# Canon EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS - stupid Canon, go make it!



## AvTvM (Jun 2, 2016)

when does stupid Canon finally come up with this lens? Aside from a fully competitive, kick-ass EOS M4 body, a short tele prime is the only thing I am missing for my EOS M setup. 

I want it as compact as the Pentax HD 70/2.4 pancake ... which is a mirrorslapper lens, so a mirrorless version should not be bigger, even with a tiny STM-AF drive and tiny IS unit built in.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-da-70mm-f-2-4-limited-lens-review-23141







Plastic mount and no manual focus ring and gear would be perfectly fine with me. As light as possible. As compact as possible. As simple as possible. As cheap as possible. IQ as great as possible = like EF-M 22/2. 8)

WHY oh why not, stupid Canon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

:


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 2, 2016)

i do not want 50ish. Too short for what I need. I want 85mm on crop 1,6x ... in a "pancakish" lens. 
Manual focus is 100% no go for me. Have not used it ever since 1987 when i got my first Minolta AF SLR. 

Stupid Canon, stupid. At 399 they would sell gazillion copies of that lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 2, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> ...
> If there are two hell bent things I'd love to see, it's the EOS M4, and a 80mm native EF-M. I'm a people shooter, make the EOS M4 have a silent shutter with a 80mm, I'll shed a few tears...



so, we are 2 buyers already. That will impress Neuro .. and stupid Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> I'd rather have a 80mm effective, IE portrait range.



An f/2.4 lens on APS-C for portraits? Fine in a studio where I can control the background – but I would use an EOS M there. 

Sure, sounds useful. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> so, we are 2 buyers already. That will impress Neuro ..



You want an EF-M 85mm lens, he wants 80mm effective, i.e. an EF-M 50mm lens. You count that as two buyers for the lens you want? Oh yeah, that's some impressive counting, that is.... :


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 2, 2016)

you are right. I did not register the "effective". I want 85mm focal length "for real". I don't do portraiture. I do concerts. And street. And i hate to do street with 35mm "effective". People on the streets are nasty today. It's not HCB days anymore. ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> they would sell gazillion copies of that lens.



At a bazillian copies to each owner of a EF-M camera, yah, the math checks out.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 4, 2016)

i want as long FL as possible in a "pancake design" with f/2.8 or better.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 5, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Neuro, I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but a nifty fifty on a crop Rebel is lethal for candids; try it sometime. Actually I find my shots from a cropped 50mm, IE 80 effective, a lot of times to be "better" than a 5D3 + 85 f/1.2, it just gives it a certain look. Now the latter stomps on the former btw, but, you shouldn't discount the former is my point.



I agree on this point, not specifically the EF 50/1.8 but over the years I've found I like the effect that a FF image circle 50 mil gives on crop. The dof / focus fall off / focus transition seems to be subtly different from the FF with 75 - 85. It's also easier to use well, or at least I find it so.


----------



## axtstern (Jun 5, 2016)

This is really amazing, wherever the AVTVM submarine is breaking the waves, the Neuro dive bomber is already circling the skies. Maybe it is this Stupid Stupid battlecry that gives him away.

Ah lets lean back and watch another episode


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but a nifty fifty on a crop Rebel is lethal for candids; try it sometime. Actually I find my shots from a cropped 50mm, IE 80 effective, a lot of times to be "better" than a 5D3 + 85 f/1.2, it just gives it a certain look. Now the latter stomps on the former btw, but, you shouldn't discount the former is my point.
> ...



problem is, there is NO EF-M prime lens longer than ... f*cking 22mm and now that 28mm Macro. No 50mm. No 85mm. 

That needs to change, and I would like to get the longest FL possible in an ultra-compact lens first = EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM. 

50mm has lower priority, since 50/1.8 STM plus adapter is a reasonable workaround, although a native EF-M 50/1.8 STm IS would of course be nicer, since it could be made rather pancakey. 

EF 85/1.8 does not play so well on OS M due to size/weight and AF. And IQ needs improvement, especially LoCA (Purple fringing). 

I really don't understand, why stupid Canon is dragging its feet on something so obvious and simple.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> when does stupid Canon finally come up with this lens? Aside from a fully competitive, kick-ass EOS M4 body, a short tele prime is the only thing I am missing for my EOS M setup.
> 
> I want it as compact as the Pentax HD 70/2.4 pancake ... which is a mirrorslapper lens, so a mirrorless version should not be bigger, even with a tiny STM-AF drive and tiny IS unit built in.
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-da-70mm-f-2-4-limited-lens-review-23141
> ...



I would prefer 2.0 and a focus ring and some distance information and a good close focus / MFD and stellar IQ and IS ...

But just a simple 85mm wouldn't be pancake - it needs to have 85mm from sensor side principle plane to sensor. The only way to make it shorter is using a tele design which isn't impossible. But a lens length below 60mm (just in the case of f/2.4) is not realistic IMO.

The pentax is so cute because it uses 25mm more flange distance of the mirror slapper.

If canon is stupid - I don't know. They saved me a lot of money releasing products I am not interested in and "forcing" me to buy two used 5D and using my EOS M ... 

But sth. like 85mm prime for EOS M is really missing and because I see 100mm as standard FL I would not hesitate to buy such a lens if it has the right spec-IQ-price-size balance.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2016)

axtstern said:


> This is really amazing, wherever the AVTVM submarine is breaking the waves, the Neuro dive bomber is already circling the skies. Maybe it is this Stupid Stupid battlecry that gives him away.
> Ah lets lean back and watch another episode


Yes, it is amazing. I am convinced that several people post under the Neuro nick. They also seem to have some tracker on me/my posts. Only way to explain the almost immediate response to any of my posts ... with the usual boring Canon Defense League stuff.

Can you "follow"/track other members on this forum? I don't see such a thing, but maybe with special/admin-type privileges?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> ...
> But just a simple 85mm wouldn't be pancake - it needs to have 85mm from sensor side principle plane to sensor. The only way to make it shorter is using a tele design which isn't impossible. But a lens length below 60mm (just in the case of f/2.4) is not realistic IMO.
> 
> The pentax is so cute because it uses 25mm more flange distance of the mirror slapper.
> ...



I agree. But even if an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM would come same size as EF-M 18-55 which is 60.9 mm Dia x 61 Length, I would be very happy. 8)

Talking to stupid Canon, one has to ask for the impossible ... in order to get anything at all.  ;D


----------



## arcer (Jun 5, 2016)

I would also welcome a native 85mm (136mm on FF) pancake also for either EF-S or EF-M. Hope it can reach F1.8.

But I think it is too harsh to call Canon stupid unless you have proof of Canon hoarding the lens formula without utilizing it. Just because Pentax have a 70mm pancake, it does not automatically mean that Canon has a 85mm pancake in its drawers somewhere. Or maybe I have to visit dilbertland to understand such insights.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 5, 2016)

arcer said:


> I would also welcome a native 85mm (136mm on FF) pancake also for either EF-S or EF-M. Hope it can reach F1.8.
> 
> But I think it is too harsh to call Canon stupid unless you have proof of Canon hoarding the lens formula without utilizing it. Just because Pentax have a 70mm pancake, it does not automatically mean that Canon has a 85mm pancake in its drawers somewhere. Or maybe I have to visit dilbertland to understand such insights.



Everyone (including OP) knows that Canon is not stupid, and of course they are hoarding lens formulas without utilizing them as it's SOP. The third and fourth quarters of this year (according to Canons' Koichi and Maeda) will show whether Canon now considers the M a worthy recipient of their R&D and manufacturing outlay. While most folks around here are awaiting an enthusiast M, I am more interested in faster primes as I believe that a Canon mirrorless capable of sports shooting is _at least_ several models into the future.

To the OP: That Pentax lens that you covet looks like a gorilla's nipple


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but a nifty fifty on a crop Rebel is lethal for candids; try it sometime. Actually I find my shots from a cropped 50mm, IE 80 effective, a lot of times to be "better" than a 5D3 + 85 f/1.2, it just gives it a certain look. Now the latter stomps on the former btw, but, you shouldn't discount the former is my point.
> ...



I'm honestly not sure how my questioning the utility of an f/2.4 lens for portraits on APS-C was misinterpreted as questioning the utility of a 50mm lens for portraits on APS-C. ??? My issue was with the f/2.4 aperture for which the OP is asking. 

In a studio-type setting, with control of background, max aperture matters little (I typically shoot a 135mm lens on FF, which is the FL equivalent the OP discussed, at f/10 or narrower when using a backdrop). When I used APS-C regularly, I moved from the 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2L for more subject isolation in outdoor portrait shooting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I am convinced that several people post under the Neuro nick. They also seem to have some tracker on me/my posts. Only way to explain the almost immediate response to any of my posts ... with the usual boring Canon Defense League stuff.



I repeat... :

But, given the other ridiculous fantasy scenarios of which you are 'convinced', I'm not surprised by your silly statements.


----------



## arcer (Jun 5, 2016)

brad-man said:


> arcer said:
> 
> 
> > I would also welcome a native 85mm (136mm on FF) pancake also for either EF-S or EF-M. Hope it can reach F1.8.
> ...



If the circumstances is as what you had mentioned, I rather they use a more civilized word than 'stupid'. For example, nonsensical or insensitive.

Other than that, I find your knowledge of gorilla nipple quite distracting and your comment disturbing.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2016)

Sorry, late to the thread here.

If I understand our resident anti-mirrorslapper crusader, AvTvM would like a lens that is _simultaneously_:


Sharp
Longer FL
Pancake form factor
Light weight
Wide aperture
Inexpensive
Image stabilized
Made expressly for Canon's lowest priority lens mount

Did I get that right? Because I believe APS-H (or Betamax for that matter) has a better chance of being resurrected than this lens has of being made.

With all due respect to AvTvM (whose nutty passion is honestly appreciated), EF-M needs something less exotic -- say, _an integral viewfinder_ -- before a mythically improbable lens like this should be offered. 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i want as long FL as possible in a "pancake design" with f/2.8 or better.



What is the number one reason for getting an EOS-M camera? Small size!

And now you want a compact longer focal length lens to go with it?

A small lens on a small body because you want it to be compact?

Makes sense to me, but why are people arguing about this?


----------



## romanr74 (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> when does stupid Canon finally come up with this lens? Aside from a fully competitive, kick-ass EOS M4 body, a short tele prime is the only thing I am missing for my EOS M setup.
> 
> I want it as compact as the Pentax HD 70/2.4 pancake ... which is a mirrorslapper lens, so a mirrorless version should not be bigger, even with a tiny STM-AF drive and tiny IS unit built in.
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-da-70mm-f-2-4-limited-lens-review-23141
> ...



since you are less stupid than canon just start your own company and build your own gear!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > thetechhimself said:
> ...



I shouldn't have included your quote in my reply because I agree on your comments regarding the 70 f/2.4 on crop, but that lens Mirror Mike referred to is a crop lens anyway, but Pentax do produce rather quirky lenses. Always have done in fact, a trace of the original DNA seems to still run in Pentax despite the fact that it's changed hands a number of times.


ahsanford said:


> Sorry, late to the thread here.
> 
> If I understand our resident anti-mirrorslapper crusader, AvTvM would like a lens that is _simultaneously_:
> 
> ...



Well the lens he has suggested Canon is stupid for not building is certainly not inexpensive ! In the UK they are about £500. And it is not fast, nor any IS. 

Pentax have always produced some odd focal focal lengths / apertures, for better or worse, and a 112 f/4 lens equivalent is definitely quirky !

Also, this lens is an all metal one with a rather nice smooth, well damped mechanical manual focus ring. I'm thinking AvTvM has never actually handled one of these.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



If you know that a Pancake would be impossible then don't go insulting the Pancake name with these Cupcake designs.
Maybe you could say EF-M 50mm f2.8 IS DO, but I'm betting that's the most Pancake we're going to get on EOS-M and it's not going to be cheap.

Canon should make Pancakes in as many focal lengths as they can, and an EF-S 85mm Pancake would be awesome, but it'll never happen on EF-M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i want as long FL as possible in a "pancake design" with f/2.8 or better.
> ...



Because he's not stating, "I want this lens," but rather, "I want this lens _and Canon is stupid for not making it._" The former statement is perfectly reasonable, but the latter statement is simply asinine.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2016)

Yes, Pentax has all sorts of ultra-/compact short tele lenses. Only stupid Canon - the self-declared number 1 - is not able to come up with them.


Pentax has 

A) Pentax Telephoto SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Series Autofocus Lens 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/388316-REG/Pentax_27980_Telephoto_SMCP_FA_77mm_f_1_8.html
the godfather of fast "cupcake"-size ;D tele primes!
That gooddamn thing is FF-capable, yet measures only 2.9 x 1.9" (7.37 x 4.83 cm), 49mm filter thread (!) and weighs 9.5 oz (269 g) despite all-metal construction and totally unnecessary well-dampened focus ring and associated manual focus gear cogwheels etc. 
It is however, ridiculously expensive 750 USD/1000+ € ... and therefore only suitable for super-stupid retro-craving steam-punk hipsters. But it proves, how amazingly compact FF-capable short tele-primes can be built. Even if 25mm in length were added to get rid of the freaking mirror in front of a righteous sensor, it would still be cupcake small. 8)

B) Pentax smc DA 70/2.4 Ltd. 
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/127-pentax-smc-da-70mm-f24-limited-review--test-report
APS-C only, 63x26mm (!), 49mm filter thread, Weight 130g
gorgeous Gorilla nipple. Twist the focus ring to your heart's delight! 8)
optically even better than the 77(1.8. And a much more affordable price. But not dirt cheap. 
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/127-pentax-smc-da-70mm-f24-limited-review--test-report?start=2

C) current version successor to B: Pentax HD Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited Lens
same optical formula, but some sort of nano coating on some lens surface/s. 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1002138-REG/pentax_21430_hd_pentax_da_70mm.html


I want C) from stupid Canon for EF-M mount. Preferably 85 mmor 80mm or 77. f-stop 2.8 or better is suffiecient for me and keeps things small, simple and cheap. Optically as good as the 22/2.0 please and pricewise similarly dirt-cheap = meaning: max. USD/€ 399, ideally 299. 

I buy one, promiesed. And all 3-5 Neuros buy one too, I am sure, since they recognize great value as well. ;D

now, Canon, don't be stupid, go make that lens. Hurry up, I am waiting!


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2016)

whenever I really want some item, I find it is in short supply. Much to my dismay, my taste seems to be extremely mainstream. If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too. 

If for example i decide to back a project on kickstarter, it always turns out to be over-funded by a couple 100%. 
If I bid on some item on ebay, it always attracts lot and lots of higher bids. 
Whenever I get to a nice beach, it is beleaguered by millions of bloody tourists! 

So, if I want a specific lens, there are gazillion others who want to get before me! Unfortunately! 

So ... Canon is *very stupid* for not making an ultracompact EF-M tele prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2016)

:


----------



## Rocky (Jun 5, 2016)

Canon should also make an ultra compact 22mm lens for the M. The existing 22/2.0 EF-M is a great lens, except that make the M's not pocketable with the lens on. I just hope that Canon will make a real pancake 22mm lens for Ms'. It can be expendable like the 11-22mm, The lens can be partially sunk into the body, like the Leica Elmer 50/2.8.I will even settle for f2.8 or even f4.0. With I.S. please.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too.
> 
> If for example i decide to back a project on kickstarter, it always turns out to be over-funded by a couple 100%.
> If I bid on some item on ebay, it always attracts lot and lots of higher bids.
> ...



Drop the mic, son. Surely this is the finest logical proof the internet has ever seen. 

#therearenowords #godblessforums

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too.
> ...


You may be missing the obvious.... AvTvM is a trendsetter and millions of people are trying to emulate him 

and in all seriousness, what if his tastes are more in line with the masses than the rest of us non-typical members of CR? Wouldn't that make his point more valid?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 6, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> and in all seriousness, what if his tastes are more in line with the masses than the rest of us non-typical members of CR? Wouldn't that make his point more valid?



The question really is: are AvTvM's personal desires more representative of market demands than canon's own market research?

If so, his point ("Canon is *very stupid*") is valid. 

Any takers that's the reality?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2016)

again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it



Based on your experience in kickstarter. Hmm. 
Take that logic stream of market research to the Dragon's Den and watch them pour the money in your direction.


----------



## d (Jun 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ...Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing...



It would seem Canon disagree. Very timely ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-1000mm-f5-6-is-do/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon.



Well, you have your opinion. Canon has hard data – every time someone buys an EOS M, Canon asks what lenses they have, what lenses they plan to buy soon. They have data on millions of Rebel owners, at a similar market level to the M line, and what lenses they own and plan to buy. If they think it would be worthwhile, both intrinsically and measured against the opportunity cost of other R&D they would not do instead, they'll make such a lens. They haven't yet. 

Canon has millions of data points from the entire world...and you have your opinion.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I want C) from stupid Canon for EF-M mount. Preferably 85 mmor 80mm or 77. f-stop 2.8 or better is suffiecient for me and keeps things small, simple and cheap. Optically as good as the 22/2.0 please and pricewise similarly dirt-cheap = meaning: max. USD/€ 399, ideally 299.



right.

so you look at lenses designed for longer registration distances and assume that a lens for the same focal will be the same size, but with a far smaller registration distance.

what substances are you on anyways? 

I need some of whatever it is to fully read your posts.

and btw it takes up to 7 or more years to take a lens from concept to production.

it may also be that you should stop thinking that canon can create and roll out a lens out of your mom's basement like you think they can.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...



where's your stats to back it up? I know i certainly wouldn't buy it.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 14, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...
> ...



stats: you just don't count. there you go!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> stats: you just don't count. there you go!


----------



## brad-man (Jun 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > stats: you just don't count. there you go!



This is a rather insensitive post. You know how he hates mirrors...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> I think he meant look in the mirror; it also doubles as a further insult though, clever.
> 
> What is it between those two anyways? For as long as I've been on the board it's a urinary sword fight between them... Seems like Neuro is a 1DX lover, and AvTVM is a A6300/A7RII lover, or something like that. Actually come to think of it, I don't think AvTVM is a Sony lover, that's other folks on the board.
> 
> I think it's great we have different needs and desires for our future Canon widget, I'm just curious if someone started it one day or something like that is my train of thought.



It's not mean-spirited or anything. AvTvM believes the future photography world is obvious and what he/she wants should be the next thing Canon should offer, and Neuro is correctly pointing out how baseless his/her positions are.

Overwhelmingly I agree with Neuro, but I do appreciate AvTvM's passion/mania for what he/she wants.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Actually I'd agree with AvTVM, not to disagree, but rather, I do feel mirrorless will, eventually, replace traditional mirrors *gasp*, but it may take some time. I don't expect the EF lineup to die by the way, most of us are heavily invested in that format. But, you may see Canon's FF mirrorless implementation be out of the box, perhaps it comes with an updated EF to EF-M adapter would be my guess.
> 
> Between advancement of the global shutter, EVF's, and chip tech both on the sensor and DIGIC processor, it's a matter of when, not if, my opinion.
> 
> ...



You are not remotely in the minority with that position. Mirrorless *is* the future. What we tend to argue about is when that future will arrive, but I happen to think it will be awhile. It might take 20 years, but by that time the only thing sticking with a mirror will be the highest-end field tools. Everything else will be mirrorless at that point.

The attitude that winds me up personally is "if you know mirrorless is inevitable, _that should be the only thing Canon is working on!_" which implies mirrorless photography is an enormous land that must be conquered quickly for the sake of doing so _or other people will do it first_. It's a market, it's not a race to the moon. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I'd agree with AvTVM, not to disagree, but rather, I do feel mirrorless will, eventually, replace traditional mirrors *gasp*, but it may take some time. I don't expect the EF lineup to die by the way, most of us are heavily invested in that format. But, you may see Canon's FF mirrorless implementation be out of the box, perhaps it comes with an updated EF to EF-M adapter would be my guess.
> ...



I'm in total agreement with what you typed but remember, attention spans are at an all time low and everyone wants things yesterday... Re: the thread about announcements vs releases.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 14, 2016)

I agree with TheTech. Having started photography with a Canonet QL19 film camera 45 years ago, and worked my way through an F1, eventually to the EOS series and then Canon's digitals, there has been a lot of change. But its the rate of change at the moment that is amazing. I sold my 7D for an EOS M3 to shed weight on a long hike I have planned shortly. I've been pleasantly surprised about the quality of the images (I'll post the results of a comparison with the 6D shortly) and even with things like the touchscreen (great for shifting the AF point).
This has made it quite clear to me that the future for prosumer cameras is definitely mirrorless. Yes, even with an M3!

But back to the thread. Yes, I would like some primes. I would prefer reasonably fast primes, because that can be done within the objective of keeping the lenses small. For example, I'm looking at Samyang 12mm f/2 and it would be great to have something similar from Canon. And 50mm f/2 would also be great. I'd settle for f/2.4 for an 85mm.
I will shortly buy an EF-M adapter to use my existing lenses, but the combo is quite bulky and I hear the focus is slower.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2016)

I've got the full M3 system as well as FF dslr. I'm really not sure that the future is totally mirrorless. Yes they have some advantages, theoretically many advantages, and I like others on this forum am finding the focus peaking and manual focus is great to use, as is being able to review the image in the viewfinder, but EVFs are going to have to come a long way further if they are to replace a good reflex OVF, both in terms of view and power consumption. 

The fact is the view through a good OVF is both power free and real / realtime. 

I know a guy who has recently moved to the A7rII. After a few months of use his only complaint ? The EVF. 

Back on topic, the M3 works really well with the adapter. It's not "clunky" (to use a Neuro term) and if you use the smaller EF primes, still a neat package. So stick on an EF 50/1.4 or an EF 85/1.8 ( or a Takumar 55/1.8 - yummy) and you're good to go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> It's both a market, and, a race to the moon.
> 
> Speaking of how long, I'd estimate 4 years for mirror-less to be a 5D, 6D and 7D "replacement". That may seem fast, but it's not. Technological change is speeding up, as is the competition. That's the market.
> 
> If you look back, it's taken the EOS M 4 years to get here, and at the same time, look where Sony has gotten in that same time period with their A system, and Nikon with the 1 system, with probably less funding.



I think that's unlikely. Look where the EOS M is after 4 years – slow sales outside of Asia, and the line moving 'downmarket' (PowerShot firmware, etc). Look at the drivers for Sony over that time period – repeated attempts to compete with CaNikon and erode dSLR market share, but while dSLR market share has contracted, overall MILC sales haven't increased, and Sony just lost top MILC spot to Olympus in the largest MILC market (where Canon is 3rd without really trying). 

The only way I see MILCs actually taking over any time soon is if Canon and Nikon simply drop the mirror, i.e. xxxD and Dxxxx bodies in something very much like their current form factor (no adapter for current lenses), only lacking a mirror.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I know a guy who has recently moved to the A7rII. After a few months of use his only complaint ? The EVF.



Wow!

I find the EVF to be fairly workable. AF point selection is my biggest irk.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I know a guy who has recently moved to the A7rII. After a few months of use his only complaint ? The EVF.
> ...



Principley low light work I think


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 14, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> It's both a market, and, a race to the moon.
> 
> Speaking of how long, I'd estimate 4 years for mirror-less to be a 5D, 6D and 7D "replacement".



It depends on what you mean by a 'replacement' - mirrorless is already there on image quality. There were a few reviews showing the synamic range and shadow recovery of the Oly EM-5 was easily the equal of the Canon 5DII. And even now there are studio pros moving from DSLR to MFT.

The real challenge came with cameras like the Canon 100D that had APS-C sensors in a body not much larger than MFT bodies (especially when compared to things like the Panny GH3). 
Mirrorless cameras are even good enough on focus tracking _for most people _.

But mirrorless challenge continues to be not the image quality but the public perception where 'real' cameras are DSLR - and I am pretty sure even a top notch mirrorless from Canon will have the same problem and it is impossible to predict how long that public inertia will take to overcome.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> But mirrorless challenge continues to be not the image quality but the public perception where 'real' cameras are DSLR - and I am pretty sure even a top notch mirrorless from Canon will have the same problem and it is impossible to predict how long that public inertia will take to overcome.



Respectfully disagree with you there.

Strong sensor IQ and 'good enough' tracking AF are far from the only barometers to assess when Mirrorless will be ready. On a host of fronts -- responsiveness, AF speed, battery life, availability of native lenses, etc. -- moving to mirrorless from an SLR still punishes you more than it rewards you.

I think mirrorless is an excellent call for a 2nd rig when you are shooting informally, on vacation, etc. and need a smaller form factor rig. I just can't rely on it as a primary rig at this stage given how much I'd be giving up.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i do not want 50ish. Too short for what I need. I want 85mm on crop 1,6x ... in a "pancakish" lens.
> Manual focus is 100% no go for me. Have not used it ever since 1987 when i got my first Minolta AF SLR.
> 
> Stupid Canon, stupid. At 399 they would sell gazillion copies of that lens.



"ish" I had always wondered if you might be SWF "ish" with 30 cats and a bunch of broken mirrors.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > But mirrorless challenge continues to be not the image quality but the public perception where 'real' cameras are DSLR - and I am pretty sure even a top notch mirrorless from Canon will have the same problem and it is impossible to predict how long that public inertia will take to overcome.
> ...



I'm on board with you there, ahsanford, but I am also mindful of the fact that I do not form part of the vast majority of the camera-buying public: responsiveness does ot matter to them and availability of native lenses is irrelevant to a market sector that very rarely buys a new lens once they walk out of the shop with their new purchase. 

By the way, for the initial shot, AF speed on my Olympus EM-5 and my Panasonic GX7 are easily the match of what my 7D2 can do. Continuous focus is a different matter as has been discussed elsewhere but even then if we look at the market for xxxD [Rebel] models, MFTs are probably as good in most circumstances for typical images (kids running round the park etc).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 15, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Gotcha. Next time you see him, suggest in low light (or when using strobes, etc) he set Setting Effect to Off. While not OVF, it's much better than when it's trying to display in real time something significantly amplified from what it's seeing.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Thanks for that info. I'll pass it on.


----------

