Search results

I absolutely disagree that EF-M is 'destined to die'. Saying there is necessarily large overlap between the consumer base of EF-M and RF is ludicrous once you take into account the difference in cost between the two systems. The newest EF-M cameras cost 600 and 850 dollars. The newest RF cameras...

If this camera really comes to the market without DPAF II, old sensor, etc. I'd say it's a complete joke, barely an upgrade at all.

Lots of lack of understanding with regards to resolution in this thread. The sensor MP count in a camera is what is called in information theory the sampling frequency. Basically it's the (spatial) frequency at which the signal (i.e. the light focused by the lens) is sampled. It is a 100% truth...

No I would in fact not buy a bulky 20MP sports camera even if it only cost 2000 USD. The needs of a consumer photographer and those of a professional sports photographer are wildly different. A sports photographer needs to be 100% certain that he is able to get an in-focus image of precise...

As an anecdotal consumer possibly considering buying into a full-frame mirrorless system in the next few years: There is absolutely no way I'd consider a 20 MP camera at a 2000 USD price point. This isn't 2012 anymore. From how similar the camera seems to the Canon RP I'm guessing it's a more...

Undoubtably the larger mount diameter gives RF and Z an advantage compared to Sony FE. But this does not mean that it is the superior product for every consumer. Right now I think the by far all-around best standard zoom, for any camera system, not just FF mirrorless, is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8...

In my opinion the most obvious need is a fast-ish standard zoom. Something like the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4. That lens also shows that it is almost definitely possible with the Canon M standard lens diameter (it is 63mm vs 61mm for Canon M lenses). Another one I'd look for if I were to buy into...

A 55-250mm f4 would need an entrance pupil of 250mm/4= 62.5mm. It's not just "impossible", it's literally physically impossible to do without exceeding the 61mm Canon M lens diameter. Why the obsession with constant aperture? As many have pointed out, it's probably impossible to make a f2.8...

There definitely is room for a 15/16/17-45/50/55mm f2.8-4 in the Canon M lineup. To those that despair that it wouldn't be possible to do with a 61mm diameter, take a look at the Fuji f2.8-4 standard zoom. That lens has a 65mm diameter. And it was never engineered to specifically fit within a...

It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter. And Canon seem to be really committed to that particular design decision for the M system. Besides, Canon is very clearly positioning the M system as a small-and-light, non-premium offering, and...

Now you are addressing an argument that the earlier poster didn't make, by saying that Canon M doesn't have an upgrade path and therefore isn't viable. But Canon M in this regard is equivalent to m43 and Fuji X. Your second argument is that m43 and Fuji X give you more options than Canon M. This...

There is one thing that I feel is going to be the biggest factor in how a M5 II stacks up, and that's the viewfinder. I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how incredibly tiny the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays...