09-05-2016, 05:14 PM
Quote:... the EF-M lenses are way cheaper that Sony or even Zeiss ones and yt offer outstanding image quality....
That's a very interesting order. So far I thought if your really want to burn some money, get Zeiss :lol:
Quote:... the EF-M lenses are way cheaper that Sony or even Zeiss ones and yt offer outstanding image quality....
Quote:Rover, ok if you can live with adapted lenses on Sony E-mount cameras. I could not, because Sony cameras are a pain in the ass when it comes to ergonomics and handling. I always have the feeling that I am going to hurt myself when touching a Sony cam. Moreover, the EF-M lenses are way cheaper that Sony or even Zeiss ones and yt offer outstanding image quality. All this, plus the possibility to adapt EF/EF-S lenses without any loss of performance makes the EOS M-system very attractive for me. Just came back from my first "EOS-M-only" holidays and I haven't missed anything (despite having a FF camera on the shelf).I think you're contradicting yourself a bit on this one... Besides, you can adapt Canon lenses to the Sony with full functionality using the adapter - much like you'd have to use with the Canon EF-M bodies. But the Sony E system is a magnitude more mature than the Canon M, and it looks like it's going to stay this way - Sony has been rolling out the native lenses like there's no tomorrow while the Canon has given us... the 28/3.5 macro and squat else. Again, having a decent trio of UWA/kit/cheap telezoom lens is not an achievement - it's a bare minimum.