Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site

[zlatko]

Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.

Fuji X systems and mFT cameras will not be sucessful in price bands of 1000+ for every camera and every other lens .. As soon as the hype is over and as soon as compact ff mirrorless cameras plus matching lenses can be had at decent prices, people wil buy those rather than half- and quartet-sized sensors.

+1 the Fuji APS-C and mFT systems are very nice, but can't survive much longer at their current price points. As AvTvM pointed out, there are good FF system alternatives in the same price range. APS-C's main advantages over FF are size and system price at the expense of some IQ. The APS-C size advantage is legitimate (even compact FF bodies will require large glass once you move beyond maybe 85mm)' but price advantage does not exist with $1,200 bodies and $1k lenses. Full frame

As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.

Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

 

[AvTvM]

As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.

???

I guess it should read "high-priced APS-C systems will eventually disappear" ... and that's exactly my opinion too.

Once we get beyond 135mm focal length, lenses for any sensor-size from mFT via APS-C to FF are exactly the same size: "FF size". And below that focal length, lens size and weight does not scale anywhere proporationately to image circle. There's just no point in buying 1000+ € 56mm/1.2 lenses ... unless they cover 36x24mm image circle.

 

[privatebydesign]

Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Rather good Ff cameras can be had at decent prices (6D, D610, A7) .. And they can be really compact too (A7/R/S). Prices will fall further, functionality will further increase.
Fuji X systems and mFT cameras will not be sucessful in price bands of 1000+ for every camera and every other lens .. As soon as the hype is over and as soon as compact ff mirrorless cameras plus matching lenses can be had at decent prices, people wil buy those rather than half- and quartet-sized sensors.

As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.

I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "in the future, all cameras will be full frame". But this is as absurd as saying "in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower." ???

 

[AvTvM]

I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "in the future, all cameras will be full frame". But this is as absurd as saying "in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower." ???

200 hp cars would quickly disappear if those with 400 hp and exactly the same fuel efficiency (mpg) could be had at the same price ... so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost" and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.

So guess what ... 400 hp are the way to go.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I see no facts indicating the death of APS-C. The mirror may disappear when the AF sensor systems become faster and electronic viewfinders are good enough. A few years ago I hear people saying that "in the future, all cameras will be full frame". But this is as absurd as saying "in the future, all cars will be 400 horsepower." ???

200 hp cars would quickly disappear if those with 400 hp and exactly the same fuel efficiency (mpg) could be had at the same price ... so will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost" and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.
So guess what ... 400 hp are the way to go.

Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects. Including size and weight and price lenses.

 

[bholliman]

As camera phones improve these high end APS-C systems will eventually disappear.

???

I guess it should read "high-priced APS-C systems will eventually disappear" ... and that's exactly my opinion too.

Once we get beyond 135mm focal length, lenses for any sensor-size from mFT via APS-C to FF are exactly the same size: "FF size". And below that focal length, lens size and weight does not scale anywhere proporationately to image circle. There's just no point in buying 1000+ € 56mm/1.2 lenses ... unless they cover 36x24mm image circle.

Yes, I meant high priced. If somebody can make a "high end" low priced APS-C system it will certainly be viable.

I'm not saying APS-C will go away, I'm saying APS-C systems that cost as much as better FF systems can't compete and will eventually decline quite a bit in sales. I suppose there will still be a small market for users who care so much about compact size with lots of features, they are willing to pay a big premium for it.

 

[AvTvM]

Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects. Including size and weight and price lenses.

Thats where Your car analogy fails. For cars, that is. For cameras and lenses physics work the way i wrote: ff-sensored Sony A7 and 35/2.8 as well as 55/1.8 are not larger and not more expensive than corresponding tiby-sensored fuji x-stuff or omd1-stuff.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Expect cars 400 horsepower achieve the same fuel consumption that cars 200 horses, seem as realistic as expect APS-C achieves full frame performance in all aspects. Including size and weight and price lenses.

Thats where Your car analogy fails. For cars, that is. For cameras and lenses physics work the way i wrote: ff-sensored Sony A7 and 35/2.8 as well as 55/1.8 are not larger and not more expensive than corresponding tiby-sensored fuji x-stuff or omd1-stuff.

I compared sensor size and performance, and not argued that Fuji high end has more compact or more cheaper lenses. I contend that there will always be market for APS-C sensors from any manufacturer, and Fuji is far from being the market leader. Let me be more specific:
I believe that in 2024 the APS-C cameras will continue to exist along with full frame. And APS-C will continue selling more than full frame cameras.

 

[zlatko]

Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

Way to miss the point. The 75/1.8 is small. *small* as in not BIG. The 70-200/4 is quite large by comparison. I've used both of those this weekend and the size difference is considerable.

You're totally stuck on the concept of "depth of field equivalence". As if that were the only thing that mattered and the only way to compare lenses. It isn't. Goodness, not every photographer shoots every lens at widest aperture for every subject. Some don't do it for any subject. As I said, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize greater dof.

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute. And shallow dof is not the sole measure of a lens. For some lenses and for some subjects it is irrelevant. But this lens clearly as it. And again, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize *small* gear. That is the point.

Here is a visual comparison of your "honest comparison" based on dof equivalence: http://j.mp/1hpUjHL
Notice how one is a heck of a lot bigger than the other?

 

[privatebydesign]

Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

Way to miss the point. The 75/1.8 is small. *small* as in not BIG. The 70-200/4 is quite large by comparison. I've used both of those this weekend and the size difference is considerable.

You're totally stuck on the concept of "depth of field equivalence". As if that were the only thing that mattered and the only way to compare lenses. It isn't. Goodness, not every photographer shoots every lens at widest aperture for every subject. Some don't do it for any subject. As I said, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize greater dof.

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute. And shallow dof is not the sole measure of a lens. For some lenses and for some subjects it is irrelevant. But this lens clearly as it. And again, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize *small* gear. That is the POINT.

I wasn't missing your point, I was addressing an inaccurate comment contained within post.

If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison? Saying "The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses." is not true, to fail to consider all crop factors, iso, aperture, and focal length, when talking about an equivalent (the very word you used), you are not telling the truth.

If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.

 

[Loswr]

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.

My PowerShot S100 has an f/2 lens. That's only 1/3-stop narrower than f/1.8, so by your definition it's a fast lens, right? But with a 4.6x crop factor, it's the equivalent of f/9 on FF. Does that sound 'fast' to you? :

As PBD stated, f/1.8 on a 2x crop sensor is equivalent to f/3.6 on FF. Can you get shallow DoF at f/3.6? Sure...but don't pretend you've really got an f/1.8 lens as far as DoF compared to FF is concerned.

 

[zlatko]

Different photographers have different needs. Full frame is great, but it doesn't meet everyone's needs. For some, a small size is paramount, because they travel or because they have too much other stuff they need to carry. And for those who don't print large, the quality difference is minimal. Olympus offers a 75mm f/1.8 that is very small and image stabilized with any Olympus body. The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses. In this respect, the Olympus 75/1.8 is unparalleled in any system because it's so small. APS-C and m4/3rds will survive because FF will never offer lenses that small, especially telephoto lenses like the 75/1.8. Some photographers really appreciate small gear.

When will people stop saying this?

A m4/3 75mm f1.8 has a FF equivalent of 150mm f3.6. That is not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof.

The shots from an m4/3 with a 75mm @ f1.8 and 1/250 sec with 100iso will look identical in all respects, perspective, framing, dof, and noise, to a ff shot at 150mm @ f4 and 1/250 sec with 400iso.

Don't know about you but the 70-200 f4 IS seems like a much more honest comparison to the m4/3 75 f1.8 when you actually apply equivalence to get identical images.

To follow on from that, a m4/3 equivalent to a ff 200 f2 would be a 100 f1.0, I'd like to know the cost of that were anybody to make one. The m4/3 equivalent of the 135 f 2 would be a 70mm f1.0.

There are many more lens options that give much broader possibilities in ff than any other format.

Way to miss the point. The 75/1.8 is small. *small* as in not BIG. The 70-200/4 is quite large by comparison. I've used both of those this weekend and the size difference is considerable.

You're totally stuck on the concept of "depth of field equivalence". As if that were the only thing that mattered and the only way to compare lenses. It isn't. Goodness, not every photographer shoots every lens at widest aperture for every subject. Some don't do it for any subject. As I said, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize greater dof.

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute. And shallow dof is not the sole measure of a lens. For some lenses and for some subjects it is irrelevant. But this lens clearly as it. And again, different photographers have different needs. Some prioritize *small* gear. That is the POINT.

I wasn't missing your point, I was addressing an inaccurate comment contained within post.

If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison? Saying "The closest full frame equivalents are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2 (very large) lenses." is not true, to fail to consider all crop factors, iso, aperture, and focal length, when talking about an equivalent (the very word you used), you are not telling the truth.

If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.

One can't get the *same* images from different systems. That's not everyone's goal. That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents". Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs. And with telephoto lenses, m43 provides a very small form factor for a comparable angle of view. No it won't make the *same* image. But some photographers are not stuck on the concept of depth of field equivalence as the be all and end all of lens comparisons. It all depends on your specific photographic needs. Your concept of "equivalence" (i.e. dof equivalence) completely ignores the size and weight advantages of a smaller format, as if they don't exist and couldn't matter to anyone. But the link I provided shows why it matters to some.

Now again, your concept of what is a "fast" lens is hopelessly tied to the concept of dof equivalence, so you don't regard an f/1.8 m43 lens as fast. You are welcome to your belief that depth of field at widest aperture is the only thing that matters about a lens. But for purposes of calculating exposure f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 = f/1.8 no matter which format one uses and has been regarded as fast throughout photographic history. F/1.8 = f/3.6 only in the world of those who see dof equivalence as the only measure that matters, either because they only ever shoot at widest aperture or because they have to prove that full frame is "best" for everyone and can't see that some photographers may have different priorities.

Aperture has never been a standard measure of depth of field. The same f-stop gives a different dof depending on the format and the focal length and the subject distance. But aperture has been a standard measure for exposure values throughout the history of photography. (Hence, light meters, exposure charts, etc., give aperture values — and photographers could reliable use them regardless of which format was in the camera.) You seem to have an urgent need to flip that to prove your point.

Has everyone here been brainwashed by that fellow who recently issued a video claiming that Olympus and Panasonic are "dishonest" for labeling their f/2.8 lenses as f/2.8 and not as f/5.6?

 

[zlatko]

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.

My PowerShot S100 has an f/2 lens. That's only 1/3-stop narrower than f/1.8, so by your definition it's a fast lens, right? But with a 4.6x crop factor, it's the equivalent of f/9 on FF. Does that sound 'fast' to you? :

As PBD stated, f/1.8 on a 2x crop sensor is equivalent to f/3.6 on FF. Can you get shallow DoF at f/3.6? Sure...but don't pretend you've really got an f/1.8 lens as far as DoF compared to FF is concerned.

Neuro, I'm surprised that you would write that. Depth of field equivalence is not the ONLY thing that matters about a lens. See what I wrote above. Goodness, does anyone remember angle of view when talking about lenses? Does anyone consider exposure in their definition of "fast"? How did we get stuck in this rut where dof equivalence somehow DEFINES a lens. Y'all shoot everything at widest aperture all of the time?

When I shoot an m43 lens at f/1.8 I know perfectly well that it gives the dof of f/3.6 on full frame, and that is FINE. That is perfectly OK. Not only is it OK, it is my intention. Have you ever shot a full frame lens at f/3.6? Of course you have. It is not a sin. Stopping down a lens does not break some photographic law. The point is not to get the dof equivalent of f/1.8 in full frame, but rather to use a much smaller system on occasion.

 

[Loswr]

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.

My PowerShot S100 has an f/2 lens. That's only 1/3-stop narrower than f/1.8, so by your definition it's a fast lens, right? But with a 4.6x crop factor, it's the equivalent of f/9 on FF. Does that sound 'fast' to you? :

As PBD stated, f/1.8 on a 2x crop sensor is equivalent to f/3.6 on FF. Can you get shallow DoF at f/3.6? Sure...but don't pretend you've really got an f/1.8 lens as far as DoF compared to FF is concerned.

Neuro, I'm surprised that you would write that. Depth of field equivalence is not the ONLY thing that matters about a lens. See what I wrote above. Goodness, does anyone remember angle of view when talking about lenses? Does anyone consider exposure in their definition of "fast"? How did we get stuck in this rut where dof equivalence somehow DEFINES a lens. Y'all shoot everything at widest aperture all of the time?

When I shoot an m43 lens at f/1.8 I know perfectly well that it gives the dof of f/3.6 in full frame, and that is FINE. That is perfectly OK. Have you ever shot a full frame lens at f/3.6? Of course you have. It is not a sin. Stopping down a lens does not break some photographic law. The point is not to get the dof equivalent of f/1.8 in full frame, but rather to use a much smaller system on occasion.

I'm all for smaller, as long as the trade offs are understood. Too many people think there's a free lunch. When people talk about the 'reach advantage' of a crop sensor, they seem to think there's no down side. As long as people understand that the crop factor applies to FoV, DoF for equivalent framing, and ISO noise, fine. However, most people get the first one and stop there, ignoring the other two. I use my EOS M or PowerShot S100 when the 1D X is just too big to bring, but I fully understand the sacrifices inherent in those choices. It seems that you do, too...but sadly, we're in the minority in that understanding.

 

[zlatko]

As for the 75/1.8 being "not fast and it doesn't give a shallow dof." That is simply wrong. I mean, it couldn't be more wrong. Throughout the history of photography, an f/1.8 lens has been fast. An f/5.6 lens = not fast. An f/1.8 lens = fast.

And a 75/1.8 *does* give shallow dof. Is it shallow enough for you? Is it as shallow as a 200/2? Or a 50/1.0? Obviously not. But it is shallow by any definition of the word. A 50/2 give shallow dof. An 85/1.8 gives shallow dof. A 100/2.8 give shallow dof. Even a 70-200/4 gives shallow dof. So why doesn't a 75/1.8 give shallow dof? But it does, of course. Easy to *say* it doesn't, but one just has to use it to see that it does.

Shallow dof is a relative value, not absolute.

My PowerShot S100 has an f/2 lens. That's only 1/3-stop narrower than f/1.8, so by your definition it's a fast lens, right? But with a 4.6x crop factor, it's the equivalent of f/9 on FF. Does that sound 'fast' to you? :

As PBD stated, f/1.8 on a 2x crop sensor is equivalent to f/3.6 on FF. Can you get shallow DoF at f/3.6? Sure...but don't pretend you've really got an f/1.8 lens as far as DoF compared to FF is concerned.

Neuro, I'm surprised that you would write that. Depth of field equivalence is not the ONLY thing that matters about a lens. See what I wrote above. Goodness, does anyone remember angle of view when talking about lenses? Does anyone consider exposure in their definition of "fast"? How did we get stuck in this rut where dof equivalence somehow DEFINES a lens. Y'all shoot everything at widest aperture all of the time?

When I shoot an m43 lens at f/1.8 I know perfectly well that it gives the dof of f/3.6 in full frame, and that is FINE. That is perfectly OK. Have you ever shot a full frame lens at f/3.6? Of course you have. It is not a sin. Stopping down a lens does not break some photographic law. The point is not to get the dof equivalent of f/1.8 in full frame, but rather to use a much smaller system on occasion.

I'm all for smaller, as long as the trade offs are understood. Too many people think there's a free lunch. When people talk about the 'reach advantage' of a crop sensor, they seem to think there's no down side. As long as people understand that the crop factor applies to FoV, DoF for equivalent framing, and ISO noise, fine. However, most people get the first one and stop there, ignoring the other two. I use my EOS M or PowerShot S100 when the 1D X is just too big to bring, but I fully understand the sacrifices inherent in those choices. It seems that you do, too...but sadly, we're in the minority in that understanding.

Most people vs. minority ... I have no idea. People naturally have different levels of knowledge and skill, and different priorities in their photography. The various tradeoffs are easy to understand and soon become evident to anyone to whom they make a difference.

My point is simply that these small systems will very likely survive because some photographers appreciate small systems. Just that, nothing more.

 

[garyknrd]

You know I have been curious for a long time. And I am fixing to start experimenting.
I just ordered the Pentax K-3 to see if it is going to satisfy my needs. For birding.
I have the 7D and I really like the crop factor. I put the brakes on at about ISO 800, with the 7D.
The K-3 is going to give me about the same ISO as the Canon Mark IV. around 1200-1300 ISO, with a 1.5 crop.

Not sure yet if it is going to work out, We will see? But the new Sony sensors are much better than they were a few years ago. And the cheap crop sensor cameras are everywhere now. And getting pretty good reviews.

So I will be shooting with the Sigma 500mm prime and Sigma 300mm F/2.8 prime with the Pentax K-3 with in body IS? I'm looking forward to seeing just how far I can push it, and how it stacks up against the 7D and mark IV, and the new Canon tele lenses?

After dealing with Pentax in the past. My hopes are not too high. But I have to test it.

I am a die hard crop guy..

 

[privatebydesign]

One can't get the *same* images from different systems.

Yes you can, if you use equivalence.

That's not everyone's goal.

I never said it was.

That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents".

That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5.

Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs.

I never questioned that point of view, I own an EOS-M myself.

You keep saying I am only considering dof when talking about lens/system equivalence, I could turn that around and say you are only considering focal length/fov, I say that is totally invalid. DOF control and light gathering capabilities are the two most important aspects of "fast" lenses, that is not me being "totally stuck on the concept of 'depth of field equivalence'", it IS equivalence. That you are choosing to ignore two of the three metrics impacted by a sensor size change, and only talking about one, and the unrelated question of size, is your erroneous though process, not mine.

The two things, camera/lens size and image equivalence are completely unrelated, camera/lens size is an important factor in a system purchase and is a point of yours I have not disputed, but it has nothing to do with equivalence, that is, create the same image with different systems. You argue that many people just want a camera they can take at a smaller size, again, I haven't disputed that. However I would say that as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot, on those occasions a full understanding of equivalence, and the fact that "The closest full frame equivalents [to the m4/3 75 f1.8] are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2" is not true unless you ignore everything apart from focal length, is the only way you can work to get that image you imagine.

Finally, if you own a FF Canon camera and want something Olympus sized, the SLi isn't far off, http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,448 , put an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 on it (which both cost less money than the Olympus 75mm f1.8 ) and you have a couple of lenses you can use on both cameras for a minimal increase in size.

 

[zlatko]

One can't get the *same* images from different systems.

Yes you can, if you use equivalence.

That's not everyone's goal.

I never said it was.

That's why I wrote "closest full frame equivalents", rather than just "equivalents".

That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5.

Some photographers have a goal of shrinking their photo gear, and m43 meets their needs.

I never questioned that point of view, I own an EOS-M myself.

You keep saying I am only considering dof when talking about lens/system equivalence, I could turn that around and say you are only considering focal length/fov, I say that is totally invalid. DOF control and light gathering capabilities are the two most important aspects of "fast" lenses, that is not me being "totally stuck on the concept of 'depth of field equivalence'", it IS equivalence. That you are choosing to ignore two of the three metrics impacted by a sensor size change, and only talking about one, and the unrelated question of size, is your erroneous though process, not mine.

The two things, camera/lens size and image equivalence are completely unrelated, camera/lens size is an important factor in a system purchase and is a point of yours I have not disputed, but it has nothing to do with equivalence, that is, create the same image with different systems. You argue that many people just want a camera they can take at a smaller size, again, I haven't disputed that. However I would say that as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot, on those occasions a full understanding of equivalence, and the fact that "The closest full frame equivalents [to the m4/3 75 f1.8] are 135mm f/2 (large) and 200mm f/2" is not true unless you ignore everything apart from focal length, is the only way you can work to get that image you imagine.

Finally, if you own a FF Canon camera and want something Olympus sized, the SLi isn't far off, http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,448 , put an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 on it (which both cost less money than the Olympus 75mm f1.8 ) and you have a couple of lenses you can use on both cameras for a minimal increase in size.

Oh no, here we go again.

"That is not true. The closest ff equivalents would be a 150mm f3.5." —— only if you're absolutely glued to the concept of DoF equivalence at widest aperture.

My point was about the appeal of small camera systems. Remember? And that's the part you don't dispute. You're whole argument is about something that's a given, something that no one disputes. You're hell-bent on calling out a falsehood that only comes into existence under your very selective interpretation. My point about the appeal of small camera systems (APS-C and m43) was not about DoF equivalence at widest aperture.

The goal of making the exact same image with a smaller system is fine, but it's not the goal of every photographer in every instance. The priority of finding a lens with the exact same DoF at widest aperture is fine, but it's not the goal of every photographer for every photo. There are so many photographs that are not made at widest aperture and do not require the FF equivalent of f/1.8. There are many, many photos that look perfectly good, or in many cases BETTER, stopped down to f/3.6 or smaller. For the vast number of photographic applications that do not require that, the relevant lens parameters are focal length and light gathering. For some photographers and some applications, lens *size* is the most relevant parameter.

You say, "as photographers we often have an image in mind before we take a shot" — but that's not what we have in mind when we buy into camera system and format. It's not a specific image at a specific (widest) aperture. Rather, it's the whole system — all of it's advantages and disadvantages come into consideration.

If you absolutely positively can't help bringing depth of field equivalence into the conversation, then it is a simple 2X multiplication (for m43) that we can state and then move forward. Why get so stuck on it? Apparently it is now a huge blunder to call a lens in a different format "equivalent" without specifying that one is referring to angle of view and f-stop and not equivalent depth of field at *widest* aperture. If so, photographers have been making this blunder for generations. What's the 50mm equivalent in medium format or 4x5? Can't ask that anymore. Now one has to specify whether one means angle of view, or DoF equivalence at widest aperture, or something else.

I am not ignoring the appeal of the shallowest possible DoF. I'm saying that greater DoF at the same aperture for a smaller format is a given. That's understood. And it's not a problem. Sometimes it is intentional. And when it is a problem, one doesn't go to the smaller format. That's always been the case.

I don't need a 100/1.0 or 70/1.0 for m43 — wouldn't want to pay for them or carry them. But I do need a 75/1.8 and happily that exists, and it's small, and it provides shallow enough DoF when desired.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am not arguing, I am saying you are using the term equivalent incorrectly, my selective interpretation is in line with the accepted meaning of the word.


e·quiv·a·lent
iˈkwivələnt/
adjective
adjective: equivalent

1.
equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.
"one unit is equivalent to one glass of wine"
synonyms: equal, identical, same; More

Also this is a very good link.

EQUIVALENCE

If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, then the lenses are only "equal in value, amount, and function" in one of the three metrics they affect when used to take a picture, ergo, they are not equivalent.

If you had said I can get the same fov with an Olympus 75mm and a ff 150mm then that would be the end of it, that is not what you said, you said you'd need a 135 f2 or 200 f2 for a ff equivalent, that is not true, why are you fighting so hard on a simple point about which you made an error?

An Olympus 75mm f1.8 is not equivalent to a ff 200 f2, it just isn't. It is equivalent to a ff 150mm f3.6.