09-20-2019, 06:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2019, 03:53 AM by MatjazO.)
Toni, good for you if you like what Canon offers there. Not much for someone like me, though.
Playing along: I just checked at B&H, not to miss something by accident. Taking aside endless versions of me too kit and universal zooms, there are 2 wide angle zooms, one normal and one slow long zoom. Primes? 2 macros and one pancake 24mm. Yupii.
There is a reason why Tom Hogan, for example, has been writing plenty of times about the obviously missing relevant APS-C lenses. Fuji for sure likes that gap is there.
09-20-2019, 08:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2019, 08:53 PM by toni-a.)
Not taking defence of Canon APS-C but you have all Canon EF lenses available for APS-C and that's a huge amount of lenses
Have used Canon APS-C for 15 years and was never disappointed.
Why Canon didn't make any 10 12mm and 16mm primes ? that's another question Tokina did make a very decent 10-20f2.8 but nobody was interested
Sigma made a very good 50-150f2.8 OS DC HSM, even APS-C users prefered 70-200f2.8 OS HSM despite price, size and weight advantages, IMHO if you have full frame and APS-C there's no point making dedicated tele lenses for APS-C on the primes side only pancakes and ultrawide primes would be interesting, who would buy EFS50mmf1.8 when you already have EF50mmf1.8 ? unless it offers a major advantage
I actually use 7Dmkii and EOS RP
to my knowledgw there's nothing in Fuji mount not covered in Canon APS-C (except maybe 16mmf2.0 autofocus)
09-20-2019, 08:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2019, 08:50 PM by thxbb12.)
(09-20-2019, 08:39 PM)toni-a Wrote: Not taking defence of Canon APS-C but you have all Canon EF lenses available for APS-C and that's a huge amount of lenses
Have used Canon APS-C for 15 years and was never disappointed.
Why Canon didn't make any 10 12mm and 16mm primes ? that's another question Tokina did make a very decent 10-20f2.8 but nobody was interested
I actually use 7Dmkii and EOS RP
to my knowledgw there's nothing in Fuji mount not covered in Canon APS-C (except maybe 16mmf2.0 autofocus)
You're missing the point.
Nobody buys an APS-C camera to use oversized FF lenses! Dedicated APS-C lenses with a smaller image circle can be made more compact.
Beside Fuji (and Pentax in the DSLR world), no other manufacturer has seriously tackled APS-C. This is especially true of Canon and Nikon.
I recommend you read some of Thom Hogan's articles: http://bythom.com/
09-20-2019, 08:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2019, 08:57 PM by toni-a.)
(09-20-2019, 08:49 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: (09-20-2019, 08:39 PM)toni-a Wrote: Not taking defence of Canon APS-C but you have all Canon EF lenses available for APS-C and that's a huge amount of lenses
Have used Canon APS-C for 15 years and was never disappointed.
Why Canon didn't make any 10 12mm and 16mm primes ? that's another question Tokina did make a very decent 10-20f2.8 but nobody was interested
I actually use 7Dmkii and EOS RP
to my knowledgw there's nothing in Fuji mount not covered in Canon APS-C (except maybe 16mmf2.0 autofocus) You're missing the point.
Nobody buys an APS-C camera to use oversized FF lenses! Dedicated APS-C lenses with a smaller image circle can be made more compact.
Beside Fuji (and Pentax in the DSLR world), no other manufacturer has seriously tackled APS-C. This is especially true of Canon and Nikon.
I recommend you read some of Thom Hogan's articles: http://bythom.com/
again who bought sigma 50-150f2,8 DC OS HSM instead of Sigma 70-200f2.8 OS HSM ? despite using APS-C
In other words (talking about imagen quality): FF (mirrorless or DSLR) offers the same quality. But ... FF (MRR or DSLR) vs APSC (MRR or DSLR)?.
I dont shoot wildlife or sport photo. I shoot travel photo (landscapes, cities, people etc etc). For me the most importat is image quality: dynamic range, noise at high isos, sharpness, etc. etc.
I have never used a FF digital camera. All of my bodies have been APSC. This is the reason for my doubt. I am not sure if invert in more APSC system or switch to FF world.
(09-21-2019, 11:34 AM)brisco Wrote: In other words (talking about imagen quality): FF (mirrorless or DSLR) offers the same quality. But ... FF (MRR or DSLR) vs APSC (MRR or DSLR)?.
I dont shoot wildlife or sport photo. I shoot travel photo (landscapes, cities, people etc etc). For me the most importat is image quality: dynamic range, noise at high isos, sharpness, etc. etc.
I have never used a FF digital camera. All of my bodies have been APSC. This is the reason for my doubt. I am not sure if invert in more APSC system or switch to FF world.
Both produce excellent results, I can't tell from A4 prints which one was taken with 7Dmkii or which one is taken with EOSRP
Where I find real advantages for EOSRP is low light, EOSRP at least one full f stop advantage over 7Dmk2 but this isn't visible on prints before ISO 1600, today I made ISO4000 print from EOSRP it came out crisp and clean, 7DMK2 couldn't achieve that.
In a parallel thinking, my 7DMK2 outperforms my full frame 5D classic in almost everything including noise.
However my 5D classic outperforms any other camera I ever tried for color rendering that's why I kept it
This conversation has kind of morphed... IMO, I don't see a need to look through the lens. I've actually learned to prefer the evf. It seems more in tune to what the final image will look like. Plus, I like the 100% view.
Then there are horses for courses. Last night I was taking shots with an MFT that would be super difficult with a dslr. First, the flip out touchscreen monitor set to focus where I touched was indispensable. Second, how close I could get the the camera to the subject and dof I wanted would have been difficult without a tripod for APSC and FF. I was shooting cactus, so even getting to the shot I wanted was precarious. Trying to get a tripod in there and looking through a viewfinder.. yikes!
When I was still using my last iteration of canon gear (1dx and rebel) I still carried around a decent quality digital P&S for situations like these.
(09-23-2019, 04:27 PM)mike Wrote: This conversation has kind of morphed... IMO, I don't see a need to look through the lens. I've actually learned to prefer the evf. It seems more in tune to what the final image will look like. Plus, I like the 100% view.
Then there are horses for courses. Last night I was taking shots with an MFT that would be super difficult with a dslr. First, the flip out touchscreen monitor set to focus where I touched was indispensable. Second, how close I could get the the camera to the subject and dof I wanted would have been difficult without a tripod for APSC and FF. I was shooting cactus, so even getting to the shot I wanted was precarious. Trying to get a tripod in there and looking through a viewfinder.. yikes!
When I was still using my last iteration of canon gear (1dx and rebel) I still carried around a decent quality digital P&S for situations like these.
You can get the EXACT same DOF with APS-C and FF, when using equivalent settings. Not sure why you think you can't. Using equivalent lenses also means the same shooting distance with the same subject size in the printed image.
On OVF, I like to see the world and not the computer interpreting/deciding it for me, when trying to find the angle that inspires. The "final image" is a combination of my imagination, the camera capturing the moment, and my post processing. OVF offers me the possibility of a creative process that EVF and live view can not give.
And that flipout screen? Are you sure you can't get that in DSLR form? Of course my DSLR also offers liveview, when needed.
About no tripod.. I almost never use a tripod (only when needed).
It is fine for you to like your MFT and its EVF, of course. But someones has to wonder about the weird arguments given.
09-23-2019, 05:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2019, 05:44 PM by thxbb12.)
(09-23-2019, 04:53 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: (09-23-2019, 04:27 PM)mike Wrote: This conversation has kind of morphed... IMO, I don't see a need to look through the lens. I've actually learned to prefer the evf. It seems more in tune to what the final image will look like. Plus, I like the 100% view.
Then there are horses for courses. Last night I was taking shots with an MFT that would be super difficult with a dslr. First, the flip out touchscreen monitor set to focus where I touched was indispensable. Second, how close I could get the the camera to the subject and dof I wanted would have been difficult without a tripod for APSC and FF. I was shooting cactus, so even getting to the shot I wanted was precarious. Trying to get a tripod in there and looking through a viewfinder.. yikes!
When I was still using my last iteration of canon gear (1dx and rebel) I still carried around a decent quality digital P&S for situations like these.
You can get the EXACT same DOF with APS-C and FF, when using equivalent settings. Not sure why you think you can't. Using equivalent lenses also means the same shooting distance with the same subject size in the printed image.
On OVF, I like to see the world and not the computer interpreting/deciding it for me, when trying to find the angle that inspires. The "final image" is a combination of my imagination, the camera capturing the moment, and my post processing. OVF offers me the possibility of a creative process that EVF and live view can not give.
And that flipout screen? Are you sure you can't get that in DSLR form? Of course my DSLR also offers liveview, when needed.
About no tripod.. I almost never use a tripod (only when needed).
It is fine for you to like your MFT and its EVF, of course. But someones has to wonder about the weird arguments given.
Indeed, one can get exact same DOF and shutter speed with FF or APS-C by simply raising the ISO. A common misconception from MFT users is that they think that it's an advantage to be able to shoot at base ISO (say 200) while benefiting from a larger DOF than FF (or APS-C). What they don't realize is that you will get the same DOF with FF at ISO 800 and you will end up with the same SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio)...
Anyway, I see one benefit to MFT that has no match in other systems: ridiculously effective stabilization allowing one to shoot in circumstances requiring a tripod with other systems (a good example of this is a Olympus E-M1 mkII with the Oly 300m f4 or Oly 12-100 f4).
And of course there is the size of equivalent lenses that don't exist elsewhere. A good example of this is the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens. It's really tiny. It doesn't extend and it's got great IQ. Macro lenses in FF or APS-C land are huge and f2.8 which is silly IMO. Sure, this Olympus is equivalent to a 120mm f5.6 FF (or 80mm f3.7 in APS-C), but such equivalent lenses simply doesn't exist and this equivalent aperture is perfectly suited to shooting macro where one needs as much DOF as possible.
Of course, you can think of benefits of certain MFT products. You will not see me argue against that.
That Olympus as macro is not thaaat small or light in the world of macro lenses. The FF lens I often use is smaller and almost as light, even though it is full metal (micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5). Of course, it does not have an equivalent focal length on FF. But that goes the other way too, you will struggle finding a 25mm macro for MFT.
Other systems have small macro lenses as well, like the Canon EF-M 28mm f3.5 IS STM which goes to 1.2x magnification and weighs less than that Olympus, and the Canon EF-S 35mm f2.8 IS STM which weighs the same as that Oly. So, not all macro lenses for FF and APS-C are huge.
|
