Dear Canon, I'm not buying anymore DSLR Gear get on with the M

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,666
Like?
you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to justmeMN, 5 months ago

justmeMN wrote:

Neither an EOS M with an 18-55mm lens nor an SL1/100D with an 18-55mm lens will even come close to fitting in my jeans pocket. An EOS M in a camera bag is just as convenient/inconvenient as an SL1/100D in a camera bag.

The whole notion that size is irrelevant unless it can "fit in my jeans pocket" is really absurd, and narrow-minded. LOL. There's a lot more to the size issue than merely the "jean pocket" test.

First of all, you are showing a startling incapacity to understand that it isn't just about the camera body and a single lens, it's about being able to carry a camera with a complement of lenses in your bag. Mirrorless lenses are absolutely more compact than DSLR lenses. Here's a picture to prove my point, below. On the left, we have the Canon 10-22 EF-S for Canon APS-C DSLR. In the middle, we have the Canon 11-22 EF-M for Canon APS-C mirrorless. (The last lens, on the right, is an equivalent m4/3 lens.)  As you can see, even though both of these Canon lenses are specifically designed for APS-C sensors, the mirrorless lens is a fraction of the size of the DSLR lens. And a fraction of the weight, too. The difference in size is also quite prominent from the front, where the EF-S lens has a huge 77mm filter thread, while the EF-M lens has a very small 55mm filter thread.

Here's another image to illustrate how compact mirrorless is compared to DSLR, again with these same Canon lenses (the EF-S lens is mounted to the EF-to-EF-M adapter, which basically shows where the lens would be positioned if it were on a DSLR like an SL1-- double the length of mirrorless!):

So what does this mean? Well it means that when carrying around gear in a camera bag, you can use a much smaller, lighter, less conspicuous bag. Or, if you want to go without a bag, you can fit the EOS M lens into your coat pocket, and slip the EOS M body into your other coat pocket. This is not possible with the Canon 11-22 EF-S, nor is it really possible with the SL1.  Or you can stick with the same size bag, and be able to fit more into it,

And speaking of being able to fit more into your bag, smaller mirrorless gear also means that accessories such as lens filters (I usually pack a polarizer) and lens hoods are much smaller, take up less room in your bag, and fit easily into your pocket. Do you use a Canon 11-22 EF-S? If you do, I'm sure you know just how large its lens hood is. It's huge. The 10-22 EF-M's hood is a fraction of the size. On top of that, the 10-22 EF-M even manages to squeeze in Image Stabilization! That means I have to carry around a tripod or monopod much less often, which is an even greater size/weight savings! (Yes, if you really care about optimum sharpness, stability is still something to consider, even when shooting at wider angles. Besides, the long end of these wide-angle lenses is 35mm equivalent, which isn't so wide.)

So not only does this hood take up a lot more space in your camera, it's very conspicuous on the lens, even more conspicuous when you're walking around with it, makes it more difficult to get the camera+lens in and out of your bag, and more uncomfortable to walk around with it handing from your strap. So as you can see, size has a cascading effect that you apparently have not considered.

And of course, the size differential is even greater when you're comparing Canon EF/EF-S lenses with m4/3!

So when it comes to size, you're really foolish if you're only considering whether camera equipment can fit into your pocket.  Smaller size does mean you can fit more into your bag, or use a smaller, less conspicuous, easier-to-carry bag.  It also means you can more easily slip lenses, hoods, filters, into your pockets.  When traveling, I usually wear pants or pants with looser pockets, and it's very easy to slip mirrorless lenses in and out of them when changing lenses.  You just can't do that with DSLR lenses.  With DSLR gear, you really have to use a bag.  But even when using a bag, it's still more convenient to have gear that takes up less space and weighs less.  Also, the smaller lenses make it easier to fit them into even the side pockets of many camera bags (the pockets that that would be too small to accommodate a DSLR lens).  And things like filters and hoods take up less space, too.

The other factor to consider is that, for many of us who like to work with two bodies, it's a heck of a lot more convenient to carry two bodies when both bodies (with lens mounted) combined take up barely any more room than a single DSLR (with lens mounted).  If you want to talk about convenience/inconvenience, I find it convenient to not have to change lenses!   But with mirrorless gear, I can use two bodies, each with a lens mounted.  It's a lot more comfortable than using two DSLRs thanks to the much smaller size and weight of mirrorless bodies and lenses.  It's like what the old war pj's used to do, back in the days when cameras weren't the behemoths they are today, like this photo of the great Larry Burrows and his two compact-sized Leicas:

Obviously, using two mirrorless cameras is more conspicuous, but it's not any more conspicuous than walking around with a single big DSLR and its big DSLR lens mounted on it!  And definitely less conspicuous than shooting with two DSLRs hanging from each shoulder, which I regularly do for weddings!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow