Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site

[wickidwombat]

well I just bought a second EOS M from B&H
had it shipped direct to lifepixel who have done an IR conversion on it
and its on its way to me now

I cant wait to try it out with the 11-22

with the quality of the EF-M glass its a damn cheap and damn compact IR camera IMO

 

[tgara]

However, I do think that Canon could sell quite a lot of mirrorless system cameras if they designed a good one. They have a large base of users that appreciates the EOS system, but sometimes wants something smaller and lighter.

Absolutely. That's why many of us have chosen the Rebel SL1! It's not mirrorless, but it is certainly smaller and lighter than my 5D3 (hence the SL name). It also works with nearly all my other Canon gear, including my EX270II flash and the GP-E2 GPS unit.

 

[Random Orbits]

Just ordered a 11-22 from Canada. I hope Canon continues the M line, even if it isn't in the US. But prices are better in the US most of the time.

 

[sdsr]

For those that think you can't get good bokeh with M4/3, check-out Robin Wong's work with a 75mm f/1.8 http://robinwong.blogspot.com How to Box a Chicken and Portrait of a Stranger, they look good to me.

And not just that lens - the other m43 primes I have that are long enough to significantly blur the background (Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4, Olympus 45mm 1.8 & Olympus 60mm 2.8 macro), and some of the zooms, create beautifully soft-edged bokeh - as of course do a vast array of other lenses which can be attached to a mirrorless camera via an adapter. The reduced size of the sensor doesn't change the bokeh the lens is capable of, though of course the crop factor affects the relative distances for any particular framing with any particular lens and, thus, the extent to which the background will be out of focus. (I've recently been enjoying using an inexpensive manual Vivitar 55mm 2.8 macro lens on my Olympus OM-D, Sony a6000 and Sony a7r and enjoying the different results from three different sensor sizes.)

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Take a look at the X-mount lenses that Fuji released in the last 3 years vs the EF-S/M lenses that Canon have release in the last 3 years.

It's clear that Canon will not make a full range EF-S/EF-M lens line-up in order to protect their EF lens sales. It doesn't matter how good of a mirrorless camera they might make, without showing some indication that they will improve their EF-S/EF-M line-up significantly, there's no point sticking with Canon if what you are after is a high quality compact camera system. Not to mention that both Fuji and EF-S/EF-M are APSC (in fact the Fuji sensor is slightly larger. 1.5x instead of 1.6x).

Better quality, lighter weight, lower price. I have since posted all my Canon gear for sale. What are you waiting for?

 

[AvTvM]

To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.

Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff.

I'll laugh really hard, when fuji will launch an FF-sensored x-pro body and all those 56/1.2 and 10-24 purchasers will realize that their 1000 euro clunkers will not serve that image circle. Costly paperweights. Overnight.

If canon fails to develop the m system, i'll use it as long as it serves me and then dispose of my 400 euro "investment. No big deal. Althoigh i would prefer canon to be much more serious about mirroless.

 

[mackguyver]

The page is still there, but it's not on the main EOS page

 

[michi]

I also got the EOS M when they were selling them cheap. It's a neat camera, and I was hoping for the wide angle zoom to come to the US. Then when they announced the EOS M 2 was not going to be available here, I decided to give up. I still have the EOS M with the 18-55 zoom and have it laying around the house for quick shots.

I did get the SL1 and absolutely love that camera. With rear button focusing it's nearly like my bigger cameras, but much smaller and more compact. I would love to see a even smaller SL2, would buy it in a heartbeat. I also love being able to use all my normal lenses without adapter.

 

[zlatko]

To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.

Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff.

I'll laugh really hard, when fuji will launch an FF-sensored x-pro body and all those 56/1.2 and 10-24 purchasers will realize that their 1000 euro clunkers will not serve that image circle. Costly paperweights. Overnight.

If canon fails to develop the m system, i'll use it as long as it serves me and then dispose of my 400 euro "investment. No big deal. Althoigh i would prefer canon to be much more serious about mirroless.

Why would Fuji be "dead"? Because every Fuji buyer will then become a Canon buyer? Or Sony buyer? Not going to happen. There is room in the mirrorless market for more than one manufacturer. Their are niches for various manufacturers to fill. Canon isn't going to fill all of them, even if they introduce a really good mirrorless camera.

Why would Fuji introduce a FF X-Pro body and turn their X system lenses into paper weights? Again, not going to happen — i.e. not if you mean they'll discontinue their APS-C cameras on the day they introduce a FF body. If they introduce a FF camera, it will not be X-mount. All of their X system lenses will continue to be served by X system cameras. There is simply no chance that they would force all of their customers to full frame.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

To me the expensive fuji x-gear is no alternative whatsoever. I'd rather drop dead than drop a grand for every other Aps-c-only lens. Fuji X will be dead the very moment canon comes up with a killer M3. Not to mention if canon comes up with a compact and fully competitive FF mirrorless camera system. Or sony gets their act together and launches a kick-ass improved A8/A8R plus some affordable and decent non zeiss labeled lenses.

Until then we get pretty much the same iq out of our little 299 usd second camera eos-m kits that would cost 2999 as fuji-x stuff.

I'll laugh really hard, when Fuji will launch an FF-sensored x-pro body and all those 56/1.2 and 10-24 purchasers will realize that their 1000 euro clunkers will not serve that image circle. Costly paperweights. Overnight.

If canon fails to develop the m system, i'll use it as long as it serves me and then dispose of my 400 euro "investment. No big deal. Althoigh i would prefer canon to be much more serious about mirroless.

That's my argument. Even if Canon comes out with a killer M3, it's useless. Because if I want a 35mm lens, I still have to buy this, or this (depends on if it's APS-C or FF).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

I just bought this for $699 for my new Fuji XT-1, half the price, half the weight.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1003764-REG/fujifilm_16405575_xf_23mm_f_1_4_r.html

I just don't understand why Fuji lenses are considered pricey. They are dirty cheap!
Canon 85 1.2, 1025g $2199 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Fuji 56 1.2, 405g, $999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html

It's clear that Canon will not come out with any half decent EF-S or EF-M lenses. I have been in the EF-S ecosystem for over 5 years. Other than the flimsy and plasticy 17-55, they have came up with NOTHING. I just don't see how they can replicate the lens line-up that Fuji has on the EF-S or the EF-M side at the rate Fuji have churn out these excellent lenses.

If you are happy with your 2lb 1D Mk X, good for you. If you are into small cameras with quality small lenses, Canon will not go there! Canon have made it very clear based on their product offering in the last 5 years.

And, Fuji would be stupid to go FF. FF is from the days of films. In the digital age, there's no reason why we have be nostalgic about sensor sizes. There is 0 indication that Fuji will go FF, and if any indication they have reinforced their commitment to the X-mount by releasing amazing lenses at a rate that we have never seen before from any other manufacturer.
http://www.fujirumors.com/x-pro2-will-feature-aps-c-sensor-trusted-source/

DSLR will remain in the realm of Pros. If anything, Mirrorless cameras will be killed the day that quality lenses are available for the iPhone, and the iPhone sensor is able to achieve as low noise as a APS-C camera of today (won't take more than a few years if Moores Law has it's way).
http://seek4news.com/news/apple-patent-reveals-magnetic-iphone-camera-lenses-detachable-back

FYI, I did buy a EOS-M with both the lenses (22mm and the kit). Battery, AF and control is just very sub-par. I had to go back to my 7D in a week. I actually bought a 50mm 1.4 for it's light weight and hope to use it with the SL1/2 down the road. I then picked up the SL1 in a store, looked through the tiny viewfinder, along with the inability to calibrate the AF. I was disgusted.

Eventually I was introduced to the Fuji XT-1. I later picked it up and side by side compared it with the SL1. It's about the same weight, but the XT-1 gives you every premium feature that you'd dream of from a DSLR under $2000. AF is always spot on, even at 1.4 aperture. The EVF is even larger than that of the 5D mk3. And the glass line-up is exactly what I have wanted for many many years from Canon EF-S, which they have never made. Not to mention their track record of continual improvement. Willingness to issue FW upgrade to older cameras to match up to the performance of their newest flagship. Not holding back in fear of internal cannibalization. They listen to their user and try to provide the best solution. Unlike Canon who holds back every FW feature in attempt to gouge you to buy their high-end models (Focus calibration for the Rebel comes to mind).

For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Not to mention how laughable it is to compare the EF-M lens line-up with the X-mount lens line-up. If one really thinks that the EOS-M produces the same quality image as the Fuji, esp on the optics department, one's kidding themselves.

 

[privatebydesign]

I just don't understand why Fuji lenses are considered pricey. They are dirty cheap!
Canon 85 1.2, 1025g $2199 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Fuji 56 1.2, 405g, $999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html

Well if you compare equivelence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

 

[Don Haines]

Not to mention how laughable it is to compare the EF-M lens line-up with the X-mount lens line-up. If one really thinks that the EOS-M produces the same quality image as the Fuji, esp on the optics department, one's kidding themselves.

You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.

For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it?

This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.

For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it?

This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...

Does anyone really use the EOS-M everyday with that EF => EF-M adapter and put a 17-55 on the other end? I have tried it and it's laughable. No, if EOS-M is your body of choice, none of the black EF/EF-S lenses should be part of the consideration.

I agree with the white lenses. It's the only thing I miss not being there on Fuji. That said my 70-200 only sees action at most once or twice a year. It doesn't make sense hauling much bigger lenses, much heavier body and much inferior camera body feature-set year round just for the few days I do use the Canon telephotos/super telephotos. Maybe I'll just buy a body just to use it with the 70-200 MkII down the road. Maybe I'll rent. But no way I'll haul a Canon year round anymore.

There is a place for Canon, I'm not denying that. Pro bodies, Super Telephotos, they are excellent. I'm just telling people not to hold their breath on anything promising coming from Canon in regards to their EF-M or EF-S offerings. If they release 1 good lens for EF-M/EF-S a year that'll already be a god send. 5 or 6 top notch lenses a year like Fuji? Not a chance. Instead of waiting a few more years on potential quality mirrorless/EF-S/EF-M offerings from Canon, why not just go Fuji/M43rd and enjoy it right now?

 

[zlatko]

It's clear that Canon will not come out with any half decent EF-S or EF-M lenses. I have been in the EF-S ecosystem for over 5 years. Other than the flimsy and plasticy 17-55, they have came up with NOTHING. I just don't see how they can replicate the lens line-up that Fuji has on the EF-S or the EF-M side at the rate Fuji have churn out these excellent lenses.

If you are happy with your 2lb 1D Mk X, good for you. If you are into small cameras with quality small lenses, Canon will not go there! Canon have made it very clear based on their product offering in the last 5 years.

And, Fuji would be stupid to go FF. FF is from the days of films. In the digital age, there's no reason why we have be nostalgic about sensor sizes. There is 0 indication that Fuji will go FF, and if any indication they have reinforced their commitment to the X-mount by releasing amazing lenses at a rate that we have never seen before from any other manufacturer.
http://www.fujirumors.com/x-pro2-will-feature-aps-c-sensor-trusted-source/

DSLR will remain in the realm of Pros. If anything, Mirrorless cameras will be killed the day that quality lenses are available for the iPhone, and the iPhone sensor is able to achieve as low noise as a APS-C camera of today (won't take more than a few years if Moores Law has it's way).
http://seek4news.com/news/apple-patent-reveals-magnetic-iphone-camera-lenses-detachable-back

FYI, I did buy a EOS-M with both the lenses (22mm and the kit). Battery, AF and control is just very sub-par. I had to go back to my 7D in a week. I actually bought a 50mm 1.4 for it's light weight and hope to use it with the SL1/2 down the road. I then picked up the SL1 in a store, looked through the tiny viewfinder, along with the inability to calibrate the AF. I was disgusted.

Eventually I was introduced to the Fuji XT-1. I later picked it up and side by side compared it with the SL1. It's about the same weight, but the XT-1 gives you every premium feature that you'd dream of from a DSLR under $2000. AF is always spot on, even at 1.4 aperture. The EVF is even larger than that of the 5D mk3. And the glass line-up is exactly what I have wanted for many many years from Canon EF-S, which they have never made. Not to mention their track record of continual improvement. Willingness to issue FW upgrade to older cameras to match up to the performance of their newest flagship. Not holding back in fear of internal cannibalization. They listen to their user and try to provide the best solution. Unlike Canon who holds back every FW feature in attempt to gouge you to buy their high-end models (Focus calibration for the Rebel comes to mind).

For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.

Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).

You're comparing the Fuji XT-1 ($1299) with the SL1 (now $450). Big price difference! Of course the much cheaper camera comes out with less. The XT-1 is the same price as the 7D. While the Rebels don't have autofocus micro adjust, the 70D does have it and is $999.

You're exaggerating Fuji's firmware upgrades. Their older cameras do not match up to the performance of their newest flagship. No company does that.

I do agree that Fuji's lenses (23, 35, 56mm) are attractively priced compared to Canon's comparable lenses. I also agree that that 17-55 EF-S is plasticky. It should have be a better lens for the price.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.

Er, not really, but whatever. If you want to just ignore equivalence and compare non like with non like why not point out that a Canon 600mm is $14,000? It is just as irrelevant.

If we are comparing like for like, as you have to to have any meaning, and we go across formats, which was the point of your Fuji 56 f1.2 vs Canon 85 f1.2 comparison, then a FF Canon with an 85 f1.8 will give you shallower dof and better iso performance.

Not that I don't think the Fuji is a great camera, it just bugs me when people refuse to compare like for like. For equivalence purposes the Fuji lens is much more expensive than the Canon, that is just a fact, not my opinion.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).

You're comparing the Fuji XT-1 ($1299) with the SL1 (now $450). Big price difference! Of course the much cheaper camera comes out with less. The XT-1 is the same price as the 7D. While the Rebels don't have autofocus micro adjust, the 70D does have it and is $999.

You're exaggerating Fuji's firmware upgrades. Their older cameras do not match up to the performance of their newest flagship. No company does that.

I do agree that Fuji's lenses (23, 35, 56mm) are attractively priced compared to Canon's comparable lenses. I also agree that that 17-55 EF-S is plasticky. It should have be a better lens for the price.

I am comparing the XT-1 with SL1 because they are the same weight. I am complaining about auto-focus micro-adjust on the SL1 is because it's merely a FW feature. Fuji is updating the XE-2 (almost 1 year old, cheaper model) with a FW that reducing it's EVF lag 10 times, bringing it to the XT-1 level. AF is also improved with the FW upgrade. When's the last time Canon did anything nearly like this?

 

[Dylan777]

You can't really compare the lens line-ups without looking at EF-S and EF lenses.

For wide angle lenses and "kit lenses", there are great savings in size to be made with EOS-M, but when you go fast or go long, the size and cost savings evaporate. Let's say you wanted a 70-200F4 lens for your EOS-M.... it would be as wide as the EOS lens and about 95 percent as long and virtually the same weight... not much savings... and since it would not have the volume of sales of the EOS lens, it would end up costing more... and with the shorted flange difference comes sharper bending of light in the final element grouping and that translates into lower image quality... So why would Canon design an inferior lens that costs more and then hope that somebody would buy it?

This is why the EOS-M lenses released are what they are... and I would certainly expect more to be released in the future, but they are going to only be the popular lenses.... anything special or with a limited appeal will be EOS...

Does anyone really use the EOS-M everyday with that EF => EF-M adapter and put a 17-55 on the other end? I have tried it and it's laughable. No, if EOS-M is your body of choice, none of the black EF/EF-S lenses should be part of the consideration.

I agree with the white lenses. It's the only thing I miss not being there on Fuji. That said my 70-200 only sees action at most once or twice a year. It doesn't make sense hauling much bigger lenses, much heavier body and much inferior camera body feature-set year round just for the few days I do use the Canon telephotos/super telephotos. Maybe I'll just buy a body just to use it with the 70-200 MkII down the road. Maybe I'll rent. But no way I'll haul a Canon year round anymore.

There is a place for Canon, I'm not denying that. Pro bodies, Super Telephotos, they are excellent. I'm just telling people not to hold their breath on anything promising coming from Canon in regards to their EF-M or EF-S offerings. If they release 1 good lens for EF-M/EF-S a year that'll already be a god send. 5 or 6 top notch lenses a year like Fuji? Not a chance. Instead of waiting a few more years on potential quality mirrorless/EF-S/EF-M offerings from Canon, why not just go Fuji/M43rd and enjoy it right now?

Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better in low light shooting with 35mm sensor.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.

Er, not really, but whatever. If you want to just ignore equivalence and compare non like with non like why not point out that a Canon 600mm is $14,000? It is just as irrelevant.

If we are comparing like for like, as you have to to have any meaning, and we go across formats, which was the point of your Fuji 56 f1.2 vs Canon 85 f1.2 comparison, then a FF Canon with an 85 f1.8 will give you shallower dof and better iso performance.

Not that I don't think the Fuji is a great camera, it just bugs me when people refuse to compare like for like. For equivalence purposes the Fuji lens is much more expensive than the Canon, that is just a fact, not my opinion.

Why will the 85 1.8 give me better ISO performance? What does a slower glass have anything to do with lower noise? Are you saying that a 1.8 lens has the same light gathering ability per the same sensor area?

I fail to see how a 1.8 lens is equivalent to a 1.2 glass. Last time I check if I want the light gathering ability of a 1.2 aperture on my 7D, I have to go out and buy a 85 1.2, and not the 85 1.8.

The only difference between a photo from a 56 1.2 on crop vs a 85 1.8 on FF is the DOF. Noise is arguable. APS-C of today has lower noise than a 5D Mk1. If 5D Mk1 noise level was the holy grail, why is an APS-C camera of today suddenly unacceptable? How low noise is low enough? If the goal is to get the lowest noise possible, then why isn't everyone on Medium Format?