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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 2,273Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 4 months ago

T3 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

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.

really?

i didn't know the world only shot with sub 70mm lenses.

of course looking at 70-200's totally blow your pet theory of them being as you say: absolutely more compact than DSLR lenses.

I guess nikon and canon should stop manufacturing anything about 70mm because clearly no one uses those lenses.

any lens above around 50mm depending on lens design, will show negligible difference in size.

As I replied to you in a previous post, yes, with certain body+lens combos, MILC can get up to the size of DSLR. But DSLR can't get down to the size of the smallest body+lens combos. So with regard to size, at worst a MILC user is using the same sized equipment as a DSLR user. But at best, he's also able to use a much more compact body+lens combo than any DSLR+lens combo can achieve! Get it?!!

well let me again state:

"absolutely more compact than DSLR lenses."

Clearly you don't get the English language - you make a statement like that and get called out on it, and you start to cry.

I'll say it again. With regards to the size argument, at worst, a MILC body+lens combo will be about the same size as a DSLR body+lens combo.

so? again, size isn't everything. there's expense. there's the fact that the battery life is abysmal. there's the the fact that it's the easiest camera to damage the most expensive part in - the sensor. it's the fact that for of the systems out there, there is negligible difference.

But with MILC, certain body_lens combos allow you to so MUCH SMALLER than DSLR.

not for the majority of the buying public. not for the majority of the real world kits out there either.  the majority of the buying public isn't rocking around with 2-3 small primes. they usually want a normal zoom, and a telephoto or a all in one 18-200 and call it a day.  they don't want to switch lenses all the time. so the size advantage .. the majority of the world doesn't give one crap about.

So basically, with MILC you have the option of going as big as DSLR, or much smaller. But with DSLR you mainly only have the option of big.

And even worse, the size comparison you see above is of the worlds smallest APS-C DSLR against a FF MILC.

why do you think APS-C versus FF makes any difference here? it doesn't. Get it? probably not..

it's funny how obnoxious you get when people don't agree with you.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
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