Thank you for injecting rational thought into this nutty thread
Upvote
0
The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Hey, it is a rumors forum, let’s go for the gold! Seriously, I hate to take the hit on the m6 II, but I agree with you. I NEVER shoot without the EVF, so it would be one last thing I have to worry about loosing or breaking. I am always nervous about carrying the camera on a strap because of either hanging the EVF on something or it disconnecting. If I had to pick my priority other than integrated EVF it would be rugged, weather sealed body AND a weather sealed EF adaptor.
Upvote
0
The M52 is a wonderful dream. It has come and come and come back again. I also cannot do the lcd only thing, that's what my phone is for. I loved my short lived time with the M5, except for cramped controls, albeit very adjustable, and an early and very unrealistic EVF I like my shots. I always thought a Mk2 would be amazing....I also kept it in a realistic place with cost, sensor specs and lens lineup. It was never meant to be a heavy hitter. It had a sweet spot and more pluses than minuses.
Upvote
0
If they did that they would be dropping the best selling MILC platform on the planet, why would anybody in their right mind do that? If they were to do anything they would drop the RF mount for the EF-M mount!
The M is a completely different beast to the R and it is deliberately distinct, personally I have uses for both but never need both at the same time.
Upvote
0
You've made the same fundamental mistake made earlier - assuming that the optics of the lens have somehow changed because of the size of the imaging sensor. That's simply not true. The lens never changes. It's still a 52mm f/2 whether its mounted on a crop sensor, a full frame, or to a lens board on a 4x5 camera. The lens focal length to aperture size ratio is unchanged regardless of how much of the image the sensor picks up. The whole concept of x focal length on crop sensor = y focal length on full frame is little more than obfuscation designed to help us understand the difference between the two sensors, nothing more.
If you're going to scold me about basic physics, then don't start by erroneously assuming that the imaging sensor is looking through the lens. It isn't. It's a recording device seeing an image that the lens projects onto it. Nothing more. The image circle is projected at a fixed size, which doesn't change, and the size of the imaging sensor means that it is recording a smaller portion of that image circle. The image isn't somehow magically concentrated onto the sensor as some people seem to think. By the thin argument of "relative" aperture, the lens isn't f/2.0 for full frame because the image circle is larger than what a full frame sensor sees as well. As well, if we go ahead and accept that the sensor is looking out through the lens, and that the size of the aperture carries meaning relative to the size of the imaging sensor, wouldn't a smaller imaging sensor against the same size aperture make it seem relatively larger? I only say this to make a point. Don't answer, because my same argument applies - it's flawed logic, just like everything else. The lens optics, focal length, and aperture are unchanged regardless of what you put them on. The variable is in how much of the image created by that lens is seen by the sensor. Trying to make it anything more than that is fundamentally incorrect. And the overcomplicated arguments that stem out from those flawed assumptions also don't hold up.
Upvote
0
The only two criteria that impact dof are absolute aperture size and reproduction ratio. If either is changed in a scenario then the resultant images will be different.
If both are changed they can be done in a way to make both images identical.
Focal length and sensor sizes both impact reproduction ratio given a constant output size.
An image shot with a crop camera and a ff camera can look identical but for a same sized output you need to change focal length and lens aperture and iso to satisfy the two fundamentals, reproduction ratio and absolute aperture size.
Neither lenses nor sensors nor apertures are sentient, they don't 'look' or 'care' about anything, lenses collimate and project, sensors record photons and apertures regulate.
If both are changed they can be done in a way to make both images identical.
Focal length and sensor sizes both impact reproduction ratio given a constant output size.
An image shot with a crop camera and a ff camera can look identical but for a same sized output you need to change focal length and lens aperture and iso to satisfy the two fundamentals, reproduction ratio and absolute aperture size.
Neither lenses nor sensors nor apertures are sentient, they don't 'look' or 'care' about anything, lenses collimate and project, sensors record photons and apertures regulate.
Upvote
0
Architect1776
Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
That is fine, just too bad they could not use an adapter to use RF om M like EF on M.
Upvote
0
That's what happens when you give engineers blank pieces of paper
As I understood it all the Canon engineers needed to do was make the best new mount they could within the R design parameters, registration distance etc, whilst retaining EF compatibility, I think universal opinion is they did a superb job.
Personally I appreciate the fact they didn't try to make it do lots of other stuff and subsequently compromise current or future designs, ultimately I have no desire to use big $2-3,000 lenses on a tiny cropped $400 body.
Upvote
0
Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob
Yes indeed; I am being an aperture snob.
Also, I don’t shoot Program mode. Not on a camera like a M6 II; or any advanced camera. Shooting daylight in P with a super slow lens - - at what point do you just shoot with your phone instead?
when I want simple no thought shooting; I have G7 II. I shoot P on that all the time. Very happy with it.
When I get serious; I grab my x0D with a fast lens. That camera basically lives on aperture priority. Generally with a F4 lens. Generally shooting in low light where I am pushing ISO and tolerable noise. If I had bright sunny day and wanted F10 - - > there are smaller cameras (say, phone) that can do that.
Seeing the M6 II as having the same guts as a 90D; I figure that it should provide good performance - if you put the right glass on it. Get an EF-M 24-100ish F4, and I would pair it with the 11-22 and buy one tomorrow.
Upvote
0
No, you have. A 52mm f/2 won't somehow magically get a 42.5mm entrance pupil when it projects its image onto a crop sensor.
The entrance pupil is what matters in determining which rays from the scene enter the lens and reach the sensor plane from a given angle, and thus in determining the depth of field, the bokeh size and the photon noise (given that the scene illumination and the exposure time are the same and the lens is sufficiently transparent) of the captured plane of focus.
That's exactly what I am telling you but you are refusing to notice:
A 52mm f/2 lens on a crop sensor is not "equivalent" in depth of field, bokeh effects and photon noise to a 85mm f/2 lens.
It is only equivalent in the field of view, but not equivalent in the entrance pupil size.
If you want to get a "lens equivalent" in both the field of view and the entrance pupil size, you need to "change" both the focal lens and the f-number.
Too much of hot gas, but absolutely no content. A good illustration that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Upvote
0
But a 24-100ish f/4 would be awkward for general use on a body as small as an M6 II. That is one of the reasons why I got the 90D instead. The other was the much better video in crop mode. I would like to see an M5 replacement with at least 90D video quality and a proper EVF. That I would buy for use with M lenses and the occasional adapter application.
Upvote
0
Question for you. How do you feel about wanting a premium ml crop body such as the rumored M52 while the RP is available now with lower and lower prices, not to mention the very real possibility of many more R bodies to chose from in the next year? I would think there are many who would guess that an M52 might be more feature laden than an RP but there are some trade offs of course. Plus, not everyone sees FF as an eventual upgrade path.
Upvote
0
a few things; my EF 24-105/4 is a monster that I would not want on a M camera. One would hope an EF-M 24-xx /4 would not be a monster. A bit bigger - but not a monster.
personally, not sure I need EVF for a camera like this. The live view on my G7 isn’t bad. If I NEED the viewfinder experience; then my dSLR is there.
now, I asked myself the same question about the RP last year. I gave it a good look in a camera store. Frankly - - > it was Meh. If you HAVE evf; I expect more than the laggy viewfinder I saw in the RP. Plus; again; the lenses. The thought of adapters to use my EF lenses is not THAT appealing. And the RF lenses (last fall) made me thing I was just rebuying capability I already had at premium price. Maybe image quality was a skosh better; but there were no size/weight savings. And goodness - - > the new crop of RF “mid grade” lenses are F7.1. I am whining about F6.3; and here is a collection of F7.1s . .
It’s all good. I was spending too much money on camera toys.
Upvote
0
I have both crop and FF systems and don't see one as excluding the other. The M system is ideal for portability with a pretty decent lens line. I have an EF-s 55-250 with a Kenko 1.4 extender (f/8 at 350mm) that goes in the M bag and the rumored 100-400 f/7.1 (120-360 in the patent) because it would be smaller and likely AF better. If a nicely configured M5 II cost more than an RP I wouldn't be in the least offended. At the other end, I have a 5DSr and an 800mm L, but also use the 800 with a 90D for a little extra reach (and better video). The idea that someone will buy a crop camera and then have a passion to throw it out and "upgrade" to FF is overblown in my view. I think most folks who have crop and buy FF keep both and use them accordingly. I think most of the FF ML bodies (including the R) are painfully small to mange big, fast lenses comfortably, so only time will tell whether we see some more robust ML bodies. An R1 the size of the R5 will NOT sell to the pros.
Upvote
0
But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy
.
Upvote
0
fwiw, I used the 24-105, 70-200 and 135L on my M5 for thousands of shots. It was nowhere as balanced as using them with a 5D series body but also not the silly combination many use with smaller M bodies and 70-200's. Hand size, grip style and how you carry, i.e. hand strap/neck strap/other factor in as well. One thing I can attest to is adapting EF glass onto the EF-M body is a compromise, unlike EF to RF. Size wasn't the issue but IQ, speed and crop equivalence focal length of full framed lenses.I never once considered any of the the EF a monster, unlike some of the RF lenses on the R. Once again, ymmv with things being slightly disproportionate or very disproportionate. Also again, hand size.
Upvote
0
But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy
Fair enough.
To be honest, "where do I put the crud" is also an issue. Buy a lens every two years. . . . . .for 20 years. . . plus a body here and there. . . .flash units. . . P&S's. . . .
When I was looking at the RP; I found the EVF of both the "R" and "RP" a bit laggy.
So what I came closest to buying was a 100-400/II. I have the 100-400/I, but didn't realize the new one was a "twist zoom" until I was in the store. But honestly. . not sure I would buy any EF lenses at this point (For one thing, I have enough)(for another thing. . .look where the market is going)
The 24-105/4 is my most often used lens. On a X0D; it has good balance. On a "M" body; not so sure. I figure that with a "M" body; I should have smaller "M" lenses for day-to day use. Things like the 100-400 would only be for special occasions.
I hear you regarding the RF lenses. I saw the 28-70/2. Yikers. I was also hoping the other RF lenses would be smaller; but I guess with a full frame sensor; one would not expect the diameters or weight to really drop. I wasn't a fan of the the other RF lenses either. . . . at the time, they were focused on the 2.8 trinity. . . which I found a bit overpriced.
Upvote
0
I think the 100-400 II is a worthwhile buy unless you are planning to wait for the 100-500 RF. The 100-400 II is much sharper than the first version, particularly away from the center. It is also very fast to focus. I have used mine on a 5D II, a 70D, an SL1, an SL2, a 5DSR, a 90D, a M3, and an M5 and the only one that hesitates even a moment is the M3, but that is CDAF, so no surprise there. The 100-440 is still quite good with a 1.4 extender if you are using a body with DPAF or f/8 focus points. Best of all, the price has been pretty aggressive for the last few months. I suspect the RF 100-500 will be at least as nice a lens and I suspect the big difference will be more stops of IS thanks to IBIS in the R5, but it will be limited to R bodies and the EF lenses so flexible and really won't become obsolete any time soon. Actually, EF to R is a much gentler transition on the wallet than FD to EF was (other than inflation, of course).
Upvote
0
Which M bodies, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes? An M5 couples with larger lenses much better than M, M10, 100 or even M6 1/ll
Upvote
0
Similar threads
