Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site

[zlatko]

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.

You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV. Lenses are commonly identified by mentioning the aperture: 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, etc. I didn't specify the aperture as a way to specify the exact DoF they offer at widest aperture. If anyone misunderstood and was actually misled, I apologize!

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.

 

[zlatko]

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.

No, it had nothing to do with DoF until someone decided to promote that narrow misinterpretation and then "correct" it for the benefit of people who "don't know better".

You know that the common understanding of apertures identified on lenses is not to represent DoF equivalence across systems. You obviously know that, as do the manufacturers.

 

[privatebydesign]

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.

If you consider f3.6 on ff to give you a shallow dof then we are, again, talking different languages. Personally I use f2.8 zooms as a minimum, but don't pretend they give me the dof control I often want, then I move to faster primes. Does the f2.2 lens in the iPhone give me narrow dof?

My first language is English, I understand that is not true of many people here, I understand the difference between equal and equivalent, you are conflating them, you are using equivalent for focal length and equal for aperture value within the same sentence, I think that is a basic misrepresentation and confusing, just like the Panasonic 600mm f2.8, it is clearly not true.

 

[zlatko]

Perhaps you can admit your error in saying that a 75/1.8 "doesn't give a shallow dof." That's not even a case of misinterpreting/misunderstanding.

If you consider f3.6 on ff to give you a shallow dof then we are, again, talking different languages. Personally I use f2.8 zooms as a minimum, but don't pretend they give me the dof control I often want, then I move to faster primes. Does the f2.2 lens in the iPhone give me narrow dof?

Gosh, can't even admit that? So if you set your full-frame zoom to 150mm and f/3.6, it doesn't give shallow DoF?? Readers can compare that statement to their on their own language and experience. Why don't we just leave it at that because in that case we'll never agree on anything.

 

[Loswr]

You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV.

Oh, ok. Well then, the PowerShot SX600 HS has a 4.5-81mm (real) zoom range, meaning you can get the same FoV as the Olympus 75mm lens. The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8. Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot. You can get it in the boring silver color of the Olympus lens, or a nice flashy red. Enjoy!

:

 

[privatebydesign]

You really don't know why I mentioned aperture in those lens descriptions? To identify two rather large lenses in Canon's current product line, highlighting the size difference with a much smaller m43 lens that offers a similar FoV.

Oh, ok. Well then, the PowerShot SX600 HS has a 4.5-81mm (real) zoom range, meaning you can get the same FoV as the Olympus 75mm lens. The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8. Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot. You can get it in the boring silver color of the Olympus lens, or a nice flashy red. Enjoy!

:

Neuro, that is just silly, a far fairer equivalent would be the Olympus with the 75mm f1.8 and the Canon ff with a 200-400 f4 IS 1.4, then we at least have near equivalence on dof too. I mean look at the size and cost of the Canon combo, it makes the Olympus seem even better value.

:

 

[zlatko]

The PowerShot SX600 HS is the size of a pack of playing cards, so it's far smaller than your m4/3 camera, and the whole camera is ~1/4 the price of the Olympus 75/1.8. Since FoV and size are all that matter, you should be very happy with the little PowerShot.

Huh? Where are you taking this conversation? I can't even make a point about small cameras and small lenses without someone going off on a tangent about point & shoots "since FoV and size are all that matter".

I didn't say they're ALL THAT MATTER. Where the heck do you get this? Just setting up a straw man to knock him down?

I was careful to talk about how some photographers prioritize size at some times and for some occasions, as you yourself do. Just a way to say why I think small systems will continue to survive. Apparently I wasn't careful enough.

Wow! Just WOW! It's really not fun having to defend all of these imagined statements I didn't make. Such a waste of time

 

[sdsr]

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.

Yes, it's a marvelous lens and, despite the longer DoF cf FF equivalents, has superb bokeh and I very much enjoy using mine. It is, however, fairly expensive (c. $900) and, by m43 standards, rather heavy; and I can't help pointing out that the rather impressive Nikon 100mm 2.8 E series manual lens, for which I paid c. $120 a couple of weeks ago, provides the same focal length when I attach it to my Sony a6000, has excellent image quality and, even including the adapter, that combination is smaller and weighs less than my OM-D E-M5 & Olympus 75mm and cost vastly less. Of course, you have to be willing to fool around with manual focusing and forego IS, and your basic point about the compactness of m43 gear remains valid, but still....

 

[zlatko]

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.

Yes, it's a marvelous lens and, despite the longer DoF cf FF equivalents, has superb bokeh and I very much enjoy using mine. It is, however, fairly expensive (c. $900) and, by m43 standards, rather heavy; and I can't help pointing out that the rather impressive Nikon 100mm 2.8 E series manual lens, for which I paid c. $120 a couple of weeks ago, provides the same focal length when I attach it to my Sony a6000, has excellent image quality and, even including the adapter, that combination is smaller and weighs less than my OM-D E-M5 & Olympus 75mm and cost vastly less. Of course, you have to be willing to fool around with manual focusing and forego IS, and your basic point about the compactness of m43 gear remains valid, but still....

Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out. And an older lens is a good way to save money. Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.

 

[sdsr]

Like the Eos M, the Sony a6000 is APS-C, so it too provides a way to go smaller, as you point out. And an older lens is a good way to save money. Just don't say anything about depth of field or any word beginning with "eq..." or you may get yourself in trouble and be accused of dishonesty and deception, followed by corrections for the benefit of hypothetical people who don't know better. I've learned.

Oh, such people are not hypothetical at all - you should visit m43 rumors some time! If privatebydesign and neuro were to pay them a visit, they would be kept busy for days....

 

[mackguyver]

I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.

 

[privatebydesign]

I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.

Absolutely agree, I really like my EOS-m, best compact ever as far as I am concerned, mainly because it is an exceptionally small travel backup when I already have the lenses. For me EOS system integration was the primary selling point, but I don't find the AF or anything else about it disheartening. I'll be very interested if they import the M3 and it can use the G1X MkII EVF.

 

[dadgummit]

I would never have purchased the M at it's real price, but I got a great deal on the set with the body, flash, and both US lenses. I don't really understand the way people go on and on complaining about it - those complaints might have validity in terms of price, but since the firmware update, it's a solid little camera. As I've said before, my favorite thing about the camera is that it's an EOS. Other than 2 or 3 unique settings, you can pick the thing up and never read the manual. I love that. The other small cameras I have used have such crappy menus they made me want to throw them against the wall. For example, if I want to set the M to a flash sync speed between 1/60s & 1/200s, I can. It's just like every other EOS I've used. The touchscreen is pretty cool, too.

Yes I love my little M. I plan to convert it to infrared once I find out if canon is going to make an updated version or if they force me to go to Sony or Fuji for my mirrorless needs.


Absolutely agree, I really like my EOS-m, best compact ever as far as I am concerned, mainly because it is an exceptionally small travel backup when I already have the lenses. For me EOS system integration was the primary selling point, but I don't find the AF or anything else about it disheartening. I'll be very interested if they import the M3 and it can use the G1X MkII EVF.