Sure, sure. No one uses the 85mm focal length on FF for portraits.On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens
Upvote
0
Sure, sure. No one uses the 85mm focal length on FF for portraits.On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm. You're suggestion that being 5mm shorter than the classic 85mm (a 9% difference) means it's not a portrait lens is simply asinine.50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85
There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.
I used all sorts of L glass without complaint on my M5, I guess the size of your mitts makes or breaks your options. YMMV. plus I don't limit my creativity by 'classic' focal lengths prescribed by history and media.These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.
View attachment 203522
This is why a a unified mount is shit. If you look at at EF-mount, Z-mount or F-mount the APS-C lenses were always bigger than needed, half assed and missing important lenses, b/c you can always gEt ThE fUlLfRaMe LeNs and ApS-c Is EnTrY tO FuLlFrAmE.
I'd rather have the sensor from the 80D. It's quite good.The 24 MP sensor could be recycled from the M50, hopefully updated.
Yes it is. In fact the 40mm STM pancake is an awesome lens for portraits on APS-C. I've shot a massive pile of couples portraits with a little Canon Rebel SL1 and the 40stm, and single person headshots with the same camera and the nifty 50. Back then, if you wanted to get into studio portrait photography, those two lenses and an entry level to mid level APS-C body were a very inexpensive and performant way to get into it. Add the EF-s 24mm pancake if you wanted to do more family sized group stuff and the ef-s 10-18 stm for larger group shots and for less than $2K you had a complete studio setup. I spent more money on lights and props than I did camera gear.On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens
What you're suggesting is not really feasible.
Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.
EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.
To adapt EF-M lenses for RF mount would require an adapter with optical elements as the Flange distance of the EF-M is actually 2mm shorter. This could add not inconsiderable (cf EF-M lenses) weight and length to the whole setup, negating the light weight and small size advantages of the EM-M system. On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.
As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.I think they'd make a big splash with M6II guts in an AE-1 style body. It would generate a lot of publicity and be hipster heaven!
And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85
There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.
So you suggest making an M7 and calling it an R7?FWIW, I am NOT suggesting EF-M lenses to be adapted for use on the current RF mount. I realise that's not really possible, and it's pretty fruitless endeavour.
What I WAS suggesting is that RF-S and EF-M mounts could potentially be the same thing. So you could natively use EF-M lenses on an RF-S body, and use RF lenses on RF-S bodies with an adapter. However, I note neroanatomist's comment regarding the 2mm adaptor challenges and realise now that it's not really possible.
It was just a rumination. We'll wait and see what happens.
More like an evolution of M blended developments distilled from R. Best of both worlds.So you suggest making an M7 and calling it an R7?
I suggest you take up photography. It's a nice hobby. Then you might learn a little bit about lenses.These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc.
It also had a mirror and used film so you’re right. Bad idea.As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.
True, I enjoyed a lot the pancake on a rebelYes it is. In fact the 40mm STM pancake is an awesome lens for portraits on APS-C.
I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.More like an evolution of M blended developments distilled from R. Best of both worlds.
I'd be astonished too, but interested. I don't care about constant f/4 or not, but a set of higher quality zooms for M that can keep up with that 32.5mp sensor would be excellent.I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.
I've found that what many less seasoned portrait photographers don't generally realize (in the age of nobody really printing and instead using images online) is that it's generally a better practice to shoot a little wider than you think you'll need to account for your image being cropped a bunch of different ways depending on where it's being used. Either step back a little further, or use a slightly wider FOV to give the image some breathing room so it can have a lot of crop flexibility for online usage.And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.
They're both about 24MP, but other than that, no, not really. The 80D sensor is ever so slightly larger at 22.5mm across the long edge vs 22.3 for Canon's other APS-C sensors, and has a different color response (which you can see via the WB multipliers). Canon has more than one 24mp APS-C sensor design. They could really save themselves some money by getting it down to just one or two sensors instead of seeming to have a different sensor for each line.Are not the same sensor?