Canon EOS M20 Coming at the End of August [CR3]

[rrcphoto]

M6 in a m10 body sound good, a little too good for this year but I guess it will happen next year. It will be M3 in M10 body!

why? they shoved the DPAF sensor,etc into the SL2 and sold it for 549.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I find it disappointing that the "M" series firmware appears to be P&S based, many DSLR features like Tethering are missing.

Wow, I didn't realize that. I could have sworn that I read in an M series manual that it supported wifi tethering. Kind of kills it for all sorts of uses... that sounds like a decision that doesn't make any sense to me, at the price points that M's are.

I should have said cabled tethering. They do support wi-fi tethering, but I find it lacking when trying to control a camera remotely and focus on fine detail.

 

[dak723]

Primes are for the very serious few who demand narrow DOF - and that is the FF DSLR photographer.

Primes offer more than just narrow DoF. They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL. They can have faster apertures than zooms covering their FL. Often, they are smaller/lighter and faster.

Consider the M22/2...22mm f/2 on APS-C doesn't exactly deliver shallow DoF at 'typical' subject distances, but it's much smaller than any M zoom, and lets in 4 times as much light as the M18-55/M15-45 at 22mm...and 8 times as much light as the M11-22 at 22mm.

Also, where can I find a TS-E zoom? A 5x macro zoom? How about even a 1x macro zoom?

Sorry, but to believe that primes are only about narrow DoF is quite narrow minded.

Yes, primes are not only about narrow DOF. There are other advantages. But I still think that the target market for the M system (as well as crop) is for those who want 2 or 3 zooms that cover all their focal length needs, and the market for primes is pretty much the FF crowd.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But I still think that the target market for the M system (as well as crop) is for those who want 2 or 3 zooms that cover all their focal length needs, and the market for primes is pretty much the FF crowd.

And yet, of the 7 EF-M lenses, 2 are primes (~28%). For EF-S lenses, 3 of 15 are primes (20%). For EF lenses, there are 23 zooms, and way more primes than that (enough that I didn't bother counting them). So, on the surface it would seem you are correct.

However, I'll also point out that the 50/1.8 is perennially the top-selling Canon lens on Amazon, and I rather suspect most buyers of that lens are not FF shooters. It's popular because it's small, light, fast...and most importantly, cheap.

 

[ahsanford]

However, I'll also point out that the 50/1.8 is perennially the top-selling Canon lens on Amazon, and I rather suspect most buyers of that lens are not FF shooters. It's popular because it's small, light, fast...and most importantly, cheap.

+1. I have zero doubt of this. As much as many FF shooters may picked up a version of the 50 1.8 over their time with Canon, if you have thousands of dollars to buy an FF rig, you probably will bolt something nicer on to it than a plastic fantastic lens.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Primes are for the very serious few who demand narrow DOF - and that is the FF DSLR photographer.

Primes offer more than just narrow DoF. They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL.

sure. I'm sure an 11, 13, 15, 17 and 22mm prime combined will be smaller and lighter than my 11-22mm EF-M any day of the week. :

btw, my samyang 12/2.0 is bigger than my 11-22mm

the primes being smaller than a zoom is a myth that is only true if you assume that one prime will do the job of the entire zoom range. which is not usually the case at all.

the EF-M 22 is small because it is close to the registration distance of the EF-M mount (18mm) which allows for a more classic tessar element design. deviating from that increases the size, and lens complexity.

Canon needs a prosumer normal zoom ( the 15-45 is a consumer grade zoom) well before they need primes.

also .. even though the 50mm is cheap, most people stick with their kit zooms. meaning in terms of popularity, nothing comes close to normal kit zooms as far as popularity.

then you have the fact that with a small mirrorless body, you are exposing the sensor (or sensor stack to be exact) to the elements upon each lens change, since unlike a DSLR, it's exposed all the freaking time.

one of the nice things about my clip filters for the M that I like is that the sensor is no longer full time exposed to the elements.

8 times as much light as the M11-22 at 22mm

I'm sorry when we get down to under 250g's of weight for a lens, it's pretty meaningless IMO. Unless you're trying for pocketability, then we need one of those lens cap f8 lenses.

I do find the 18-150mm surprisingly off balance and heavy on an M - so it's not really weight as it's only 300g - but more where the weight is distributed.

the EF-M's are all very lightweight and small lenses especially for their optical capabilities - it's really hard to argue that primes would be much better outside of subject isolation - and even then with the MFD's of the 18-150 and also the 11-22 if you can't isolate a subject well, there's a problem.

IMO primes are necessary if only just to give creedance to the camera line, more than what would be required with the EF-S lenses.

Canon should do a quick and dirty 25,28,35,50,85 EF-M lineup of moderate aperture. the lens designs aren't that complicated and canon historically has come out with these quickly.

 

[scyrene]

Primes are for the very serious few who demand narrow DOF - and that is the FF DSLR photographer.

Primes offer more than just narrow DoF. They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL. They can have faster apertures than zooms covering their FL. Often, they are smaller/lighter and faster.

Consider the M22/2...22mm f/2 on APS-C doesn't exactly deliver shallow DoF at 'typical' subject distances, but it's much smaller than any M zoom, and lets in 4 times as much light as the M18-55/M15-45 at 22mm...and 8 times as much light as the M11-22 at 22mm.

Also, where can I find a TS-E zoom? A 5x macro zoom? How about even a 1x macro zoom?

Sorry, but to believe that primes are only about narrow DoF is quite narrow minded.

You beat me to it! Also, all but one current Canon lens over 400mm are primes (namely, the 200-400+1.4x, although you can add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400, of course).

I know this is kind of beside the point of the thread, but still.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Primes are for the very serious few who demand narrow DOF - and that is the FF DSLR photographer.

Primes offer more than just narrow DoF. They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL.

sure. I'm sure an 11, 13, 15, 17 and 22mm prime combined will be smaller and lighter than my 11-22mm EF-M any day of the week. :

btw, my samyang 12/2.0 is bigger than my 11-22mm

the primes being smaller than a zoom is a myth that is only true if you assume that one prime will do the job of the entire zoom range. which is not usually the case at all.

the EF-M 22 is small because it is close to the registration distance of the EF-M mount (18mm) which allows for a more classic tessar element design. deviating from that increases the size, and lens complexity.

I highlighted an important part of my post which you appear to have overlooked. "Can be," not 'must be' or 'always are'.

Who would assume that a prime can do the job of an entire zoom range? Sorry, that's just being silly and argumentative.

As for the prime beling smaller, compare the 100/2 or 200/2.8 to a 70-200/2.8, and tell me that those primes are smaller because they have a close to the registration distance for FF and thus can use a classic tessar design. Laughable.

Canon needs a prosumer normal zoom ( the 15-45 is a consumer grade zoom) well before they need primes.

also .. even though the 50mm is cheap, most people stick with their kit zooms. meaning in terms of popularity, nothing comes close to normal kit zooms as far as popularity.

then you have the fact that with a small mirrorless body, you are exposing the sensor (or sensor stack to be exact) to the elements upon each lens change, since unlike a DSLR, it's exposed all the freaking time.

one of the nice things about my clip filters for the M that I like is that the sensor is no longer full time exposed to the elements.

Sensors are easy to clean. If you're afraid of doing so, you'd best stick with a G-series or S-series P&S.

8 times as much light as the M11-22 at 22mm

I'm sorry when we get down to under 250g's of weight for a lens, it's pretty meaningless IMO. Unless you're trying for pocketability, then we need one of those lens cap f8 lenses.

I do find the 18-150mm surprisingly off balance and heavy on an M - so it's not really weight as it's only 300g - but more where the weight is distributed.

the EF-M's are all very lightweight and small lenses especially for their optical capabilities - it's really hard to argue that primes would be much better outside of subject isolation - and even then with the MFD's of the 18-150 and also the 11-22 if you can't isolate a subject well, there's a problem.

Sorry, but ??? ??? ???. When I state, "Lets in...8 times as much light," I'm talking about the light that is the opposite of darkness, not the light that is the opposite of heavy. Seems like you're talking about the latter. Might be a language issue, or lack of reading comprehension. The point is that the M22/2 is f/2, the zooms are ~f/4 to f/5.6 at that focal length. That's the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 3200-6400 (e.g. moderate vs very high noise), or the difference between 1/250 s and 1/30 - 1/60 s (e.g. stopped subject motion vs. a blurry image).

IMO primes are necessary if only just to give creedance to the camera line, more than what would be required with the EF-S lenses.

Canon should do a quick and dirty 25,28,35,50,85 EF-M lineup of moderate aperture. the lens designs aren't that complicated and canon historically has come out with these quickly.

Would you suggest that the 'moderate aperture' for those primes should be f/4 or f/5.6, consistent with your argument above? Sorry, that's not going to happen. They'll be f/2.8 or faster, or there would be no real reason for their existence, and no real market for them.

Care to try again?

 

[rrcphoto]

Who would assume that a prime can do the job of an entire zoom range? Sorry, that's just being silly and argumentative.

As for the prime beling smaller, compare the 100/2 or 200/2.8 to a 70-200/2.8, and tell me that those primes are smaller because they have a close to the registration distance for FF and thus can use a classic tessar design. Laughable.

sorry, the entire theory that primes can be used in leu of zooms is silly and argumentative.

Stating "They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL." is obviously not the case, because you simply can't cover their FL with one prime. You're the one that stated it. put up or...

and I thought we were talking about the M's here. Not canon's L zooms. Internal zoom endurance engineering and focusing and IS creates complexity.

Sensors are easy to clean. If you're afraid of doing so, you'd best stick with a G-series or S-series P&S.

oh good grief.. now who's being silly and argumentative. and who wants to clean a sensor in the field? what an idiotic comment as a response.

Would you suggest that the 'moderate aperture' for those primes should be f/4 or f/5.6, consistent with your argument above? Sorry, that's not going to happen. They'll be f/2.8 or faster, or there would be no real reason for their existence, and no real market for them.

Care to try again?

seems you took silly and argumentative to extremes here.

yes primes are necessary and no, not anywhere did I suggest they'd be 4.5-5.6. a classic 17/3.5 small lens would be nice. however there's nothing wrong with 2.8 or faster, considering that most normal people would have assumed I meant that considering that's the lens lineup non-L for canon EF. So perhaps you should take a chill pill and try again as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

sorry, the entire theory that primes can be used in leu of zooms is silly and argumentative.

Fine, but that's not my theory. It's not even close. I was rebutting the idea that the only use for and benefit of primes is to achieve shallow DoF.

If you want to fabricate a position on someone else's behalf then argue against it...that's about as silly and argumentative as it gets. Well done. :

Stating "They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL." is obviously not the case, because you simply can't cover their FL with one prime. You're the one that stated it. put up or...

"A prime can be lighter than a zoom covering its focal length," is not the same as, "A set of primes covering the focal range of a zoom can be lighter than that zoom." I stated the former, which was abundantly clear from both the words and the examples, but you somehow interpreted it as the latter.

First, you egregiously missed the context of the word 'light' (also abundantly clear), now this. I hope this is merely an ESL / language barrier issue. If not, please try to 'put up' some better reading comprehension.

and I thought we were talking about the M's here. Not canon's L zooms. Internal zoom endurance engineering and focusing and IS creates complexity.

We were talking about lenses in general, if you want to factor out endurance engineering, compare the EF 75-300 (about as cheaply-built as you can get, the 'silver ring for a luxury touch' notwithstanding) to a prime in its range like the 85/1.8 or 100/2 – the prime is smaller and lighter (albeit not cheaper).

Sensors are easy to clean. If you're afraid of doing so, you'd best stick with a G-series or S-series P&S.

oh good grief.. now who's being silly and argumentative. and who wants to clean a sensor in the field? what an idiotic comment as a response.

Who said anything about 'in the field'? Oh, wait...you did. You seem to enjoy fabricating strawman positions for others, then knocking them down. For example, you stated, "one of the nice things about my clip filters for the M that I like is that the sensor is no longer full time exposed to the elements." Should I, then, assume you habitually walk around without a lens or body cap on your M-series camera, so that your sensor is 'full time exposed to the elements', then try and convince you that it's really idiotic to leave your sensor exposed all the time? No, I shouldn't. But it seems like a silly and argumentative tactic that's right up your alley.

One key advantage of an ILC is the 'I', as in 'interchangeable'. If you change lenses anywhere but a clean room, laminar flow HEPA hood, or some other certified dust-free environment, you're going to get some dust on your sensor, eventually. FWIW, I change lenses on my M2 about as often as on my 1D X, yet the FF sensor seems to collect dust faster. Of course, given the consequences of a smaller sensor in terms of ISO noise and framing-based DoF, I'm also less likely to stop the M2 down to the point where the dust is noticeable.

seems you took silly and argumentative to extremes here.

As I stated, manufacturing a position for someone else that bears no resemblance to what they actually stated, then proceeding to argue against that fabricated position, is the pinnacle of silly, argumentative behavior...and something you've done...twice, now. The prize is clearly yours, friend.

So perhaps you should take a chill pill and try again as well.

You may want consider the glass house in which you live, before casting stones like 'idiotic comment' and 'take a chill pill'. But the fault may be as much mine, for responding to you. Heinlein's advice probably applies here...don't try to teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you and annoys the pig. In that spirit, you can go on grunting...I'm out.