Oh good, a "nifty-850."
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.
There was also a time (now) when OK referred to the state where I live...There was a time when OK referred to something being "all correct"...I think they are OK.
This is my exact response!! Thanks.
90% isn't perfect.Eh, polling is an inexact science. It's within the margin or error.
Seriously, buy the smallest DSLR and put a grip on it?The OM-D has a battery grip. I know it's not exactly the same thing. I'm just saying'...
I swear 50% of the "build quality" of L lenses is purely a marketing tactic. They could have just as easily made plastic the "premium" material and dubbed it with some fancy name like "ultralight" line. Metal has just as many downsides as it does positives, if you ask me.
Any pics when he was riding the bike?Unfortunately the only action photos I took were before the training wheels came off. (I was the one chasing the bike when he was riding without them!) But here is a side-shot.
Definitely better than cell phone. ;-) Thanks for sharing--I was just thinking about this the other day and wondering how it went for you. Was the company happy?People were really pleased. A lot of the folks I had captured made a point of coming to my office to say thanks, browse some of the other framed pictures on my walls, and ask about my photography. It was a pretty cool experience.
Fact: I bought one, it's been delivered to my building and I'll have my hands on it within the hourFact: You got it for a great price.
Thanks for the clarification! I can see where you're going with this. Following this down its logical path, if Canon released this FF compact which requires an adapter for EF lenses, do you think they'd release a new lens mount for direct mounting to the on-camera flange? I guess it wouldn't be much different than their current EF/EF-S systems, but I'd be surprised to see them have two mirrorless lens systems out there.I was thinking of using a glass-free tube, much like the current EF to EF-M adapter to use FF glass on a FF sensor and retain the normal focus range. Focal lengths above about 40mm can't really be made smaller with a reduction in the flange distance (just look at the shorty forty), so just use EF glass with a tube adapter. But the EF-M flange distance lends itself well to shorter lenses such as 22mm pancakes. There's little reason why a similar sized 22mm pancake couldn't have a larger imaging circle for FF. That would make it more compact than even a crop M for wide angle.I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.
If your proposed system allowed EF lenses to be mounted at a shorter flange distance, wouldn't it require sensors larger than our FF sensors? Sounds like a challenging and expensive proposition! Not an unwelcome one though.
Once you start putting adapters and reducers on a compact body, it starts to lose appeal to me. I'd rather use my FF.
I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.