Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site

[dtaylor]

So it's a card trick.

No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?

That must be why I only reluctantly raised the ISO on my 7D past 800, but will go to ISO 6400 on my 1D X with little concern.

If you can't get good RAW files from a 7D at 1600 and 3200 then you're doing something wrong. That said, by 3200 I would certainly expect a large 1DX print to be discernible from a 7D print. At 800? Not unless you're doing something wrong.

 

[dtaylor]

There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.

Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.

 

[rs]

There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.

Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.

No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?

That's the whole point of equivalence. You can take equivalent photos with either system. It's just the finer details of focal length, ISO and aperture which have to be tweaked to create the equivalent image. If you were to provide that metadata with the print, a highly trained eye could well work out what sensor size was used.

 

[dtaylor]

...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.

I think I've been hearing that crop was bound to disappear since the introduction of the original 5D.

Phones/tablets are not going to deliver any where near the same IQ unless and until there is a revolution in imaging sensor technology. If that happens then FF is going to be in as much trouble as crop.

As for FF at the same price as APS-C / m43, there may be some overlap between high end crop and FF, but FF on the whole is more expensive and will continue to be unless and until there is a revolution in sensor fabrication.

Crop out sells FF by a wide margin and will continue to do so.

 

[dtaylor]

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?

Once FF fans turn to "equivalence" arguments the debate has pretty much jumped the shark.

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.

As far as exposure is concerned, an f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens.

DoF cuts both ways. If you want razor thin DoF it's hard to beat FF with a fast prime. But you can just as easily find yourself stopping down FF for sufficient DoF and pushing up ISO where you could shoot wide open with crop, thereby negating the high ISO advantage.

 

[zlatko]

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.

"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

If you disregard common usage in photography, lenses across formats are never "equivalent". Lenses can never be equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. because there are too many values, amounts, functions, meanings, etc. to consider. Equivalence in one detail is accompanied by non-equivalence in another.

Of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is "equivalent" to a (nonexistent) 150/3.6 in FF if we are only concerned about DoF at widest aperture.

And of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is not "equivalent" to a 150/3.6 in FF because, among other things, a 75/1.8 exists for a current system, is really compact thanks to the small format, and it goes to f/1.8 if desired.

 

[privatebydesign]

"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

If you disregard common usage in photography, lenses across formats are never "equivalent". Lenses can never be equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. because there are too many values, amounts, functions, meanings, etc. to consider. Equivalence in one detail is accompanied by non-equivalence in another.

Of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is "equivalent" to a (nonexistent) 150/3.6 in FF if we are only concerned about DoF at widest aperture.

And of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is not "equivalent" to a 150/3.6 in FF because, among other things, a 75/1.8 exists for a current system, is really compact thanks to the small format, and it goes to f/1.8 if desired.

If that was all you meant then, as I said, the vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4 is, using your words "the closest ff equivalent", not the 200 f2, the zoom lens allows you to take exactly the same image across formats. You didn't say the 200 f2.8 either, another vastly smaller and cheaper option, or any one of the 70-300 f4 - 5.6's, which give a very close equivalent image.

The only person being dishonest is you. Manufacturers call a 75mm f1.8, a 75mm f1.8, because it is a 75mm f1.8, you are the one that introduced the phrase "the closest ff equivalent", they do often then say 150mm equivalent and in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent. The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, a change that doesn't take all into account is NOT equivalent. You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that. People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?

As for your "it goes to f1.8 if desired", well again, you are either being dishonest or obtuse, my amp dial goes to 11 and has a Dobly button ;D . You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, even though you say you do, well done. My '87 Jimmy has four doors, it is equivalent to a Rolls Royce Phantom.

As a picture is, said to be, worth a thousand words, here are three I did a few years ago for a talk on camera sensors, even when enlarged and printed these images are indistinguishable.

 

[Loswr]

"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

A few hundred years ago, it was "dishonest" to claim the Earth was round or was not the center of the universe – and that "dishonesty" was punishable by imprisonment or worse. Eventually, people came to accept the truth...so I think there's hope that you'll come to understand the concept of equivalence.

Yes, some makers of m4/3 cameras lie. Panasonic, for example...it's not m4/3, granted, but Panasonic chose to print 25-600mm f/2.8 on the barrel of the lens of the FZ200:

Clearly, the lens doesn't have a 214mm diameter entrance pupil, so Panasonic is lying. Leica, who makes that lens, honestly labels the front as 4.5-108mm f/2.8.

The f/number is FL / iris diaphragm diameter, as long as a lens is labeled as such, there's no deception. It's when people or manufacturers start using terms like 'FF equivalent' or '35mm equivalent' that they get themselves into trouble, as you have done.

As for, "DoF at widest aperture exclusively," you're wrong again. An f/1.8 lens on FF can be set to f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 or f/3.5 – all of which are narrower than the widest aperture – and still deliver shallower DoF than an f/1.8 lens wide open on m4/3 for the same framing. Set a lens to f/8 on FF, that's equivalent to f/4 on m4/3…equivalence applies throughout the aperture range.

 

[zlatko]

"If by equivalent, you mean the fov is the same, ..." — Yes, that's what I meant. I left out "fov" because that is usually understood. At least that's what people usually understood before the idea arose that "equivalence" means DoF at widest aperture exclusively. Now if someone leaves out "fov", someone else is quick to say ERROR!

The latest version of this idea is that all m43 manufacturers are misrepresenting the widest apertures of their lenses. It has now become "dishonest", according to some, to label an f/2.8 m43 zoom as f/2.8 when its DoF equivalent is f/5.6. According to this idea, all f/2.8 m43 zooms should be "honestly" labeled as f/5.6 because aperture describes DoF equivalence only — which it didn't throughout 175 years of photography, ... but never mind that. It seems no one remembers when a light meter's reading of f/2.8 meant f/2.8 regardless of how big the film or sensor was.

If you disregard common usage in photography, lenses across formats are never "equivalent". Lenses can never be equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc. because there are too many values, amounts, functions, meanings, etc. to consider. Equivalence in one detail is accompanied by non-equivalence in another.

Of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is "equivalent" to a (nonexistent) 150/3.6 in FF if we are only concerned about DoF at widest aperture.

And of course a 75/1.8 in m43 is not "equivalent" to a 150/3.6 in FF because, among other things, a 75/1.8 exists for a current system, is really compact thanks to the small format, and it goes to f/1.8 if desired.

If that was all you meant then, as I said, the vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4 is, using your words "the closest ff equivalent", not the 200 f2, the zoom lens allows you to take exactly the same image across formats. You didn't say the 200 f2.8 either, another vastly smaller and cheaper option, or any one of the 70-300 f4 - 5.6's, which give a very close equivalent image.

The only person being dishonest is you. Manufacturers call a 75mm f1.8, a 75mm f1.8, because it is a 75mm f1.8, you are the one that introduced the phrase "the closest ff equivalent", they do often then say 150mm equivalent and in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent. The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, a change that doesn't take all into account is NOT equivalent. You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that. People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?

As for your "it goes to f1.8 if desired", well again, you are either being dishonest or obtuse, my amp dial goes to 11 and has a Dobly button ;D . You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, even though you say you do, well done. My '87 Jimmy has four doors, it is equivalent to a Rolls Royce Phantom.

As a picture is, said to be, worth a thousand words, here are three I did a few years ago for a talk on camera sensors, even when enlarged and printed these images are indistinguishable.

The "vastly cheaper and smaller 70-200 f4" is HUGE by comparison. Again: http://j.mp/1hpUjHL
That makes it very much not equivalent to photographers who consider size & weight, as some do.

I'm not talking about making exactly the same image across formats. You're the one who thinks that this is essential, as if making the exact same image at the widest aperture of both lenses across both formats is the necessary goal of a photographer. It isn't. Photographers have stopped down their lenses for ages and will continue to do so. So a 75/1.8 in m43 gives the DoF of a FF 150/3.6. We know that and it's OK, not a big deal really.

"...in that instance they really should say 150mm f3.6 equivalent." — Only if someone brainwashed manufacturers into thinking that aperture designates DoF equivalence at widest aperture only. Fortunately manufacturers have never done that. They know that aperture is not a designation of DoF equivalence at widest aperture and never has been.

"The understanding of equivalence when referred to different camera systems, hence lenses, is what is needed to achieve the same image, ..." — That's your understanding, your own redefinition of equivalence. Field of view is the common understanding. Apparently I made a huge blunder in not mentioning "fov" which you were quick to correct with repeated assertions about dishonesty and error, just in case anyone was misled.

"... that includes the same fov, dof, noise and shutter speed, ..." — Someone somewhere needs to make the exact same image with the same FoV, DoF, noise and shutter speed across different formats? If so, are they really reading this forum and being misled? Again, the point was about the appeal of smaller camera systems. None of this "exact same image" business.

"You erroneously included f2 in your ff equivalent examples, I don't know why, but it was misleading and I simply tried to address that." — It's not misleading because I didn't say "DoF equivalence". You're addressing a forced interpretation of what I obviously didn't write or mean.

"People reading your initial comment could conclude that if they wanted a Canon 200mm f2 they could buy an Olympus and a 75 f1.8 and get the same images, they couldn't, why am I so wrong to point that out?" — Because that's a nitpicky correction of absolutely no one's conclusion. Who said anything about getting the "same images"? That's obviously not what I meant. And you're still correcting it.

"You are propagating misleading information by using the term equivalent to people who don't know better, ..." — Actually I thought I was talking with people who have a good understanding of lenses and formats, not to people "who don't know better."

Y'all "who don't know better" (anyone?) -- sorry I misled you!

 

[jdramirez]

We all make do with what we have.... but if we have a vision and the gear doesn't allow us to achieve that vision... Then there is a significant difference in gear. If we are shooting randomly without concern for depth of field... well there are many who do... but they don't see what they want to shoot and make it happen...

 

[privatebydesign]

"You're the one who thinks that this is essential, as if making the exact same image at the widest aperture of both lenses across both formats is the necessary goal of a photographer."

Yet you are the one that introduced the term and concept of "closest ff equivalent".

But, whatever, you are clearly not interested in correcting your misstep and I have a wedding to process. Fortunately I live on a spherical earth, you continue to live and preach the benefits of a flat one where 1+1+1+1= the only 1 you want to talk about (we don't need to worry about the other 3), and size.

 

[jdramirez]

I have vacation photos I need to process... I think I'm going to go back to shooting in raw& jpg. That way the mediocre photos get their due as well.

 

[zlatko]

The f/number is FL / iris diaphragm diameter, as long as a lens is labeled as such, there's no deception. It's when people or manufacturers start using terms like 'FF equivalent' or '35mm equivalent' that they get themselves into trouble, as you have done.

The original point had nothing to do with DoF equivalence, so you're addressing "trouble" I didn't get into.

I hope you don't think that Panasonic should relabel their f/2.8 zooms as f/5.6 to reflect DoF equivalence at widest aperture. In that case, lenses for medium format and larger should be relabeled too. That would really screw up anyone using a light meter.

As for, "DoF at widest aperture exclusively," you're wrong again. An f/1.8 lens on FF can be set to f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f/3.2 or f/3.5 – all of which are narrower than the widest aperture – and still deliver shallower DoF than an f/1.8 lens wide open on m4/3 for the same framing. Set a lens to f/8 on FF, that's equivalent to f/4 on m4/3…equivalence applies throughout the aperture range.

You're just stating obvious stuff that we all agree on. So I don't know what error you're correcting.

When someone says that an Olympus 75/1.8 is "equivalent" to some hypothetical full-frame 150/3.6, they're presupposing that the only valid measure of "equivalence" is DoF with both lenses at widest aperture. That's a nitpicky hyper-technical way of ignoring the rather simple non-technical point that an Olympus 75/1.8 is nice because it's really compact.

 

[zlatko]

Yet you are the one that introduced the term and concept of "closest ff equivalent".

... which you chose to misinterpret and then "correct" for all of those people who "don't know better".

 

[privatebydesign]

Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Gentlemen, please let us be tolerant of other people's opinions. We all know that different sizes of sensor require different lenses to achieve the same result. :
For some people the viewing angle is the most important criterion for comparison.
For others the DOF (shallower as best) is the most important.
Let's leave aside the unattainable goal to compare different things, as if they were equal. For my part, I like wider DOF, and so I prefer to APS-C. If I wanted the DOF most shallow possible, I would choose full frame.

 

[privatebydesign]

Gentlemen, please let us be tolerant of other people's opinions. We all know that different sizes of sensor require different lenses to achieve the same result. :
For some people the viewing angle is the most important criterion for comparison.
For others the DOF (shallower as best) is the most important.
Let's leave aside the unattainable to compare different things, as if they were equal goal. For my part, I like wider DOF, and so I prefer to APS-C. If I wanted the most reasonable DOF possible, I would choose full frame.

I am totally accepting of peoples differing viewpoints. I 100% agree the Olympus is smaller than a ff camera, I am not in the business of denial.

What I am not accepting of is the fallacious comment that the "closest ff equivalent is a 135 f2 or 200 f2", it is factually wrong. It is as wrong as saying a 30' sailboat is the closest equivalent of a 300' ferry because they both float, and, the 30' one is smaller; because my only idea of equivalent is the fact that they both float and being small is important to my (completely unrelated) point. Yes they do both float, but they are not equivalent, and they are certainly not the closest equivalent.

 

[zlatko]

Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?

Why put words in my mouth? Equivalent can be made to apply to any aspect of a lens. As in — equivalent size, equivalent color, equivalent filter diameter, equivalent weight, equivalent price, equivalent ergonomics, equivalent weather resistance, equivalent parts, equivalent bokeh, equivalent DoF, etc. ... and, of course, equivalent FoV.

Obviously, in this case I was talking about equivalent FoV. I should have been more specific. I will be more specific from now on, realizing that some people don't have a common understanding of equivalent focal lengths across systems.

Apparently it is a big error to just say "equivalent" when one means "equivalent FoV". So I've already apologized to the hypothetical person(s) who doesn't know better and was misled by my fallacious error. I hope they didn't rush out and buy a whole new camera system because of it. If so, perhaps the store has a good return policy, and they can still exchange the little Olympus 75/1.8 for the lens they really wanted, that one lens that gives the exact DoF that they require for a specific aperture. Perhaps they were all set to buy the $6,000 Canon 200/2.0 and, not knowing better, my error pushed them into an m43 camera with a 75/1.8? If this happened to someone, they can now thank you for setting them back on the right path.

 

[Loswr]

The original point had nothing to do with DoF equivalence, so you're addressing "trouble" I didn't get into.

Perhaps the original point you were trying to make, in your own mind, had nothing to do with DoF. But by using a term like 'closest FF equivalent' your statement absolutely does involve DoF, in addition to FoV.

I hope you don't think that Panasonic should relabel their f/2.8 zooms as f/5.6 to reflect DoF equivalence at widest aperture. In that case, lenses for medium format and larger should be relabeled too. That would really screw up anyone using a light meter.

Lenses should be labeled correctly, with the actual focal length (the physical distance between the image plane and the rear nodal point of the lens), and the f/number (the real focal length divided by the physical diameter of the iris diaphragm). Focal length and f/number are intrinsic properties of a lens, totally independent from the sensor. That's why Panasonic is lying by stating the FZ200 has a 25-600mm f/2.8 lens, when it's really a 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens with a small sensor behind it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Why are you so adamantly presupposing that equivalent ONLY applies to fov?

Why put words in my mouth?

I didn't, I quoted you, repeatedly, "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. "

You are the one that mentioned aperture, it is only because you did so that I got involved, I don't give a damn about m4/3's. Not only did you mention aperture but directly contained within your comment is the fact that you assert the closest ff equivalent to an m4/3 f1.8 is f2, I don't know why you did that, but it is fallacious.