I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?
Of course not, if you were you wouldn't want it as an EF-M.
Upvote
0
I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?
Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.
You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.
And what technical analysis has been done to state that EF is "to slow for modern cameras"?
Remember most camera users don't use long heavy lenses. An M body with a compact lens is a great travel tool.
It's huge enough
and he was indeed talking about the bodies...go read what you replied to.
If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera. The R5 with it's animal eye focus together with the new 600mm and 800mm are amazing combination for birding. I believe that Canon knows the market and will not bother trying to create a true mirrorless replacement for the 7D as the above mentioned combination will suffice and generate volume for the R5.I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C....
Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.
I know he was talking about bodies. He replied to a post of mine about lenses. Go ahead, read what he replied to.
I disagree, but to each his own.
My most common "casual" camera is the M6-II with the Tamron 18-200 (native mount) lens, which many have had trouble with but has never given me any. It's a bit fatter than the Canon standard diameter (filter threat is 62mm) but covers a LOT of ground, use-wise. Which is why I think the utility of the series could be greatly increased if Canon would just bend a bit on that lens diameter. It's still pretty compact (by enthusiast standards, not by point and shoot standards) even with that lens on it. Not pocketable, but light. And of course nothing stops one from putting on the 22 mm pancake (which is on my M-50 right now) and stuffing it into a pocket.
EDIT TO ADD: I'm not claiming that the average EF-M buyer would give a damn about an 18-200 lens, I'm talking more about people like us. IMHO it's a great walking-around setup.
High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera.
High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.
High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.
I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option...
I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.
...I suppose if one wanted a full frame AND a 7D replacement in one package, the R5 might make some sense, and might be cheaper than some other full frame plus a (still mythic) R7 put together...
Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.
Both of those lenses have metal mounts.
The plastic ‘spacers‘ are designed breakaways. If you are unlucky enough to drop a camera with a lens on it that ‘spacer’ is a designed in weak spot that breaks in the hope of preventing more serious damage in the lens, kind of like a cars crumple zone.Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.
I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm
Disagree? With what? I pointed out the RF mount has a diameter nearly equal to the height of an M6-II and M50 (excepting viewfinder hump). Are you claiming that's not true?