... but lots of people have fond memories of the eye controlled AF of the EOS-3.
And at the time enough people hated it that Canon killed "eye control."
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.
You're comparing the weight of a mirrorless camera plus small image circle lens with a FF image circle lens? Well, then...the S100 weighs less than 7 oz./200g including the battery and memory card, and has a 24mm-equivalent f/2 lens. That comparison is only slightly less relevant, but if you want to save weight, there you go...
I'm not at all convinced this is true: I like primes—or, rather, I should say that I like the prime I have—but can't justify spending more than $500 on a prime. And I can't be the only person in this position; I'd like an equivalent of Nikon's $200 35mm / f 1.8. Which is what I hope Canon is going to offer.
The 35L and 50L are much lighter (not much heavier than the 85/1., and 135L is only a little heavier than the Nikon. 85/1.4. All three of those L lenses focus very fast, too. The 85L is an outlier on both counts. For an 85mm lens, an aperture of f/1.2 is 36% larger than an aperture of f/1.4. I put up with the weight and slow AF of the 85L because it delivers great images.
RE Nikon vs. Canon AF. Both manufacturers need a way to differentiate their lines, pro from consumer. Historically, with Canon that is AF - to get their best, you need the 1-series. Nikon offers their pro-level AF in lower lines. OTOH, if you want a high MP sensor from Nikon, you pay for their most expensive pro body, whereas Canon offers a prosumer camera with the highest resolution they offer.
I keep hearing this and am wondering if Nikon really is better at focusing?
APS-C is the perfect size. Canon needs to get their act together and make a small and light Pro quality camera. It doesn't need to be mirrorless, a Digital EOS IX (an APS film camer from the 1990s) would be great with a EF 85mm f1.8. or a new 22mm f1.8 EF-S.
Here you are - EOS IX + 85 f/1.8
Camera-size means also includes lens size. So for the image quality (and a shallow depth of field) a big sensor is needed, which means big lenses.
Just look at a NEX with a telephoto lens, the size of the body is becoming less important, because it's the lens that makes up the bulk. Then there is the handling issue for serious work with a camera. I think most people would get a cramp in their hands, if they have to cover a sport event for 2 hours with a NEX+telephoto-lens.
On the other hand, these systems are nice to go hiking ...
People who do not care that much about IQ, will buy a smaller camera ...
I think there is room for an APS-C or even FF EVIL-camera in the rangefinder style. SONY is close to this, but the ergonomics of the NEX sucks.
If I were Canon, I would take some time to find the ideal sensor-size for a future EVIL-System. It is not an easy task...