Originally Posted by cmason In addition, it appears Canon made them much narrower, and therefore harder to hand control

It is no problem at all to hand control my relatively tiny manual Pentax SMC-M or Leica screw mount lenses.

I like this one. It's a fairly typical new entrant to the mirror-less field though. In other words, conservative and over priced for what it is. This camera is IMHO very much about being in the game rather winning the game and that's fair enough in my books. There's not much point coming out fighting if you've only got two lenses to sell.

Still, there's a lot to like about Canon's offering. It's similar to what Samsung have been doing (and Samsung probably have most to worry about in the first instance) and they've not made Sony's mistake of ending up with nose heavy cameras. I reckon this one will sell well enough to existing Canon DSLR users.

Ugh. I have never seen a more boring offering from Canon in the mid-priced area than with the new mirror-less.

Originally Posted by cmason Agree there is no dial to manage the settings, but it is fully manual, just done via the touchscreen.

Fully manual unless you are wearing gloves.

I can control my DSLRs in thin gloves, can't control my phone in gloves.

Originally Posted by kolibri Fully manual unless you are wearing gloves. I can control my DSLRs in thin gloves, can't control my phone in gloves.

Yeahbut, can you control your DSLR with your nose?

Originally Posted by cmason Yeahbut, can you control your DSLR with your nose?

Note that Canon has an adapter out to fit EF and EF-S lenses to the mirror less system body. This provides the standoff that would be present if the M camera had a mirror.

Personally I found the price is a bit steep, compare to Sony. The is roughly a Nex-3 but Canon charge Nex-5 price. I hope the street price can come down a bit.

Originally Posted by davev Last question, why do you make a lens (that I'm guessing is only going to fit on this camera) that is labeled 22mm, but in the real world will act like a 35mm lens, why wouldn't you just call it a 35mm lens? Why do we have to go through the extra step of figuring out what lens equivalent is?

Yhea, and I think Canon should supply sticky labels with my 70-200 that makes it a 112-320 when I mount it on my 7D!

:)

As mercphoto stated, basically we're all using the wrong parameter to measure field-of-view!

I find this similar to us using "wattage" to measure brightness of a bulb. After all, a 1200 watt baseboard heater doesn't emit any light, so how can wattage be the correct unit for brightness? Through misuse it's become a standard, so now we have to have 12 watt fluorescent bulbs that have to state "equivalent to 60 watts!" -- no it's not, it says "12 watts" right here on the package! :)

Roak

In the interchangeable lens world, this is perfectly normal. Four Thirds users have it easiest - we just multiply everything by 2.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by roakey Yhea, and I think Canon should supply sticky labels with my 70-200 that makes it a 112-320 when I mount it on my 7D! :) Roak

Maybe they should.
If nothing else, they could print it on the box.

Of course the 70-200 is already the 35mm equivalent, and was first made to fit on a 35mm camera long before a crop sensor camera was put on the market.

I understand multiplying 1.6 to get the equivalent for an EF lens. I'm fine with that.

No, I'm talking about a 15-85 EF-S lens, that is never going to give you the FOV of 15mm if a 15mm EF lens was mounted on a full frame camera.
It won't on a crop camera, and it can't mount to a full frame camera.

15mm does not equal 15mm.

I was also talking about the "M" mount 22mm that will never give you the FOV of a EF 22mm lens.

But hey, why would Canon ever do something like that.
Help a buyer out, no, Canon would never do something like that.

Anyway, I can't wait to go shooting with my 6.1 - 30.5 mm lens.
The panoramas that I get should be fantastic.




Here's hoping that no one else will say that I don't understand.
(the smaller boxes are stacked two deep, and a few used lenses came without boxes)



later.

If they labeled an EF-S 15-85mm as 24-136mm, then the f-numbers would have to change too. I don't think you really want that.

What if I was more comfortable with Medium Format, and I ranted that 50mm lenses should be marked 80mm? You'd probably think I was nuts.

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft If they labeled an EF-S 15-85mm as 24-136mm, then the f-numbers would have to change too. I don't think you really want that. What if I was more comfortable with Medium Format, and I ranted that 50mm lenses should be marked 80mm? You'd probably think I was nuts.

Probably.

I'm a bit confused with the f-number bit.
Are you saying that an EF-S lens, lets say a Canon EF-S 17-50 F2.8, at 17mm and f2.8 on a crop sensor camera will meter differently
then a Canon EF 28-70 f2.8, at 28mm and f2.8 on a full framer? (different shutter speed at the same iso)

I didn't know this. (I may have to try this)

I don't think it's a question of what you're comfortable with.
As I said in a early post, 35mm format is more or less the gold standard.
I don't think anyone here would argue this point. (but I may be wrong)

Now that I've HiJacked this thread without really trying, Back to out regular thread.

Originally Posted by davev Probably. I'm a bit confused with the f-number bit. Are you saying that an EF-S lens, lets say a Canon EF-S 17-50 F2.8, at 17mm and f2.8 on a crop sensor camera will meter differently then a Canon EF 28-70 f2.8, at 28mm and f2.8 on a full framer? (different shutter speed at the same iso)

It will meter the same, but the size of the aperture at 17mm f/2.8 is 6mm. If you labeled the lens 27mm, you couldn't also label it f/2.8 because the size of the aperture is not 27/2.8 (9.6mm).

27mm divided by 6mm gives you 4.5, which is why the DOF of the 17-55 is equivalent to a f/4.5 lens on FF.

I didn't know this. (I may have to try this)

I tried it with my old 5D2 and 7D. They metered nearly the same. They were off by like 1/10 of a second due to the different meters.

As I said in a early post, 35mm format is more or less the gold standard.

In consumer world, yes it is.

Canon M mounted on the Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS

Originally Posted by Manfr3d Canon M mounted on the Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS

I don't see an appropriate level of pain and grimace. (That combination, handheld, would be a physical pain to use.)

Photoshopped. Monopod deleted.

Not sure, to me it looks like the guy was expecting to be outside the picture :) Original story here.

Originally Posted by Manfr3d Not sure, to me it looks like the guy was expecting to be outside the picture :) Original story here.

A Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM weighs 9.9lbs. A gallon of water (or a gallon of milk, etc.) weighs 8.35lbs. Take the gallon of (whatever) and hold it at arms length, like they show in the image. Make a mental note of how it feels in a few seconds.

The description at the link you provided, "I must say this looks like an extremely comfortable setup for general walk around birding.", is almost certainly a joke. (Sarcasm does not translate well to written text. )

How about hand holding a Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8, that looks heavy (16kg) ? :)