I have difficulty to understand somebody going for a very small M camera and then use adapters to use typicaly oversized EOS lenses. Doesn’t hide very limited lens selection. But hey, that is my view.
Add detachable viewfinder only for top body and there is a system that is very limited. Only Canon can sell that. ;-) Mostly sold by brand name and price (low). Short term succesful strategy to take away market share from competitors, no doubt. Longterm less so.
08-21-2020, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2020, 10:52 PM by mike.)
(08-21-2020, 07:28 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: But seriously, when you look at photonstophotos, you (should) realize that when printing at the same size, the noise is similar, and only in high ISO scenarios noise would be apparent. So what does the higher res. bring you? Higher res. when you want to print bigger. So, similar at high iSO and same size printing, advantage when printing bigger especially with lower ISO.
Weird how every step up in resolution since 6mp (or probably before that too) triggers the same response from you... :-P
While I understand pixel peeping and I'm sure the manufacturers love pixel peeping as it keeps a certain group of photographers needing the next camera release. However, by now you would think there would be a criteria more relevant to actual us?. Then again, on dpr most people say they don't print, but complain about the images performance of last years model. What do I know?
I have much better iso performance on my 20Mp Pen-F MFT than I did on a 12Mp Rebel 450d APSC. With the 450d I would only use iso 800 in a pinch. I haven't explored the top end of what the pen-f could do, but I comfortably go quite a bit above that without even thinking about it and have printed and mounted good sized images.
Having said that, if the pixel noise is really up that much between 24 and 32Mp, it would seem they're riding on the same technological platform. The question is, is it a real life concern for most of us?
I will add that I'm kind of dumbfounded that Canon would use a different mount for M and R cameras.
(08-21-2020, 08:21 PM)MatjazO Wrote: I have difficulty to understand somebody going for a very small M camera and then use adapters to use typicaly oversized EOS lenses. Doesn’t hide very limited lens selection. But hey, that is my view.
Add detachable viewfinder only for top body and there is a system that is very limited. Only Canon can sell that. ;-) Mostly sold by brand name and price (low). Short term succesful strategy to take away market share from competitors, no doubt. Longterm less so.
Tele lenses will be similr in size, with or without adapter. So your view is kinda skewed. The detachable view finder depends on the form factor. M6 yes, M5/M50 no.
While your statement is broadly correct it doesn't mean that somewhat smaller, dedicated new tele designs aren't possible ...
- Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS
- Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
- Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS
- Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L USM IS
- Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
(08-22-2020, 11:21 AM)Klaus Wrote: While your statement is broadly correct it doesn't mean that somewhat smaller, dedicated new tele designs aren't possible ...
- Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS
- Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
- Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS
- Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L USM IS
- Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8
The Canon EF-S 55-250mm is small and DSLR...
The Sony E 70-350mm is indeed a tad smaller and lighter than a full frame EF 70-300mm. That is due to the APS-C-ness of the Sony, though.
The SOny FE 200-600mm is bigger and heavier than the Tamron 150-600mm G2.
The FE 200-600mm is substantially shorter than the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm actually - it doesn't extend ... and when counting in the adapter it is as heavy. Tamrons are also generally lighter due to different materials so the comparison isn't totally valid. ;-)
However, I don't think that - on equal grounds - there's more than 10-20% in it. There'll be no equal grounds anymore though. It is becoming increasingly unlikely that CaNikon will ever release new DSLR lenses.
And all that is the point - you'd always prefer new, dedicated mirrorless lenses over adapted legacy lenses - because they are better or smaller or both.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Mirrorless lenses are in general better because of modern design not being mirrorless.
if someone isn't bothered by an adaper and IMHO minor IQ amelioration, EF lenses are a great value for money,
EF 70-200f2.8 IS2 is absolutely awesome and can be found for less than 1000$ in mint condition
70-200f4 IS is as sharp as a lens could be for 400$
100-400 the push pull is at around 800$ locally
even legendary lenses like 135mmf2.0 for 600$
Canon 16-35f4 IS is one of the best ultrawides for around 500-600$
go find similar prices in Sony land... (or RF land)
Well, Toni - in this case, you should just continue to use a DSLR. As simple as that.
A mirrorless camera alone is not reason enough for changing systems - well, in my opinion anyway.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
(08-23-2020, 01:40 AM)Klaus Wrote: Well, Toni - in this case, you should just continue to use a DSLR. As simple as that.
A mirrorless camera alone is not reason enough for changing systems - well, in my opinion anyway.
I am using a DSLR, in fact I feel comfortable with both, EOSRP for shooting my children for low light capabilities and eye autofocus and precision , 7D2 for the rest
|
