Architect1776
Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.
Upvote
0
++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.
A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.
I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.
True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.I can think of one good reason why the 52 would cost less than the 32 - it's rumored to be f/2 not f/1.4.
In video there are no solution for the exposure time.Why is it important?
True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.
Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.With the M line Canon has seemed to prioritize the compact design in their product releases. The 32 f/1.4 is still pretty light at 225g, a 52mm equivalent would probably come in close to what the Sigma 56 1.4 weighs, which is closer to 300g. Even though thats not that heavy in the scheme of things, its still about 30% heavier which isn't insignificant. There are other factors as well like the fact that all the M lenses have the same (exact or very similar) barrel diameter throughout the body of the lens.
The fastest lens prior to the 32 was the 22 f/2, so I think that the 32 is really the exception and at that normal focal length (45-65 35mm equivalent) lends itself to being the smallest/lightest for a fast aperture design. As you go wider and longer from there the lenses get bigger and heavier to maintain the same aperture since they'll require larger elements which will change the aesthetic that seems to be a priority with the M lens designs. So I'm not surprised by the f/2 rumors.
Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.
Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.That 18-45 sounds promising
Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.
++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.
A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.
I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.
alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.My EosR has 1.6x crop mode so the R5 should have it
I think they did it for possibly 2 reasons:
1) They could
-As I stated the normal focal length range is the most ideal range to be able to deliver a light compact fast aperture design. Meaning technical requirements to design such a lens were within the bounds of the design (aesthetic) requirements.
2) There was strong demand
-I think plenty of M owners were buying up fast 3rd party glass (rokinon etc) and it made good business sense
Are you happy with your Sigma lenses, I was thinking of getting one or both.
Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.
alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.
As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.
Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?
As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.
It'd be nice, but I really doubt it. I can't see Canon taking critical resources off the RF mount - it's full on RF mount until they get done the ecosystem. There's just no people left to design and roll out EOS-M (or EF) lenses. Every one of those lenses takes a designer off RF lenses. [..]