Going for an overkill has never made me frustrated, at least not for long. But settling for less always has.
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.
Smart! The Idea of EOS-M is to have a SMALL kit. Some posters here seems to be doing the opposite. They are building up a big system around the tiny EOS-M. If that is the case, they might as well bring their FF DSLR kit.I think I will hold off the EF-EF-M adapter.Amazon had it for $60 a few weeks back and I ordered but later canceled it. I can't ever see myself using the adapter - the whole idea (for me) of the M is that it's tiny. Adding the adapter and my L glass would make it ridiculous. I carry a 5DIII (or 1D X depending on the shoot) as a back up body, but for those who carry the M for that purpose, I could see the purpose of the adapter.
No I've only tried on paper and wood based surfaces.
I think you'll find once you start using the grip, the bulge alone is sufficient
Interesting - thanks for posting. I've never had a big issue with the M's grip, but adding a A/S plate makes this one pretty cool.
BL, if you read this post- can you please post a photo of how you grip it? My hands are quite small and I am worried I won't reach the shutter button after wrapping my hands around the grip...
I have small hands too. But this grip works great for me!
We need someone who has used the new battery for 1D X (LP-E4N) in a 1DsIII, 1DIII or 1DIV and can tell if it had a longer life compared to the LP-E4.
That wouldn't be a directly useful comparison: the LP-E4N is advertised as having an additional 150 mA·h capacity over the LP-E4, while the capacity for the LP-E6 and E6N is advertised at 1800 mA·h.
Haven't seen this discussed yet, but wondering if the 5D MK III will be able to take the LP-E6N. Seems the only difference is the LP-E6N has 200mA more juice, and I am suspecting Canon looks at the battery in firmware, but wondering if in the future with a firmware upgrade, the 5DMK III will be able to take advantage of stronger and likely longer lasting batteries from the 7D MK II
Good news if true. I wonder why f/4 if there's no IS? Just to make it lighter I suppose?
IS isn't nearly as necessary at ultra wide focal lengths as it is at longer focal lengths. Even stopped down fairly far, any camera shake is going to produce sub-pixel movements, which don't really affect IQ. The use case for this lens is primarily going to be landscape, maybe architectural. I think for the most part, at really narrow apertures, the assumption is that it's probably going to be on a tripod.
I hate it when people generalise like that, IS might not be useful for you at wide focal lengths, I would find it useful in any focal length. Low light environmental portraits can always push shutter speeds, I have many 16-35 shots that would have benefited from IS.
A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.
And I'd like some low calorie ribeye steak, too.
It is far from out of the question. A full frame 70-300 STM has been rumoured (I think I remember a patent), and would be a logical follow up to the 24-105 STM.If it has a non rotating filter and good IQ (as recent STM lenses for EF-S), it will only lack the USM, external appearance and high price of the 70-300L.
Logic says that it will come, but only if willing to sacrifice USM for the silent but slower STM. I would have settled for that instead of stretching to the wonderful L, if the existing non-L USM had not been so dissapointing in so many ways.
I had waited for that lens for a long time following logic, and still am. But I am less than hopeful. Canon has tiered it such that people are forced to buy the more expensive lens if they want quality or go bust. The non-L has so many issues- ergonomics, no true ring USM, few aperture blades, rotating front element. It was just a difficult lens to love.
Your idea about an STM makes sense. But having used STM lenses, I don't think I'd want one if I am shooting birds or sports- it's just too slow. So even if it comes out, I'd not benefit from it.
The Tamron 70-300 is easier to love than the Canon and roughly the same price.
Maybe Tamron or Sigma will produce a competitor to the 70-300L that's < $1000 and has equivalent or better IQ.
Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.
Hmmmm, just a thought here, but maybe people who don't have unlimited amounts of disposable income? People who can't afford to drop $4-6k on every single lens?