Canon EOS M20 Coming at the End of August [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Talys said:
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.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dak723 said:
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.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
+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
Upvote
0
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. :neuroanatomist said:
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.
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
rrcphoto said: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. :neuroanatomist said:
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.
rrcphoto said:
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.
rrcphoto said:
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).
rrcphoto said:
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?
Upvote
0
sorry, the entire theory that primes can be used in leu of zooms is silly and argumentative.neuroanatomist said:
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.
neuroanatomist said:
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.
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
rrcphoto said:
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. :
rrcphoto said:
"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.
rrcphoto said:
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).
rrcphoto said:
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.
rrcphoto said:
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.
rrcphoto said:
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.
Upvote
0
