At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, a 200-500 f/4 zoom lens would be a lot more useful to me than those primes!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
"If only the new M had wifi and GPS and EVF and flippy outy screen and a flash and better video" ... and all that other stuff you people want - you'd end up with a EOS M brick.
It's small and compact. Fix the bugs and leave it alone.
If you want all that other stuff buy a SL1 or rebel.
I'd say most of the M bashers in this thread have never used an M.
Why should people overcome adversities to support imperfect product (only blind fanboys do that)?
Fair enough. Can you please point us in the direction of that 'perfect product' your statement implies exists?
Will there be 200-400mm f2.8 ART for $4000?
People that bag on this camera at the $299 pricepoint crack me up. What decent camera can you buy for $299 new these days? I own a 60D and a 5Dc and this little guy can spar with them, and go home in a coat pocket.
The easiest way to think of what a speedbooster does to your sensor size and focal length is the following:
When you don't use a speedbooster, you constantly multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to get the "equivalent focal length". With a speedbooster that is no longer necessary.
WITH A SPEEDBOOSTER, YOUR APS-C CAMERA JUST BECAME A FULLFRAME CAMERA, AND ISO IS ACTUALLY TWICE AS HIGH AS WHAT THE CAMERA SAYS
So, when I use a 50mm on my NEX-5N with a speedbooster, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 200, I get an image with the same field of view, depth of field, and exposure, as I'd get with that same 50mm on a 5D3, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 400.
There, no more math. It becomes a FF camera, end of story.
You should get an additional 1 1/3 stops of light. If Canon makes it, I imagine they would compensate by making f-stop read accurately... so that the camera would see f/1.8 instead of f/2.8, for example.
Why is it that people never seem to get that retailers are not Canon and an individual retailers pricing decision often occurs independent of Canon (or any other manufacturer).Have you ever investigated "dealer incentives" that car manufacturers offer to their dealers? The price reduction could have come about because Canon let it be known to its retailers that it had a warehouse full of M kits that it was willing to sell to them (the retailers) at a much lower price and B&H, being B&H, was the first retailer to reduce their price in response. Dealers don't typically sell stuff at a loss without good reason, even if their competitors decide to. Even if the M is being replaced, the retailers could simply hold onto their current kits and reduce their prices to the break-even point when the new model appears. Given Canon's pricing history, that break-even point is likely to be well below the price of the new models' kits.
Fact: Canon is not offering the EOS M for $299.
Fact: There is no rebate currently offered for the EOS-M, which means no enforcement of minimum advertised pricing.
Fact: B&H offered the camera for $299.
Fact: We don't know why B&H made this offer.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon are major competitors with B&H.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price.
Fact: We don't know why Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price, but we can speculate it has something to do with the competitive marketplace.
Fact: Eventually, the EOS-M will be replaced.
Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply sloppy reasoning.
"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"
That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.
Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.
A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....
The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.
Agreed -- I got to thinking about it and was about to follow up with a post saying that it likely be EF only because it would need the extra clearance. I also would like to revise my price guess: this will be marketed as a piece of pro gear -- a Canon teleconverter runs about $450 -- so that would likely be the ballpark for the reducer -- $450 - $500. I hope it's closer to the first guess, though!
When you're not using live view, will it be possible to take 40MP pics?
What do you mean why? Are photographers still stuck on this anti-megapixel circlejerk from 2002?