is an obvious plus as regards flexibility.

Curious that so many CR members seem to have the EOS M but it bombed in the US???


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

bod said:



> Curious that so many CR members seem to have the EOS M but it bombed in the US???



Many (most?) of us bought it after the price dropped to $300. Unfortunately, that sort of "fire sale" also sets a precedent. If Canon brings an M3 to the US, how many people will pay full price at launch, versus how many people will _expect_ the price to drop substantially as it did last time?


----------



## AvTvM (May 28, 2014)

bod said:


> Curious that so many CR members seem to have the EOS M but it bombed in the US???



Quite simple: they all purchased it in the fire sale. I do not know anybody who paid the totally absurd initial price of 899 or so for the kit.

Had Canon come out with body+18-55 [even without the speedlite 90EX] priced at 499,- they would have sold quite a few. Possibly enough to get a good initial share of the mirrorless segment and to sell quite a few additional lenses. 

Had Canon come out with a really good, higher end model first ... with EVF + AF performance at or near the top of what was available from competors at launch time ... eg. whatever Panasonic it was in 08/2012 or Nikon 1 or Olympus M5 ... and priced that model at 899 including 18-55 kit lens, they would have sold an even larger number. 

However, Canon decided to come up with a low-end model and asked a high-end price. And luckily we taught them a good lesson: "Customers are NOT stupid."  

Furthermore, Canon decided not to offer the excellent and very modestly (!) priced EF-M 11-22 in the US. So they don't sell any copies of that one either. And they decided not to offer the EOS M2 outside Japan and some Asian countries. So they don't sell any in "balance of world". And they are dragging their feet on a M3 and rather bring a "new", marginally improved itaration of some Rebel DSLR every 6 to 12 months instead of establishing a amrekt-leading presence in the mirrorless segment with a really strong M3. 

Speaking about "shooting oneself in the foot".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> And they are dragging their feet on a M3 and rather bring a "new", marginally improved itaration of some Rebel DSLR every 6 to 12 months instead of establishing a amrekt-leading presence in the mirrorless segment with a really strong M3.
> 
> Speaking about "shooting oneself in the foot".



Most of the dSLRs sold are at the entry level, those 'marginally improved iterations of Rebels' are Canon's bread and butter. Last year, Canon sold around twice as many dSLRs as all the MILCs sold by all manufacturers combined. 

For interchangeable lens cameras, those with reflex mirrors outsell those without mirrors by over 4:1. Considering all digital cameras (P&S, dSLR, and mirrorless), mirrorless cameras account for 10% of the 2013 revenue, dSLRs account for 48% of the 2013 revenue (CIPA stats), with fixed lens cameras making up the balance of 42%. Basically, by pretty much ignoring mirrorless, Canon is concentrating on 90% of the market.

Also worth noting that for Canon, 'ignoring mirrorless' consititues releasing just two models, the EOS M and M2 - and the EOS M (the only one for which we have sales stats) was the #2 selling mirrorless camera in Japan in 2013 (link). The EOS M had 9.2% of the market, putting it just slightly behind the Sony NEX-5R with 11.9% of the market, and ahead of all the individual offerings from Olympus and Panasonic. Japan consitiutes >25% of the worldwide MILC market, so if Canon is going to have a mirrorless line, that's the place for it. The fact that they beat out all the offerings from established MILC brands like Panasonic and Olympus says that Canon delivered what their domestic target market wanted.

I think it's unfortunate that US consumers are far more interested in dSLRs than in MILCs, but that's the reality…and it means anyone who wants an M2, 11-22, and possibly any future M-line releases will have to import them.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 28, 2014)

well I just bought a second EOS M from B&H
had it shipped direct to lifepixel who have done an IR conversion on it
and its on its way to me now

I cant wait to try it out with the 11-22 

with the quality of the EF-M glass its a damn cheap and damn compact IR camera IMO


----------



## tgara (May 28, 2014)

zlatko said:


> However, I do think that Canon could sell quite a lot of mirrorless system cameras if they designed a good one. They have a large base of users that appreciates the EOS system, but sometimes wants something *smaller * and *lighter*.



Absolutely. That's why many of us have chosen the Rebel SL1! It's not mirrorless, but it is certainly smaller and lighter than my 5D3 (hence the SL name). It also works with nearly all my other Canon gear, including my EX270II flash and the GP-E2 GPS unit.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 28, 2014)

Just ordered a 11-22 from Canada. I hope Canon continues the M line, even if it isn't in the US. But prices are better in the US most of the time.


----------



## sdsr (May 28, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> For those that think you can't get *good bokeh* with M4/3, check-out Robin Wong's work with a 75mm f/1.8 http://robinwong.blogspot.com *How to Box a Chicken* and *Portrait of a Stranger*, they look good to me.



And not just that lens - the other m43 primes I have that are long enough to significantly blur the background (Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4, Olympus 45mm 1.8 & Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro), and some of the zooms, create beautifully soft-edged bokeh - as of course do a vast array of other lenses which can be attached to a mirrorless camera via an adapter. The reduced size of the sensor doesn't change the bokeh the lens is capable of, though of course the crop factor affects the relative distances for any particular framing with any particular lens and, thus, the extent to which the background will be out of focus. (I've recently been enjoying using an inexpensive manual Vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro lens on my Olympus OM-D, Sony a6000 and Sony a7r and enjoying the different results from three different sensor sizes.)


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 28, 2014)

Take a look at the X-mount lenses that Fuji released in the last 3 years vs the EF-S/M lenses that Canon have release in the last 3 years.

It's clear that Canon will not make a full range EF-S/EF-M lens line-up in order to protect their EF lens sales. It doesn't matter how good of a mirrorless camera they might make, without showing some indication that they will improve their EF-S/EF-M line-up significantly, there's no point sticking with Canon if what you are after is a high quality compact camera system. Not to mention that both Fuji and EF-S/EF-M are APSC (in fact the Fuji sensor is slightly larger. 1.5x instead of 1.6x).

Better quality, lighter weight, lower price. I have since posted all my Canon gear for sale. What are you waiting for?


----------



## AvTvM (May 28, 2014)

To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.

Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff. 

I'll laugh really hard, when fuji will launch an FF-sensored x-pro body and all those 56/1.2 and 10-24 purchasers will realize that their 1000 euro clunkers will not serve that image circle. Costly paperweights. Overnight.

If canon fails to develop the m system, i'll use it as long as it serves me and then dispose of my 400 euro "investment. No big deal. Althoigh i would prefer canon to be much more serious about mirroless.


----------



## mackguyver (May 28, 2014)

The page is still there, but it's not on the main EOS page


----------



## michi (May 28, 2014)

I also got the EOS M when they were selling them cheap. It's a neat camera, and I was hoping for the wide angle zoom to come to the US. Then when they announced the EOS M 2 was not going to be available here, I decided to give up. I still have the EOS M with the 18-55 zoom and have it laying around the house for quick shots.

I did get the SL1 and absolutely love that camera. With rear button focusing it's nearly like my bigger cameras, but much smaller and more compact. I would love to see a even smaller SL2, would buy it in a heartbeat. I also love being able to use all my normal lenses without adapter.


----------



## zlatko (May 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.
> 
> Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff.
> 
> ...



Why would Fuji be "dead"? Because every Fuji buyer will then become a Canon buyer? Or Sony buyer? Not going to happen. There is room in the mirrorless market for more than one manufacturer. Their are niches for various manufacturers to fill. Canon isn't going to fill all of them, even if they introduce a really good mirrorless camera.

Why would Fuji introduce a FF X-Pro body and turn their X system lenses into paper weights? Again, not going to happen — i.e. not if you mean they'll discontinue their APS-C cameras on the day they introduce a FF body. If they introduce a FF camera, it will not be X-mount. All of their X system lenses will continue to be served by X system cameras. There is simply no chance that they would force all of their customers to full frame.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.
> 
> Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff.
> 
> ...



That's my argument. Even if Canon comes out with a killer M3, it's useless. Because if I want a 35mm lens, I still have to buy this, or this (depends on if it's APS-C or FF).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

I just bought this for $699 for my new Fuji XT-1, half the price, half the weight.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1003764-REG/fujifilm_16405575_xf_23mm_f_1_4_r.html

I just don't understand why Fuji lenses are considered pricey. They are dirty cheap!
Canon 85 1.2, 1025g $2199 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Fuji 56 1.2, 405g, $999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html

It's clear that Canon will not come out with any half decent EF-S or EF-M lenses. I have been in the EF-S ecosystem for over 5 years. Other than the flimsy and plasticy 17-55, they have came up with NOTHING. I just don't see how they can replicate the lens line-up that Fuji has on the EF-S or the EF-M side at the rate Fuji have churn out these excellent lenses.

If you are happy with your 2lb 1D Mk X, good for you. If you are into small cameras with quality small lenses, Canon will not go there! Canon have made it very clear based on their product offering in the last 5 years.

And, Fuji would be stupid to go FF. FF is from the days of films. In the digital age, there's no reason why we have be nostalgic about sensor sizes. There is 0 indication that Fuji will go FF, and if any indication they have reinforced their commitment to the X-mount by releasing amazing lenses at a rate that we have never seen before from any other manufacturer.
http://www.fujirumors.com/x-pro2-will-feature-aps-c-sensor-trusted-source/

DSLR will remain in the realm of Pros. If anything, Mirrorless cameras will be killed the day that quality lenses are available for the iPhone, and the iPhone sensor is able to achieve as low noise as a APS-C camera of today (won't take more than a few years if Moores Law has it's way).
http://seek4news.com/news/apple-patent-reveals-magnetic-iphone-camera-lenses-detachable-back

FYI, I did buy a EOS-M with both the lenses (22mm and the kit). Battery, AF and control is just very sub-par. I had to go back to my 7D in a week. I actually bought a 50mm 1.4 for it's light weight and hope to use it with the SL1/2 down the road. I then picked up the SL1 in a store, looked through the tiny viewfinder, along with the inability to calibrate the AF. I was disgusted.

Eventually I was introduced to the Fuji XT-1. I later picked it up and side by side compared it with the SL1. It's about the same weight, but the XT-1 gives you every premium feature that you'd dream of from a DSLR under $2000. AF is always spot on, even at 1.4 aperture. The EVF is even larger than that of the 5D mk3. And the glass line-up is exactly what I have wanted for many many years from Canon EF-S, which they have never made. Not to mention their track record of continual improvement. Willingness to issue FW upgrade to older cameras to match up to the performance of their newest flagship. Not holding back in fear of internal cannibalization. They listen to their user and try to provide the best solution. Unlike Canon who holds back every FW feature in attempt to gouge you to buy their high-end models (Focus calibration for the Rebel comes to mind).

For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 28, 2014)

Not to mention how laughable it is to compare the EF-M lens line-up with the X-mount lens line-up. If one really thinks that the EOS-M produces the same quality image as the Fuji, esp on the optics department, one's kidding themselves.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 28, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> I just don't understand why Fuji lenses are considered pricey. They are dirty cheap!
> Canon 85 1.2, 1025g $2199 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
> Fuji 56 1.2, 405g, $999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html



Well if you compare equivelence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".


----------



## Don Haines (May 28, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> Not to mention how laughable it is to compare the EF-M lens line-up with the X-mount lens line-up. If one really thinks that the EOS-M produces the same quality image as the Fuji, esp on the optics department, one's kidding themselves.



You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.

For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it? 

This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.
> 
> So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".



Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.
> 
> For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it?
> 
> This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...



Does anyone really use the EOS-M everyday with that EF => EF-M adapter and put a 17-55 on the other end? I have tried it and it's laughable. No, if EOS-M is your body of choice, none of the black EF/EF-S lenses should be part of the consideration.

I agree with the white lenses. It's the only thing I miss not being there on Fuji. That said my 70-200 only sees action at most once or twice a year. It doesn't make sense hauling much bigger lenses, much heavier body and much inferior camera body feature-set year round just for the few days I do use the Canon telephotos/super telephotos. Maybe I'll just buy a body just to use it with the 70-200 MkII down the road. Maybe I'll rent. But no way I'll haul a Canon year round anymore.

There is a place for Canon, I'm not denying that. Pro bodies, Super Telephotos, they are excellent. I'm just telling people not to hold their breath on anything promising coming from Canon in regards to their EF-M or EF-S offerings. If they release 1 good lens for EF-M/EF-S a year that'll already be a god send. 5 or 6 top notch lenses a year like Fuji? Not a chance. Instead of waiting a few more years on potential quality mirrorless/EF-S/EF-M offerings from Canon, why not just go Fuji/M43rd and enjoy it right now?


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> It's clear that Canon will not come out with any half decent EF-S or EF-M lenses. I have been in the EF-S ecosystem for over 5 years. Other than the flimsy and plasticy 17-55, they have came up with NOTHING. I just don't see how they can replicate the lens line-up that Fuji has on the EF-S or the EF-M side at the rate Fuji have churn out these excellent lenses.
> 
> If you are happy with your 2lb 1D Mk X, good for you. If you are into small cameras with quality small lenses, Canon will not go there! Canon have made it very clear based on their product offering in the last 5 years.
> 
> ...



Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).

You're comparing the Fuji XT-1 ($1299) with the SL1 (now $450). Big price difference! Of course the much cheaper camera comes out with less. The XT-1 is the same price as the 7D. While the Rebels don't have autofocus micro adjust, the 70D does have it and is $999.

You're exaggerating Fuji's firmware upgrades. Their older cameras do not match up to the performance of their newest flagship. No company does that.

I do agree that Fuji's lenses (23, 35, 56mm) are attractively priced compared to Canon's comparable lenses. I also agree that that 17-55 EF-S is plasticky. It should have be a better lens for the price.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.
> ...



Er, not really, but whatever. If you want to just ignore equivalence and compare non like with non like why not point out that a Canon 600mm is $14,000? It is just as irrelevant.

If we are comparing like for like, as you have to to have any meaning, and we go across formats, which was the point of your Fuji 56 f1.2 vs Canon 85 f1.2 comparison, then a FF Canon with an 85 f1.8 will give you shallower dof and better iso performance.

Not that I don't think the Fuji is a great camera, it just bugs me when people refuse to compare like for like. For equivalence purposes the Fuji lens is much more expensive than the Canon, that is just a fact, not my opinion.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).
> 
> You're comparing the Fuji XT-1 ($1299) with the SL1 (now $450). Big price difference! Of course the much cheaper camera comes out with less. The XT-1 is the same price as the 7D. While the Rebels don't have autofocus micro adjust, the 70D does have it and is $999.
> 
> ...



I am comparing the XT-1 with SL1 because they are the same weight. I am complaining about auto-focus micro-adjust on the SL1 is because it's merely a FW feature. Fuji is updating the XE-2 (almost 1 year old, cheaper model) with a FW that reducing it's EVF lag 10 times, bringing it to the XT-1 level. AF is also improved with the FW upgrade. When's the last time Canon did anything nearly like this?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.
> ...



Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better in low light shooting with 35mm sensor.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Why will the 85 1.8 give me better ISO performance? What does a slower glass have anything to do with lower noise? Are you saying that a 1.8 lens has the same light gathering ability per the same sensor area?

I fail to see how a 1.8 lens is equivalent to a 1.2 glass. Last time I check if I want the light gathering ability of a 1.2 aperture on my 7D, I have to go out and buy a 85 1.2, and not the 85 1.8.

The only difference between a photo from a 56 1.2 on crop vs a 85 1.8 on FF is the DOF. Noise is arguable. APS-C of today has lower noise than a 5D Mk1. If 5D Mk1 noise level was the holy grail, why is an APS-C camera of today suddenly unacceptable? How low noise is low enough? If the goal is to get the lowest noise possible, then why isn't everyone on Medium Format?


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.



If size and weight is not a factor, I don't think this discussion would've existed in the first place, as most everyone would've remained on DSLRs, A7 wouldn't be the answer in this case. But if size and weight is a factor, then going down to Fuji and M43rd is necessary.

The other problem with A7 is the lens line-up.....


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > BiscottiGelato said:
> ...



Go read up on Equivalence. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Once you have you will realise that a ff sensor with an f1.8 lens has an iso advantage of around 1/3rd stop on a crop camera with a 1.2 lens.

Crop applies to everything, focal length, aperture and iso. Noise is no more arguable than dof, it is an empirical fact. Sure "What is good enough?" is a great question, but I was addressing another one of yours, "Why do people think Fuji lenses are expensive?" Because if you compare like for like they are expensive, around 250% with your own example.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.
> ...



To me, the only missing lens for A7 series is UWA - which Sony/Zeiss should have this released prior FE 70-200. Their FE 35mm & FE 55 are wonderfull.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.



It's an answer, not _the_ answer. Or maybe it is the answer, since sometimes the answer is 'no'. Will it work with my radio-triggered flash system? No. Is there a native image stabilized macro lens? No. Etc. 



BiscottiGelato said:


> I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities...



It's nice that you don't see it, but _my_ reason for wanting f/1.2 on APS-C was subject isolation. On FF, I often shoot f/1.4-1.8, frequently using a 3-stop ND filter to limit the light gathered so the shutter speed is 1/8000 s or slower.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The part of the discussion you are missing is we are talking about Canon's mirrorless and compact body offerings here. I am comparing Fuji's APS-C solutions to Canon's APS-C solutions. I am not comparing with FF. The reason we are looking at something like the EOS-M or APS-C in the first place is because FF is too big, too heavy and too pricey. And when we look at Canon's compact camera offerings, they suck!

And what I am saying is EOS-M, along with EF-S and EF-M sucks. A 85 1.8 will only gather more light on a FF body. On a Canon crop body it will not gather more light than a 56 1.2 on a XT-1. Matter gets worse if you start to shoot wide. Because a 24 1.4L does not gather more light on a Canon crop than a 23 1.4 on a Fuji crop, but the 24 1.4 is twice as heavy and twice as pricey. If one then look at EF-S offerings from Canon for a lighter and cheaper alternative, there's NOTHING. This applies to a 24mm equivalent, 50mm equivalent, 18mm equivalent, etc.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.
> ...



Sure, you can get subject isolation with FF, if you can live with the weight and size of the FF, why are you on a thread talking about EOS-M? If I am always shooting from the back of a car, and don't mind the high pricing of FF cameras, I'd be shooting 5D3 day-in day out. But heck do I not want a 5D3 in my bag for 12 hours a day when I'm travelling. If you are looking for large aperture on a crop body, then wouldn't Fuji make a lot more sense than any of the Canon crop bodies?

What I am saying is, Fuji (and M43) is an excellent alternative for those that's tired of waiting for Canon's "EF-S/EF-M" offerings. Congratulations if you are happy with your 2lb FF body and 2lb lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> The part of the discussion you are missing is we are talking about Canon's mirrorless and compact body offerings here. I am comparing Fuji's APS-C solutions to Canon's APS-C solutions. I am not comparing with FF.



You said this:-



BiscottiGelato said:


> That's my argument. Even if Canon comes out with a killer M3, it's useless. Because if I want a 35mm lens, I still have to buy this, or this (depends on if it's APS-C or FF).
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html
> 
> ...



I replied that is not a valid comparison, why are you comparing a 56mm f1.2 to an 85mm f1.2? If you are saying "depends on if it's APS or FF" as you did, then the correct comparison is the Fuji 56mm f1.2 @ $999 against the Canon 85mm f1.8 @ $360 if you went the FF route as per the implication from your focal length comparison. This clearly demonstrates that Fuji lenses, considering their small image circle and comparative effective speed, are expensive. 

You see? I was answering your comment, not missing your point.


----------



## AvTvM (May 29, 2014)

I don't dispute, the fuji XT-1 is a very nice mirrorless APS-C camera. But the price is way too high. And it is almost as big as an SL-1 and delivers about the same functionality as a SL-1. It therefore should be priced like an SL-1. not 2.5x higher, which is more than a 70D or a 7D. 

And the Fuji x-kitzoom is f/2.8-4.0 and cannot touch the excellent Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. And yes, it may feel "plasticky" but it has held up extremely well over the past 5 years of constant use on my 7D ... alongside some of the "metallicky" white L (tele) lenses. As of today there is no optically better, constant f/2.8 stabilized APS-C wide-to-standard zoom lens available on the market - irrespective of cost. 

Fuji X's problem is the pricing. Same as EOS-M original pricing. Way too high for what it is. I am willing to pay a grand or more for a good lens. But it needs to be capable to light the full FF image circle. 135 format the "holy grail" in photography, no matter whether analog or digital. There simply is no other imaging-area format that allows for better image quality from still extremely compact and portable gear, "built into a human hand". Witness sony A7 (which btw. does not cost more than a Fuji XT-1), A7R and Leica M system (which is of course is also way out of range on pricing). 

At the end of the day I want and will get a fully electronic, seriously competent yet still compact and "comparatively cheap" FF mirrorless camera system. I will not invest "real money" into APS-C gear to tide me over until then. Dirt cheap EOS-M + EF-M lenses are an excellent compromise to serve as my pocketable compact camera until Canon or Sony or Fuji finally come up with the FF mirrorless system I want and don't charge an arm and a leg for it. 

Why should a FF-sensored mirrorless with sensor like A7R and AF-capability like e.g. A6000 (or XT-1, Oly M1), further improved EVF and battery charge of 500+ shots have to cost more than 2000-2500 UDS/Euro? Somebody is gonna bring it. Along with matching FF lenses to go with it ... compact, light, IQ like the EF-M 11-22 is perfectly fine with me, Zeiss label not needed, "plasticky" instead of "metallicky" also fine with me, at USD 300-600 a pop rather than a 1 to 2 grand a pop.


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).
> ...



The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want. 

I share your desire for better small products. For example, I would love to see an SL1 with AFMA and other higher-level features. But the typical SL1 user would never use AFMA, would not want to know about it, and would not use lenses that benefit from it. So Canon chose not to clutter the SL1 with too much stuff. Designing a camera for a type of user (e.g., beginner level, casual user) makes good business sense, even if it doesn't please every photographer. Many camera buyers are instantly turned off by too much complexity.

Canon actually issued a major firmware upgrade for the 7D in 2012 (when the camera was nearly 3 years old), so Fuji is not unique in this respect:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/28/Canon-EOS-7D-firmware-v2-major-update
Also, Fuji has been upgrading some sluggish aspects of their cameras, which is great, but Canon does not need to do this.


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> What I am saying is, Fuji (and M43) is an excellent alternative for those that's tired of waiting for Canon's "EF-S/EF-M" offerings. Congratulations if you are happy with your 2lb FF body and 2lb lenses.


Yep, they are excellent alternatives. It just depends on the photographer's particular needs. I'm currently using Canon FF and APS-C and Olympus M43, each for its strengths. And the Fuji XT1 would fit in nicely too.


----------



## lw (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> What are you waiting for?



For Fuji to significantly improve their video capability, and to reduce their lens prices to EF-M levels.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 29, 2014)

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.

In the *not-to-distant-past* Full Frame 35mm cameras where called *Miniature Cameras*, and *most professionals* didn't use them. In the *not-to-distant-future* only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!


----------



## AvTvM (May 29, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.
> 
> In the *not-to-distant-past* Full Frame 35mm cameras where called *Miniature Cameras*, and *most professionals* didn't use them. In the *not-to-distant-future* only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.
> 
> ...



But only if
A) smaller sensored cameras and lenses for them are sold at significantly lower prices than today. Gear makers will not get away with making significantly cheaper cameras than aps-c dslrs and at the same time selling them at higher prices. ;-)
B) total victory for smaller than ff sensored cams will only come, if they are able to scale lenses with more than 50mm focal length proportionately to sensor size. 
... So still a ways to go.


----------



## Etienne (May 29, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.
> 
> In the *not-to-distant-past* Full Frame 35mm cameras where called *Miniature Cameras*, and *most professionals* didn't use them. In the *not-to-distant-future* only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.
> 
> ...



Why stop there? In the future, owning a camera will be a thing of the past, cameras will be completely automated and ubiquitous: in the air, on every street corner, inside cars, outside cars, in you pen, glasses, drinking cup, toothbrush. Professional photogs will just be resellers, upselling images from other services for a commission. Don't like an image, ... click on glamorize and sportify ... turn it into a movie, for $1.99 extra, add music, script, dialog, and sound effects, $2.49, ... $2.99 to put it at the top of social media.

Better sell everything now!


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.
> 
> In the *not-to-distant-past* Full Frame 35mm cameras where called *Miniature Cameras*, and *most professionals* didn't use them. In the *not-to-distant-future* only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.
> 
> ...



Why? Such general pronouncements are baffling. How does someone presume to know what all pros in all areas of photography will do in the future? 

So do pros no longer use medium format? Of course they do. Yes, of course they do. Even as full frame has gotten better, some still spend much more money to buy medium format. Some absolutely need to. And some use even larger formats. While small formats may become much better and much more popular, large formats will still have their appeal.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I replied that is not a valid comparison, why are you comparing a 56mm f1.2 to an 85mm f1.2? If you are saying "depends on if it's APS or FF" as you did, then the correct comparison is the Fuji 56mm f1.2 @ $999 against the Canon 85mm f1.8 @ $360 if you went the FF route as per the implication from your focal length comparison. This clearly demonstrates that Fuji lenses, considering their small image circle and comparative effective speed, are expensive.
> 
> You see? I was answering your comment, not missing your point.



Sure you answered one of my minor points. As a whole, FF is off the table. Canon only gets even more obscenely more expensive when we do Fuji APS-C vs Canon APS-C at more normal walkaround focal lengths like 24, 35 and 50. Because u'd have to buy Ls for all those unless you can live with tiny apertures or focusing mechanisms from 20 years ago.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want.
> 
> I share your desire for better small products. For example, I would love to see an SL1 with AFMA and other higher-level features. But the typical SL1 user would never use AFMA, would not want to know about it, and would not use lenses that benefit from it. So Canon chose not to clutter the SL1 with too much stuff. Designing a camera for a type of user (e.g., beginner level, casual user) makes good business sense, even if it doesn't please every photographer. Many camera buyers are instantly turned off by too much complexity.
> 
> ...



That's my point. Canon will always treat smaller as cheaper. EF-S and EF-M as beginners. Only big and heavy is good. FF is for some reason the 'holy grail' and magical, when in fact it's an arbitrary size that gained popularity some 50+ years ago, and which Canon is marketing to death as the holy grail because that's where their product line and profit margin is at.

I've no doubt that Canon will always have the margin, volume and revenue. But for those that want a compact high-end system, just forget about Canon. Canon will never deliver.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.
> ...



There'll always be room for FF and Medium Format and even larger cameras. If those floats your boat, great.

For those looking for smaller cameras, not into the longer focal lengths, can live with the lower bokeh, etc. There are alternatives out there and we don't have to wait and beg Canon and be disappointed time and time again.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Why stop there? In the future, owning a camera will be a thing of the past, cameras will be completely automated and ubiquitous: in the air, on every street corner, inside cars, outside cars, in you pen, glasses, drinking cup, toothbrush. Professional photogs will just be resellers, upselling images from other services for a commission. Don't like an image, ... click on glamorize and sportify ... turn it into a movie, for $1.99 extra, add music, script, dialog, and sound effects, $2.49, ... $2.99 to put it at the top of social media.
> 
> Better sell everything now!



Yes. Except that NOW, is the time where smaller than FF formats are priming to be very attractive alternatives for the mainstream enthusiast. Provided that people can be open minded and try the format and see if it suits themselves. And if smaller than FF format happens to suit your needs, and if you happen to not go over 85mm 99% of the time, instead of waiting for the next EOS-M3, waiting for Canon to expand the EF-M line-up, waiting for a handful of EF-S primes, which Canon will likely botch anyways, Fuji and M4/3 are much better alternatives than Canon.


----------



## D. (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato congratulations on finding a system that meets your needs. Now hopefully you’ll have time to work on your trolling tendencies.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want.
> ...



They will if there is a HIGH-DEMAND for it. Canon goal is to make $$$

If you get a chance, try compare 5D III + 40mm pancake Vs A7r + FE 55mm, not much space or weight saving. The best fit for A7 series is FE35mm.

My wife likes her RX1 and I like my A7r + FE 55mm. The only lens that I might add to my Sony is UWA. So, you can see the market segment for FF mirrorless is not that big, unless, we enjoy shooting big lenses on tiny body, then .................... :


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 29, 2014)

We know that for some types of photography , full frame gives the best results . But APS- C has not disappeared from the market, and it will never happen . A few years ago, many said they would not buy EF- S lenses because in the future " would be all full frame cameras ."
We know that a sports car with 400 horsepower is spectacular to run on roads , but not suitable for a walk with the whole family . Does compact cars with 80 horsepower engine will disappear from the market ? There is market for both cars .

But where they fit compact cameras luxury ?
They are like sports motorcycles 1200 cc, and the price of them is more expensive than a popular car. Will someone take the family to stroll this motorcycle ?

Most fashion photographers and art will continue with full frame , but APS-C may increase its share in the market and photojournalism events .
The day people stop buying compact cars , I'll believe in the disappearance of APS-C cameras .


----------



## jdramirez (May 29, 2014)

I've used screens and I've used viewfinders. I prefer viewfinders. I'm not alone. As for bokeh generated by software... possibly... because it is being done now... and rather poorly... but possible.



c.d.embrey said:


> Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the *past*. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the *future*.
> 
> In the *not-to-distant-past* Full Frame 35mm cameras where called *Miniature Cameras*, and *most professionals* didn't use them. In the *not-to-distant-future* only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.
> 
> ...


----------



## Etienne (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop there? In the future, owning a camera will be a thing of the past, cameras will be completely automated and ubiquitous: in the air, on every street corner, inside cars, outside cars, in you pen, glasses, drinking cup, toothbrush. Professional photogs will just be resellers, upselling images from other services for a commission. Don't like an image, ... click on glamorize and sportify ... turn it into a movie, for $1.99 extra, add music, script, dialog, and sound effects, $2.49, ... $2.99 to put it at the top of social media.
> ...



There are two things I don't want to give up: IQ, and ergonomics.
I have a 5DIII and an EOS-M (I also have a Samsung EX-F2, and some other cameras that I don't use much) ... I use my 5DIII most of the time. I like the EOS-M, but it is not as easy to use as the 5DIII, and the IQ drops in low light while the 5DIII continues to shine. 

I think the 5DIII could stand to lose some weight and size, but not too much, because then you'll lose buttons and ergonomics start to suffer. Ergonomics really matter when you have to respond quickly before the moment is gone forever.

The Sony A7s looks promising, but I'll definitely wait for reviews. The A7 DPR review was not that great, A7r was better, but still video is compromised. And some people report that they find the small size frustrating at times.

There's never going to be an ultimate do everything format, but Full Frame will continue to outperform small sensors in pretty much every way. Phillip Bloom has already complained about low light video performance of the GH4, and it's the pinnacle of m4/3.

The future is difficult to predict, other than to say it will be exiting for photography and video. I wish I was 30 years younger because this party is just getting started!


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 29, 2014)

Etienne said:


> but Full Frame will continue to outperform small sensors in pretty much every way.



Every way but size and price.

I think I've made my case. Obviously it's uphill battle in a Canon forum where most just want to see a 5Dmk4 coming in at over 1kg, and a 24-70 2.8 IS coming in at another kg or something. But I'm not speaking to those who are die hard FF fans anyways.

Instead I want to tell those that have always been asking for a EF-S 22mm 1.8, a small size light weight 7D, a EOS-M with 2 million dots EVF, etc... To tell them that the wait is over. Just be prepared with an open mind when it comes to EVF, pickup a XT-1 or an EM-1 and see for yourself.


----------



## sdsr (May 29, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.
> ...



If size and weight really matter, M43 beats Fuji easily (and, perhaps more important, Olympus M43 bodies have excellent IBIS, something which I don't think any Fuji X camera has); and it's worth noting that the Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is more-or-less the same size and weight as its Olympus M43 equivalent, the 17mm 1.8....

You're right, in a way, re the A7 series lens line-up, but it can be augmented easily enough by the impatient via adapters and I rather doubt any Fuji-X lens-body combination can conjure up images as good as a Sony A7/A7r + either Sony/Zeiss prime (or, for that matter, a Sony a6000 plus same). There's much that's appealing about Fuji-X cameras, but until they overcome their obsession with smoothness and noise-suppression (at the expense of clarity/detail) I won't consider buying another. You may think the Canon SL1 is a piece of cheap junk compared to a Fuji X, but I prefer the images I get from my SL1 to those I got from one of the latter during the brief time I owned it. 

I find it more than a tad perverse that the top-of-the-line APS-C and M43 mirrorless camera bodies from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic cost around the same as a Sony A7....


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 29, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Why? Such general pronouncements are baffling. How does someone presume to know what all pros in all areas of photography will do in the future?



*All you have to do is look at the past.* When was the last time you saw a *Photo Journalist* using a 4x5 camera ??? A *Sports Shooter* using a Hasselblad ??? The list goes on and on. The New York Times and Sports Illustrated have both used iPhone photos. Like I said "time marches on!"

BTW there are still people shooting *wet plate* on large format cameras. Nothing ever goes completely away


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Why? Such general pronouncements are baffling. How does someone presume to know what all pros in all areas of photography will do in the future?
> ...



The prediction above was that all pros will be using small format cameras (smaller than full frame) and that only hobbyists will use full frame, and that this would happen in the not too distant future. The past does not tell us that. If the march to smaller formats were so inevitable, then NO commercial or landscape photographer would be using medium format today. They would have all moved to full frame or smaller. That's obviously not not true, as many continue to use medium format, as do some portrait photographers. Likewise they won't all move to smaller than full-frame in the near or not too distant future.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 30, 2014)

sdsr said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I think the smoothness problem you are speaking of is predominantly to do with RAW processing by 3rd party programs. This is quickly changing as 3rd party vendors better understand how Fuji X-Tran RAW should be dealt with.

JPG to JPG I think Fuji is probably one of the best APS-C there is out there.

M4/3rd is great also. I just prefer the Fuji lens line-up along with ergonomics. Their lens release rate, accessories release rate, rate of acknowledging and fixing issues, rate of churning out FW, etc just instill confidence that they are committed. Which is something that cannot be said for Canon for their APS-C line-up.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 30, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The prediction above was that all pros will be using small format cameras (smaller than full frame) and that only hobbyists will use full frame, and that this would happen in the not too distant future. The past does not tell us that. If the march to smaller formats were so inevitable, then NO commercial or landscape photographer would be using medium format today. They would have all moved to full frame or smaller. That's obviously not not true, as many continue to use medium format, as do some portrait photographers. Likewise they won't all move to smaller than full-frame in the near or not too distant future.



There was a time that Wedding photographers uses mostly Medium Format, etc for weddings. Then it's mostly 35mm. Nowadays there's even people that's doing paid weddings via Fuji or M43. Some will stay at 35mm of course. But MILCs are now getting to a point that some are willing to bet their livelihood on them. Whether cropped cameras will replace FF as the predominant format for various professional work (not for all of them, just as Medium Format still exists), only time will tell. But it can be assured that as cropped systems become better and better that more and more will adopt it for paid work.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 30, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> What's really missing is a kick-ass M3 with truly tracking-capable AF and top notch EVF and 500 shots battery charge. That would very quickly end the Fuji X-games as well as Sony ex-nex alpha stuff. Not to mention dwarf-sensored micro four-thirds. And it would drive a lot of 1 inch nails into the nikon 1 coffin.
> 
> Can't be that hard, Canon ... Just do it! ;-)


A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.


----------



## zlatko (May 30, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The prediction above was that all pros will be using small format cameras (smaller than full frame) and that only hobbyists will use full frame, and that this would happen in the not too distant future. The past does not tell us that. If the march to smaller formats were so inevitable, then NO commercial or landscape photographer would be using medium format today. They would have all moved to full frame or smaller. That's obviously not not true, as many continue to use medium format, as do some portrait photographers. Likewise they won't all move to smaller than full-frame in the near or not too distant future.
> ...



Well, I agree with all of that as it's a reasonable, realistic assessment. I disagree with c.d embrey's claims that "In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats." Some hobbyists, yes. Some pros, yes. But it's too much of a blanket statement to be true for everybody. Full frame and optical viewfinders have a lot of appeal for pros, and pros have *very* diverse needs. EVFs and small formats are great, but they don't meet everyone's needs all of the time. I'm using 3 formats for paid work and finding each is good in its way.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2014)

zlatko said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Since the beginning of photography pros have *always* moved-on to smaller formats. Really large format cameras were replaced by 8x10 cameras which were replaced by 4x5. 

At one time there were 6x9, 6x8, 6x7 and 6x6 medium format film cameras. Then these camera were mostly replaced by 6x4.5 film cameras, which were replaced by 6x4.5 digital. But that doesn't stop Martin Schoeller from shooting covers for Time magazine with *120 film*, using a Fuji rangefinder camera (Texas Leica).

Like it or not One Inch cameras are good enough for many pro jobs right now. By the time that the *iPhone 7* comes along there will be an *App* that triggers strobes (just like a Pocket Wizard) And there will be young pros shooting with an iPhone and Profoto strobes 

There are some hobbyists (and a few pros) shooting 8x10 cameras. Other hobbyist ares shooting panoramas with 4x10 cameras instead of stitching digital. There are also a few people using Banquet Cameras (7x17 in. and 12x20 in.) Nothing in photography ever truly goes away. The *Impossible Project* is bringing back 8x10 Polaroid https://www.the-impossible-project.com/8x10/ Me, I'd like to see them bring back Type 55 film. BTW in the future there will be hobbyists added to this group who will use Medium Format and Full Frame 

Heraclitus (c. 535 BC – 475 BC) is reputed to have said: "There is nothing permanent except change." Sounds reasonable to me. YMMV.


----------



## robbinzo (May 30, 2014)

Dual pixel AF system in the next EOS M = winning product.
My ha'penny worth.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 30, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > BiscottiGelato said:
> ...



Tiny camera in jean pocket, but it requires a luggage of speedlite to shoot. Umm.... :


----------



## dadgummit (May 30, 2014)

robbinzo said:


> Dual pixel AF system in the next EOS M = winning product.
> My ha'penny worth.



I hope this comes true. I love my little M, yesterday was my daughter's school play and when it came time to leave I chose the M with 18-55stm over the 5d3 and I am glad I did. 

I would pre-order the EOS M with dual pixel! That way I can send my M out to be converted to infrared.


----------



## jdramirez (May 30, 2014)

Has the inertia factor been discussed at all? The heavier the body and lens are, the more resistant to movement/torque they are. Our are we assuming in this dystopian future the camera fully adjusts for all hand shake and movement?


----------



## AvTvM (May 30, 2014)

EchoLocation said:


> A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.



I totally agree! 

That's why I will never pay ludicrous amounts for APS-C sensored mirrorless cameras and lenses that can only handle APS-C imaging circle [like Fuji X-stuff] but will rather wait for the next generation mirrorless FF camera ... as compact as the A7 ... and even more "competent" as a relly universal photographic tool.

Specifically: better AF [fully tracking-capable], fully electronic shutter [absolutely silent, 100% vibration-free], better battery charge [500+ shots] and user interface/ergonomics like a Canon EOS ... with thumb-wheel, back-button AF and mode dial with AvTvM  plus 3 custom positions and WiFI and a Canon RT-flash controller built in ... now that I have finally splurged on 600EX-RTs


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 30, 2014)

EchoLocation said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > What's really missing is a kick-ass M3 with truly tracking-capable AF and top notch EVF and 500 shots battery charge. That would very quickly end the Fuji X-games as well as Sony ex-nex alpha stuff. Not to mention dwarf-sensored micro four-thirds. And it would drive a lot of 1 inch nails into the nikon 1 coffin.
> ...


Success of Sony A7? I have not found any statistics that show large volumes of sales of each model Sony A7.


----------



## lescrane (May 30, 2014)

I've always travels with 2 SLRS ...a XXD series and a Rebel as my "walk around" camera for snapshots or landscapes when my primary shooting is wildlife w/a supertele. I jumped on the M deal last year and it's been great. Now my M and 18-55EF-M comprise my "walk around". I keep it in a waist pouch when I'm shooting w/the telephoto and never miss a grab shot w/o having the extra weight and bulk

I would consider upgrading and spending 600 'ish only if they could upgrade it w/some of the software of the D series, (eg half ISO stops, let me leave autobracketing ON even after the camera turns off), maybe a faster frame rate, most importantly better battery life. At first I wanted an EVF, but am now resigned to doing w/o it...Adding the weight, size and cost would not be worth it. I look at the M as a larger frame, hi IQ alt. to my cell phone, Also, I do not need the 11-22 super wide, but would love to have something a bit longer... eg 15-85, 18-100 etc to go w/the M


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Tiny camera in jean pocket, but it requires a luggage of speedlite to shoot. Umm.... :



In my experience, you are the first to call a Profoto Studio Strobe a *speedlight*  If you want the *ON CAMERA* speedlight look (think Terry Richardson) the iPhone already has a built-in flash  For those paid jobs that require Studio Strobes you will no longer have to deal with bulky Pocket Wizards 

Seriously, modern battery powered Studio Strobes are small and light. The Profoto B1 is a 500ws battery powered monolight that weighs less than 7 pounds. It even works with Canon TTL.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Tiny camera in jean pocket, but it requires a luggage of speedlite to shoot. Umm.... :
> ...



And in fairness even Profoto call the B1 an "off camera flash" not a strobe.


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 30, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> robbinzo said:
> 
> 
> > Dual pixel AF system in the next EOS M = winning product.
> ...



You should try the Fuji or the EM-1. Yes it's pricey compared to the EOS-M, but you get the size with much better performance


----------



## BiscottiGelato (May 30, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > A crop sensor mirrorless is not going to threaten the success of the Full Frame Sony a7.
> ...



I think you don't want to hold your breathe on a mirrorless FF. It'll be an extreme niche with very poor lens line-up and support.

Read the previous arguments on smaller side sensor replacing FF and FF going the way Medium Formats have gone today.

It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.



When it comes to sensors, bigger is better. I guess physics is scary to some people. 

Granted, smaller might be good enough, depending on the application/output.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.
> ...



Physics is scary.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.



It is mind boggling how some people are so easily led to the next great "new" thing. The overwhelming reality for me, and the reason I can't see me ever moving from 135 format, is lens choice. I use everything from 15mm -300mm f2.8 primes, I use 17 TS-E's, I use IS macros, I use f1.4 primes that actually give me subject isolation, my smallest print is 16" x 24" and whilst crop cameras can do that, they can't do it in the same number of shooting situations a ff camera can, I need a camera that can cover everything I cover, no mirrorless crop sensor system comes close, not in the same league, as a FF camera system.

If mirrorless works for you, all power to you, but don't try and tell me it could/should/would work for me, it is nowhere near working for me.

Funnily enough I actually looked at the X100s last year as an idea for a travel and backup camera. I got an EOS-M, as a backup it works way better as I am already carrying the lenses and it works natively with my flashes. As a travel camera, the thing is nothing but fun and I don't care if it is lost, stolen, or damaged. As for price, well $299 with a lens vs $1,299 for virtually the same IQ, WTF!


----------



## sdsr (May 30, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Has the inertia factor been discussed at all? The heavier the body and lens are, the more resistant to movement/torque they are. Our are we assuming in this dystopian future the camera fully adjusts for all hand shake and movement?



You may have a point. I read somewhere recently about a pro photographer whose solution to the Sony A7r shutter-shock problem was to attach a 24oz metal plate to it! (I'm not in the least bit tempted to emulate this....)

On the other hand, the current Olympus OM-D IBIS & light lens combinations seem to combat this very well - perhaps they have the balance right; they allow successful hand-held shooting at ridiculously low shutter speeds. It would be nice if Sony could change how the shutter in the A7r works and add IBIS to its successor (or if Canon could conjure up something similar).


----------



## Dylan777 (May 30, 2014)

BiscottiGelato said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > EchoLocation said:
> ...



I owned x100s for 3-4 months. Yes, the body design is nice. However, without flashes, shooting in low light/indoor is a challenge . IQ can't be compared with FF at this moment.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> And in fairness even Profoto call the B1 an "off camera flash" not a strobe.



*Off camera flash* is a *marketing term* used to entice *Strobists*. Please notice that they didn't call it a *speedlight* even though it's TTL. Any flash that is used off camera is an off camera flash  My off camera flash of choice is the Profoto Acute 600B pack and a 600B head (total weight about 12 lbs). Most of the time, for location product shots, I use it with a light weight Paul C .Buff 73 in diameter PLM. No problem to get an f/16 at 15 feet. Try that with your speedlight


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And in fairness even Profoto call the B1 an "off camera flash" not a strobe.
> ...



Speedlight is Nikon specific, Speedlite is Canon specific, Profoto hope to get the CLS working on the B1 Air so calling it a Speedlight, or Speedlite, might have caused confusion and possibly trademark issues, off camera flash is pretty generic, but I thought it interesting they don't call it a strobe.

As for appealing to "strobists" well it appeals to me and depending on the 1Dx MkII rumours might well be my next heavyweight purchase. With 500Ws and TTL, important for recessionals with white dresses and differing subject distances, possible FW for HSS, and the portability, it is a winner in my book.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (May 30, 2014)

Good riddance! The only good that may come out of this is Canon marketing execs realize a crippled, mediocre attempt to enter a market is never a good idea, regardless of company reputation. Now then can concentrate
on making the sl1 even smaller, introduce new lower end ef lenses, and focus on a top end competitor to Nikon and Sony full frame cameras. Maybe this lesson will also carry over to any attempts in the medium format range if Canon decides to play in that sandbox - you'd better have a strong product right out of the box.


----------



## dtaylor (May 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> BiscottiGelato said:
> 
> 
> > It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.
> ...



People over play this card. With current sensors you're not going to see a difference until about ISO 3200. And that's if you print 20". FF is amazing in low light, but the majority of images are not produced there.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BiscottiGelato said:
> ...



Apparently you don't shoot digital photography and have digital photos?


----------



## jdramirez (May 31, 2014)

When I first got my mkiii shot in good light and the images were good... but they didn't blow my old 60d out of the water. But the more I used the miii, the more I appreciated it for how great it was. I screwed up some photos, but I was able to salvage the image because of the mkiii... the crop bodies are fine, but they aren't as good for grain... and saying that you don't notice until 3200 is a crock. Maybe some people don't notice... but they are wearing blinders.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BiscottiGelato said:
> ...



So it's a card trick. That must be why I only reluctantly raised the ISO on my 7D past 800, but will go to ISO 6400 on my 1D X with little concern.


----------



## Etienne (May 31, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BiscottiGelato said:
> ...



There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics. It's closer to 3 stops for video. The 5DIII video is pretty damn good even at ISO 10,000. The 60D starts to degrade over 1250. The EOS-M video is not very good at 1600, so you have to stay at 800. Magic Lantern can help things there, but larger sensors win almost every comparison, but you have to pay to play


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2014)

Etienne said:


> There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics. It's closer to 3 stops for video. The 5DIII video is pretty damn good even at ISO 10,000. The 60D starts to degrade over 1250. The EOS-M video is not very good at 1600, so you have to stay at 800. Magic Lantern can help things there, but larger sensors win almost every comparison, but you have to pay to play



I agree, except on price. Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.

There will be a space for smaller sensored cams for some more years (until phones and tablets have earen them completely) but those 'tweener cams (mft, aps-c) need to be even more compact and definitely way cheaper than ff gear. I am talking cameras in the 299-599 range with lenses in the sub 100 to 399 range ... Once the eos-m was in that price bracket it sold pretty well ... Even in the US and Europe. 

Fuji X systems and mFT cameras will not be sucessful in price bands of 1000+ for every camera and every other lens .. As soon as the hype is over and as soon as compact ff mirrorless cameras plus matching lenses can be had at decent prices, people wil buy those rather than half- and quarter-sized sensors.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.
> 
> Fuji X systems and mFT cameras will not be sucessful in price bands of 1000+ for every camera and every other lens .. As soon as the hype is over and as soon as compact ff mirrorless cameras plus matching lenses can be had at decent prices, people wil buy those rather than half- and quartet-sized sensors.



+1 the Fuji APS-C and mFT systems are very nice, but can't survive much longer at their current price points. As AvTvM pointed out, there are good FF system alternatives in the same price range. APS-C's main advantages over FF are size and system price at the expense of some IQ. The APS-C size advantage is legitimate (even compact FF bodies will require large glass once you move beyond maybe 85mm) but price advantage does not exist with $1,200 bodies and $1k lenses. 

As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 1, 2014)

> As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.



???


----------



## zlatko (Jun 1, 2014)

bholliman said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.
> ...



Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2014)

garyknrd said:


> > As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> ???



I guess it should read "high-*priced* APS-C systems will eventually disappear" ... and that's exactly my opinion too. 

Once we get beyond 135mm focal length, lenses for any sensor-size from mFT via APS-C to FF are exactly the same size: "FF size". And below that focal length, lens size and weight does not scale anywhere proporationately to image circle. There's just no point in buying 1000+ € 56mm/1.2 lenses ... unless they cover 36x24mm image circle.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.



When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso. 

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images. 

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 1, 2014)

bholliman said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.
> ...


I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "*in the future, all cameras will be full frame*". But this is as absurd as saying "*in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower*." ???


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "*in the future, all cameras will be full frame*". But this is as absurd as saying "*in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower*." ???



200 hp cars would quickly disappear if those with 400 hp and exactly the same fuel efficiency (mpg) could be had at the same price ... so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost" and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise. 
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses. 

So guess what ... 400 hp are the way to go.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "*in the future, all cameras will be full frame*". But this is as absurd as saying "*in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower*." ???
> ...


Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects.  Including size and weight and price lenses.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> garyknrd said:
> 
> 
> > > As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.
> ...



Yes, I meant high priced. If somebody can make a "high end" low priced APS-C system it will certainly be viable.

I'm not saying APS-C will go away, I'm saying APS-C systems that cost as much as better FF systems can't compete and will eventually decline quite a bit in sales. I suppose there will still be a small market for users who care so much about compact size with lots of features, they are willing to pay a big premium for it.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects.  Including size and weight and price lenses.



Thats where Your car analogy fails. For cars, that is. For cameras and lenses physics work the way i wrote: ff-sensored Sony A7 and 35/2.8 as well as 55/1.8 are not larger and not more expensive than corresponding tiby-sensored fuji x-stuff or omd1-stuff.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects.  Including size and weight and price lenses.
> ...


I compared sensor size and performance, and not argued that Fuji high end has more compact or more cheaper lenses. I contend that there will always be market for APS-C sensors from any manufacturer, and Fuji is far from being the market leader. Let me be more specific: 
I believe that in 2024 the APS-C cameras will continue to exist along with full frame. And APS-C will continue selling more than full frame cameras.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.
> ...



Way to miss the point. The 75/1.8 is small. *small* as in not BIG. The 70-200/4 is quite large by comparison. I've used both of those this weekend and the size difference is considerable.

You're totally stuck on the concept of "depth of field equivalence". As if that were the only thing that mattered and the only way to compare lenses. It isn't. Goodness, not every photographer shoots every lens at widest aperture for every subject. Some don't do it for any subject. As I said, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize greater dof.

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast. 

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute. And shallow dof is not the sole measure of a lens. For some lenses and for some subjects it is irrelevant. But this lens clearly as it. And again, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize *small* gear. That is the point.

Here is a visual comparison of your "honest comparison" based on dof equivalence: http://j.mp/1hpUjHL
Notice how one is a heck of a lot bigger than the other?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



I wasn't missing your point, I was addressing an inaccurate comment contained within post.

If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison? Saying *"The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses."* is not true, to fail to consider all crop factors, iso, aperture, and focal length, when talking about an equivalent (the very word you used), you are not telling the truth.

If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.
> 
> And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.
> 
> Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.



My PowerShot S100 has an f/2 lens. That's only 1/3-stop narrower than f/1.8, so by your definition it's a fast lens, right? But with a 4.6x crop factor, it's the equivalent of f/9 on FF. Does that sound 'fast' to you? :

As PBD stated, f/1.8 on a 2x crop sensor is equivalent to f/3.6 on FF. Can you get shallow DoF at f/3.6? Sure...but don't pretend you've really got an f/1.8 lens as far as DoF compared to FF is concerned.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



One can't get the *same* images from different systems. That's not everyone's goal. That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents". Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs. And with telephoto lenses, m43 provides a very small form factor for a comparable angle of view. No it won't make the *same* image. But some photographers are not stuck on the concept of depth of field equivalence as the be all and end all of lens comparisons. It all depends on your specific photographic needs. Your concept of "equivalence" (i.e. dof equivalence) completely ignores the size and weight advantages of a smaller format, as if they don't exist and couldn't matter to anyone. But the link I provided shows why it matters to some.

Now again, your concept of what is a "fast" lens is hopelessly tied to the concept of dof equivalence, so you don't regard an f/1.8 m43 lens as fast. You are welcome to your belief that depth of field at widest aperture is the only thing that matters about a lens. But for purposes of calculating exposure f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 no matter which format one uses and has been regarded as fast throughout photographic history. F/1.8 = f/3.6 only in the world of those who see dof equivalence as the only measure that matters, either because they only ever shoot at widest aperture or because they have to prove that full frame is "best" for everyone and can't see that some photographers may have different priorities. 

Aperture has never been a standard measure of depth of field. The same f-stop gives a different dof depending on the format and the focal length and the subject distance. But aperture has been a standard measure for exposure values throughout the history of photography. (Hence, light meters, exposure charts, etc., give aperture values — and photographers could reliable use them regardless of which format was in the camera.) You seem to have an urgent need to flip that to prove your point. 

Has everyone here been brainwashed by that fellow who recently issued a video claiming that Olympus and Panasonic are "dishonest" for labeling their f/2.8 lenses as f/2.8 and not as f/5.6?


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.
> ...



Neuro, I'm surprised that you would write that. Depth of field equivalence is not the ONLY thing that matters about a lens. See what I wrote above. Goodness, does anyone remember angle of view when talking about lenses? Does anyone consider exposure in their definition of "fast"? How did we get stuck in this rut where dof equivalence somehow DEFINES a lens. Y'all shoot everything at widest aperture all of the time?

When I shoot an m43 lens at f/1.8 I know perfectly well that it gives the dof of f/3.6 on full frame, and that is FINE. That is perfectly OK. Not only is it OK, it is my *intention*. Have you ever shot a full frame lens at f/3.6? Of course you have. It is not a sin. Stopping down a lens does not break some photographic law. The point is not to get the dof equivalent of f/1.8 in full frame, but rather to use a much smaller system on occasion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



I'm all for smaller, as long as the trade offs are understood. Too many people think there's a free lunch. When people talk about the 'reach advantage' of a crop sensor, they seem to think there's no down side. As long as people understand that the crop factor applies to FoV, DoF for equivalent framing, and ISO noise, fine. However, most people get the first one and stop there, ignoring the other two. I use my EOS M or PowerShot S100 when the 1D X is just too big to bring, but I fully understand the sacrifices inherent in those choices. It seems that you do, too...but sadly, we're in the minority in that understanding.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Most people vs. minority ... I have no idea. People naturally have different levels of knowledge and skill, and different priorities in their photography. The various tradeoffs are easy to understand and soon become evident to anyone to whom they make a difference.

My point is simply that these small systems will very likely survive because some photographers appreciate small systems. Just that, nothing more.


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 2, 2014)

You know I have been curious for a long time. And I am fixing to start experimenting.
I just ordered the Pentax K-3 to see if it is going to satisfy my needs. For birding.
I have the 7D and I really like the crop factor. I put the brakes on at about ISO 800, with the 7D. 
The K-3 is going to give me about the same ISO as the Canon Mark IV. around 1200-1300 ISO, with a 1.5 crop. 

Not sure yet if it is going to work out, We will see? But the new Sony sensors are much better than they were a few years ago. And the cheap crop sensor cameras are everywhere now. And getting pretty good reviews.

So I will be shooting with the Sigma 500mm prime and Sigma 300mm F/2.8 prime with the Pentax K-3 with in body IS? I'm looking forward to seeing just how far I can push it, and how it stacks up against the 7D and mark IV, and the new Canon tele lenses? 

After dealing with Pentax in the past. My hopes are not too high. But I have to test it.

I am a die hard crop guy..


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> One can't get the *same* images from different systems.



Yes you can, if you use equivalence.



zlatko said:


> That's not everyone's goal.



I never said it was.



zlatko said:


> That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents".



That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5.



zlatko said:


> Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs.



I never questioned that point of view, I own an EOS-M myself.

You keep saying I am only considering dof when talking about lens/system equivalence, I could turn that around and say you are only considering focal length/fov, I say that is totally invalid. DOF control and light gathering capabilities are the two most important aspects of "fast" lenses, that is not me being "totally stuck on the concept of 'depth of field equivalence'", it IS equivalence. That you are choosing to ignore two of the three metrics impacted by a sensor size change, and only talking about one, and the unrelated question of size, is your erroneous though process, not mine.

The two things, camera/lens size and image equivalence are completely unrelated, camera/lens size is an important factor in a system purchase and is a point of yours I have not disputed, but it has nothing to do with equivalence, that is, create the same image with different systems. You argue that many people just want a camera they can take at a smaller size, again, I haven't disputed that. However I would say that as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot, on those occasions a full understanding of equivalence, and the fact that "The closest full frame equivalents [to the m4/3 75 f1.8] are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2" is not true unless you ignore everything apart from focal length, is the only way you can work to get that image you imagine.

Finally, if you own a FF Canon camera and want something Olympus sized, the SLi isn't far off, http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,448 , put an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 on it (which both cost less money than the Olympus 75mm f1.8 ) and you have a couple of lenses you can use on both cameras for a minimal increase in size.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > One can't get the *same* images from different systems.
> ...



Oh no, here we go again. 

"That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5." —— only if you're absolutely glued to the concept of DoF equivalence at widest aperture.

My point was about the appeal of small camera systems. Remember? And that's the part you don't dispute. You're whole argument is about something that's a given, something that no one disputes. You're hell-bent on calling out a falsehood that only comes into existence under your very selective interpretation. My point about the appeal of small camera systems (APS-C and m43) was not about DoF equivalence at widest aperture.

The goal of making the exact same image with a smaller system is fine, but it's not the goal of every photographer in every instance. The priority of finding a lens with the exact same DoF at widest aperture is fine, but it's not the goal of every photographer for every photo. There are so many photographs that are not made at widest aperture and do not require the FF equivalent of f/1.8. There are many, many photos that look perfectly good, or in many cases BETTER, stopped down to f/3.6 or smaller. For the vast number of photographic applications that do not require that, the relevant lens parameters are focal length and light gathering. For some photographers and some applications, lens *size* is the most relevant parameter.

You say, "as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot" — but that's not what we have in mind when we buy into camera system and format. It's not a specific image at a specific (widest) aperture. Rather, it's the whole system — all of it's advantages and disadvantages come into consideration.

If you absolutely positively can't help bringing depth of field equivalence into the conversation, then it is a simple 2X multiplication (for m43) that we can state and then move forward. Why get so stuck on it? Apparently it is now a huge blunder to call a lens in a different format "equivalent" without specifying that one is referring to angle of view and f-stop and not equivalent depth of field at *widest* aperture. If so, photographers have been making this blunder for generations. What's the 50mm equivalent in medium format or 4x5? Can't ask that anymore. Now one has to specify whether one means angle of view, or DoF equivalence at widest aperture, or something else.

I am not ignoring the appeal of the shallowest possible DoF. I'm saying that greater DoF at the same aperture for a smaller format is a given. That's understood. And it's not a problem. Sometimes it is intentional. And when it is a problem, one doesn't go to the smaller format. That's always been the case. 

I don't need a 100/1.0 or 70/1.0 for m43 — wouldn't want to pay for them or carry them. But I do need a 75/1.8 and happily that exists, and it's small, and it provides shallow enough DoF when desired.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

I am not arguing, I am saying you are using the term equivalent incorrectly, my selective interpretation is in line with the accepted meaning of the word.


e·quiv·a·lent
iˈkwivələnt/
adjective
adjective: equivalent

1.
*equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.*
"one unit is equivalent to one glass of wine"
synonyms:	equal, identical, same; More

Also this is a very good link.

EQUIVALENCE

If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, then the lenses are only "equal in value, amount, and function" in one of the three metrics they affect when used to take a picture, ergo, they are not equivalent.

If you had said I can get the same fov with an Olympus 75mm and a ff 150mm then that would be the end of it, that is not what you said, you said you'd need a 135 f2 or 200 f2 for a ff equivalent, that is not true, why are you fighting so hard on a simple point about which you made an error?

An Olympus 75mm f1.8 is not equivalent to a ff 200 f2, it just isn't. It is equivalent to a ff 150mm f3.6.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So it's a card trick.



No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?



> That must be why I only reluctantly raised the ISO on my 7D past 800, but will go to ISO 6400 on my 1D X with little concern.



If you can't get good RAW files from a 7D at 1600 and 3200 then you're doing something wrong. That said, by 3200 I would certainly expect a large 1DX print to be discernible from a 7D print. At 800? Not unless you're doing something wrong.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 2, 2014)

Etienne said:


> There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.



Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.


----------



## rs (Jun 2, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.
> ...







dtaylor said:


> No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?



That's the whole point of equivalence. You can take equivalent photos with either system. It's just the finer details of focal length, ISO and aperture which have to be tweaked to create the equivalent image. If you were to provide that metadata with the print, a highly trained eye could well work out what sensor size was used.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ...so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost" and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
> And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.



I think I've been hearing that crop was bound to disappear since the introduction of the original 5D.

Phones/tablets are not going to deliver any where near the same IQ unless and until there is a revolution in imaging sensor technology. If that happens then FF is going to be in as much trouble as crop. 

As for FF at the same price as APS-C / m43, there may be some overlap between high end crop and FF, but FF on the whole is more expensive and will continue to be unless and until there is a revolution in sensor fabrication.

Crop out sells FF by a wide margin and will continue to do so.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison?



Once FF fans turn to "equivalence" arguments the debate has pretty much jumped the shark.



> If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.



As far as exposure is concerned, an f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens.

DoF cuts both ways. If you want razor thin DoF it's hard to beat FF with a fast prime. But you can just as easily find yourself stopping down FF for sufficient DoF and pushing up ISO where you could shoot wide open with crop, thereby negating the high ISO advantage.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not arguing, I am saying you are using the term equivalent incorrectly, my selective interpretation is in line with the accepted meaning of the word.
> 
> 
> e·quiv·a·lent
> ...



"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

If you disregard common usage in photography, lenses across formats are never "equivalent". Lenses can never be equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. because there are too many values, amounts, functions, meanings, etc. to consider. Equivalence in one detail is accompanied by non-equivalence in another.

Of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is "equivalent" to a (nonexistent) 150/3.6 in FF if we are only concerned about DoF at widest aperture.

And of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is not "equivalent" to a 150/3.6 in FF because, among other things, a 75/1.8 exists for a current system, is really compact thanks to the small format, and it goes to f/1.8 if desired.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> "If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!
> 
> The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.
> 
> ...



If that was all you meant then, as I said, the vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4 is, using your words "the closest ff equivalent", not the 200 f2, the zoom lens allows you to take exactly the same image across formats. You didn't say the 200 f2.8 either, another vastly smaller and cheaper option, or any one of the 70-300 f4 - 5.6's, which give a very close equivalent image. 

The only person being dishonest is you. Manufacturers call a 75mm f1.8, a 75mm f1.8, because it is a 75mm f1.8, you are the one that introduced the phrase "the closest ff equivalent", they do often then say 150mm equivalent and in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent. The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, a change that doesn't take all into account is NOT equivalent. You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that. People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?

As for your "it goes to f1.8 if desired", well again, you are either being dishonest or obtuse, my amp dial goes to 11 and has a Dobly button ;D . You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, even though you say you do, well done. My '87 Jimmy has four doors, it is equivalent to a Rolls Royce Phantom.

As a picture is, said to be, worth a thousand words, here are three I did a few years ago for a talk on camera sensors, even when enlarged and printed these images are indistinguishable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> "If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!
> 
> The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.



A few hundred years ago, it was "dishonest" to claim the Earth was round or was not the center of the universe – and that "dishonesty" was punishable by imprisonment or worse. Eventually, people came to accept the truth...so I think there's hope that you'll come to understand the concept of equivalence. 

Yes, some makers of m4/3 cameras lie. Panasonic, for example...it's not m4/3, granted, but Panasonic chose to print 25-600mm f/2.8 on the barrel of the lens of the FZ200:







Clearly, the lens doesn't have a 214mm diameter entrance pupil, so Panasonic is lying. Leica, who makes that lens, honestly labels the front as 4.5-108mm f/2.8. 

The f/number is FL / iris diaphragm diameter, as long as a lens is labeled as such, there's no deception. It's when people or manufacturers start using terms like 'FF equivalent' or '35mm equivalent' that they get themselves into trouble, as you have done. 

As for, "_DoF at widest aperture exclusively,_" you're wrong again. An f/1.8 lens on FF can be set to f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 or f/3.5 – all of which are narrower than the widest aperture – and still deliver shallower DoF than an f/1.8 lens wide open on m4/3 for the same framing. Set a lens to f/8 on FF, that's equivalent to f/4 on m4/3…equivalence applies throughout the aperture range.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > "If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!
> ...



The "vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4" is HUGE by comparison. Again: http://j.mp/1hpUjHL
That makes it very much not equivalent to photographers who consider size & weight, as some do.

I'm not talking about making exactly the same image across formats. You're the one who thinks that this is essential, as if making the exact same image at the widest aperture of both lenses across both formats is the necessary goal of a photographer. It isn't. Photographers have stopped down their lenses for ages and will continue to do so. So a 75/1.8 in m43 gives the DoF of a FF 150/3.6. We know that and it's OK, not a big deal really.

"...in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent." — Only if someone brainwashed manufacturers into thinking that aperture designates DoF equivalence at widest aperture only. Fortunately manufacturers have never done that. They know that aperture is not a designation of DoF equivalence at widest aperture and never has been.

"The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, ..." — That's your understanding, your own redefinition of equivalence. Field of view is the common understanding. Apparently I made a huge blunder in not mentioning "fov" which you were quick to correct with repeated assertions about dishonesty and error, just in case anyone was misled.

"... that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, ..." — Someone somewhere needs to make the exact same image with the same FoV, DoF, noise and shutter speed across different formats? If so, are they really reading this forum and being misled? *Again, the point was about the appeal of smaller camera systems. * None of this "exact same image" business.

"You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that." — It's not misleading because I didn't say "DoF equivalence". You're addressing a forced interpretation of what I obviously didn't write or mean.

"People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?" — Because that's a nitpicky correction of absolutely no one's conclusion. Who said anything about getting the "same images"? That's obviously not what I meant. And you're still correcting it.

"You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, ..." — Actually I thought I was talking with people who have a good understanding of lenses and formats, not to people "who don't know better." 

Y'all "who don't know better" (anyone?) -- sorry I misled you!


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 2, 2014)

We all make do with what we have.... but if we have a vision and the gear doesn't allow us to achieve that vision... Then there is a significant difference in gear. If we are shooting randomly without concern for depth of field... well there are many who do... but they don't see what they want to shoot and make it happen...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

_"You're the one who thinks that this is essential, as if making the exact same image at the widest aperture of both lenses across both formats is the necessary goal of a photographer."_

Yet you are the one that introduced the term and concept of "*closest* ff equivalent". 

But, whatever, you are clearly not interested in correcting your misstep and I have a wedding to process. Fortunately I live on a spherical earth, you continue to live and preach the benefits of a flat one where 1+1+1+1= the only 1 you want to talk about (we don't need to worry about the other 3), and size.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 2, 2014)

I have vacation photos I need to process... I think I'm going to go back to shooting in raw& jpg. That way the mediocre photos get their due as well.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The f/number is FL / iris diaphragm diameter, as long as a lens is labeled as such, there's no deception. It's when people or manufacturers start using terms like 'FF equivalent' or '35mm equivalent' that they get themselves into trouble, as you have done.



The original point had nothing to do with DoF equivalence, so you're addressing "trouble" I didn't get into.

I hope you don't think that Panasonic should relabel their f/2.8 zooms as f/5.6 to reflect DoF equivalence at widest aperture. In that case, lenses for medium format and larger should be relabeled too. That would really screw up anyone using a light meter.



neuroanatomist said:


> As for, "_DoF at widest aperture exclusively,_" you're wrong again. An f/1.8 lens on FF can be set to f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 or f/3.5 – all of which are narrower than the widest aperture – and still deliver shallower DoF than an f/1.8 lens wide open on m4/3 for the same framing. Set a lens to f/8 on FF, that's equivalent to f/4 on m4/3…equivalence applies throughout the aperture range.



You're just stating obvious stuff that we all agree on. So I don't know what error you're correcting. 

When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture. That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Yet you are the one that introduced the term and concept of "*closest* ff equivalent".



... which you chose to misinterpret and then "correct" for all of those people who "don't know better".


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 2, 2014)

Gentlemen, please let us be tolerant of other people's opinions. We all know that different sizes of sensor require different lenses to achieve the same result. :
For some people the viewing angle is the most important criterion for comparison. 
For others the DOF (shallower as best) is the most important. 
Let's leave aside the unattainable goal to compare different things, as if they were equal. For my part, I like wider DOF, and so I prefer to APS-C. If I wanted the DOF most shallow possible, I would choose full frame.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Gentlemen, please let us be tolerant of other people's opinions. We all know that different sizes of sensor require different lenses to achieve the same result. :
> For some people the viewing angle is the most important criterion for comparison.
> For others the DOF (shallower as best) is the most important.
> Let's leave aside the unattainable to compare different things, as if they were equal goal. For my part, I like wider DOF, and so I prefer to APS-C. If I wanted the most reasonable DOF possible, I would choose full frame.



I am totally accepting of peoples differing viewpoints. I 100% agree the Olympus is smaller than a ff camera, I am not in the business of denial.

What I am not accepting of is the fallacious comment that the "closest ff equivalent is a 135 f2 or 200 f2", it is factually wrong. It is as wrong as saying a 30' sailboat is the closest equivalent of a 300' ferry because they both float, and, the 30' one is smaller; because _my_ only idea of equivalent is the fact that they both float and being small is important to _my _(completely unrelated) point. Yes they do both float, but they are not equivalent, and they are certainly not the closest equivalent.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?



Why put words in my mouth? Equivalent can be made to apply to any aspect of a lens. As in — equivalent size, equivalent color, equivalent filter diameter, equivalent weight, equivalent price, equivalent ergonomics, equivalent weather resistance, equivalent parts, equivalent bokeh, equivalent DoF, etc. ... and, of course, equivalent FoV. 

Obviously, in this case I was talking about equivalent FoV. I should have been more specific. I will be more specific from now on, realizing that some people don't have a common understanding of equivalent focal lengths across systems.

Apparently it is a big error to just say "equivalent" when one means "equivalent FoV". So I've already apologized to the hypothetical person(s) who doesn't know better and was misled by my fallacious error. I hope they didn't rush out and buy a whole new camera system because of it. If so, perhaps the store has a good return policy, and they can still exchange the little Olympus 75/1.8 for the lens they really wanted, that one lens that gives the exact DoF that they require for a specific aperture. Perhaps they were all set to buy the $6,000 Canon 200/2.0 and, not knowing better, my error pushed them into an m43 camera with a 75/1.8? If this happened to someone, they can now thank you for setting them back on the right path.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The original point had nothing to do with DoF equivalence, so you're addressing "trouble" I didn't get into.



Perhaps the original point you were _trying_ to make, in your own mind, had nothing to do with DoF. But by using a term like 'closest FF equivalent' your statement absolutely does involve DoF, in addition to FoV.



zlatko said:


> I hope you don't think that Panasonic should relabel their f/2.8 zooms as f/5.6 to reflect DoF equivalence at widest aperture. In that case, lenses for medium format and larger should be relabeled too. That would really screw up anyone using a light meter.



Lenses should be labeled correctly, with the actual focal length (the physical distance between the image plane and the rear nodal point of the lens), and the f/number (the real focal length divided by the physical diameter of the iris diaphragm). Focal length and f/number are intrinsic properties of a lens, totally independent from the sensor. That's why Panasonic is lying by stating the FZ200 has a 25-600mm f/2.8 lens, when it's really a 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens with a small sensor behind it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?
> ...



I didn't, I quoted you, repeatedly, _"The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. "_

You are the one that mentioned aperture, it is only because you did so that I got involved, I don't give a damn about m4/3's. Not only did you mention aperture but directly contained within your comment is the fact that you assert the closest ff equivalent to an m4/3 f1.8 is f2, I don't know why you did that, but it is fallacious.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV. Lenses are commonly identified by mentioning the aperture: 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, etc. _I didn't specify the aperture as a way to specify the exact DoF they offer at widest aperture._ If anyone misunderstood and was actually misled, I apologize!

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps the original point you were _trying_ to make, in your own mind, had nothing to do with DoF. But by using a term like 'closest FF equivalent' your statement absolutely does involve DoF, in addition to FoV.



No, it had nothing to do with DoF until someone decided to promote that narrow misinterpretation and then "correct" it for the benefit of people who "don't know better".

You _know_ that the common understanding of apertures identified on lenses is not to represent DoF equivalence across systems. You obviously know that, as do the manufacturers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.



If you consider f3.6 on ff to give you a shallow dof then we are, again, talking different languages. Personally I use f2.8 zooms as a minimum, but don't pretend they give me the dof control I often want, then I move to faster primes. Does the f2.2 lens in the iPhone give me narrow dof?

My first language is English, I understand that is not true of many people here, I understand the difference between equal and equivalent, you are conflating them, you are using equivalent for focal length and equal for aperture value within the same sentence, I think that is a basic misrepresentation and confusing, just like the Panasonic 600mm f2.8, it is clearly not true.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.
> ...



Gosh, can't even admit that? So if you set your full-frame zoom to 150mm and f/3.6, it doesn't give shallow DoF?? Readers can compare that statement to their on their own language and experience. Why don't we just leave it at that because in that case we'll never agree on anything.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV.



Oh, ok. Well then, the PowerShot SX600 HS has a 4.5-81mm (real) zoom range, meaning you can get the same FoV as the Olympus 75mm lens. The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8. Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot. You can get it in the boring silver color of the Olympus lens, or a nice flashy red. Enjoy!

:


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV.
> ...



Neuro, that is just silly, a far fairer equivalent would be the Olympus with the 75mm f1.8 and the Canon ff with a 200-400 f4 IS 1.4, then we at least have near equivalence on dof too. I mean look at the size and cost of the Canon combo, it makes the Olympus seem even better value.

:


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8. Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot.



Huh? Where are you taking this conversation? I can't even make a point about small cameras and small lenses without someone going off on a tangent about point & shoots "since FoV and size are all that matter".

I didn't say they're ALL THAT MATTER. Where the heck do you get this? Just setting up a straw man to knock him down? 

I was careful to talk about how some photographers prioritize size at some times and for some occasions, as you yourself do. Just a way to say why I think small systems will continue to survive. Apparently I wasn't careful enough. 

Wow! Just WOW! It's really not fun having to defend all of these imagined statements I didn't make. Such a waste of time


----------



## sdsr (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture. That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.



Yes, it's a marvelous lens and, despite the longer DoF cf FF equivalents, has superb bokeh and I very much enjoy using mine. It is, however, fairly expensive (c. $900) and, by m43 standards, rather heavy; and I can't help pointing out that the rather impressive Nikon 100mm 2.8 E series manual lens, for which I paid c. $120 a couple of weeks ago, provides the same focal length when I attach it to my Sony a6000, has excellent image quality and, even including the adapter, that combination is smaller and weighs less than my OM-D E-M5 & Olympus 75mm and cost vastly less. Of course, you have to be willing to fool around with manual focusing and forego IS, and your basic point about the compactness of m43 gear remains valid, but still....


----------



## zlatko (Jun 2, 2014)

sdsr said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture. That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.
> ...



Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out. And an older lens is a good way to save money. Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 2, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out. And an older lens is a good way to save money. Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.



Oh, such people are not hypothetical at all - you should visit m43 rumors some time! If privatebydesign and neuro were to pay them a visit, they would be kept busy for days....


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 2, 2014)

I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.




Absolutely agree, I really like my EOS-m, best compact ever as far as I am concerned, mainly because it is an exceptionally small travel backup when I already have the lenses. For me EOS system integration was the primary selling point, but I don't find the AF or anything else about it disheartening. I'll be very interested if they import the M3 and it can use the G1X MkII EVF.


----------



## dadgummit (Jun 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.
> ...


----------

