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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,872
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to rrccad, 6 months ago

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

only for lens designs that are less than the registration distance plus working distance of the lens - which is why the 40mm pancake lens could be developed on the EF mount.

so again, it's not a one size fit all solution, and only effects a majority of lenses that by nature are not the largest in a working kit anyways.

the biggest benefit to these (assuming larger sensor MILC's) are prime lenses or zooms under the nominal registration distance of the larger DLSR cameras. (ie: 16-35,10-22,etc,etc). once you get around the DSLR registration distance and above, the differences are minor. consider there's hardly any savings in size to the 24-70 FE's versus the 24-70 canon. and certainly not for 70-200.

The savings really are just for the working few that work with primes or ultrawides - which is why partly it's consumer adaptation is fairly low. the longer lenses either don't even exist and/or if they do (18-200mm for sony E mount) they are ungainly and awkward.

the only place that seems to do well for a kit size is the m43's and Nikon 1. (partly the reason I think Nikon made the RIGHT choice on sensor size, and sony and canon has made the wrong choices) is that the IQ is atypically "good enough", and the kits are much smaller regardless of focal length.

Wow, you're really getting desperate, scraping at the bottom of the barrel, re-treading the same old arguments, aren't you? LOL. The fact remains that once you load up your camera bag with gear, the mirrorless gear user still ends up with a noticeable reduction in size and weight. Just try it out for yourself.

nope, they wouldn't. i normally carry with a full kit with a 24-70L and a 70-200/4L, 100mm macro, 24-105L and usually a few small primes, and a smaller M.

wouldn't make a difference. the world doesn't revolve around under 50mm lenses that work with a shorter registration distance. is that a unrealistic kit? no actually that's pretty realistic.

I'm desperate that's funny .. you're in the Canon M forum, you don't even have the camera .. and you're simply trolling looking for attention. that sounds more desperate to me.

I don't even have the camera, huh?  Ahahah, you fail yet again.  I have the EOS M, 18-55 EF-M, 22mm EF-M and 90EX flash.  Here's my EOS M below (with a custom grip I made for it) next to my Canon 60D and m4/3 Oly E-PM1 (also customized).

The flaw of your argument is that you only focus on areas where there is little difference, while completely ignoring areas where there are differences.  For example, your "full kit" doesn't include wides, where size difference can be quite substantial between retrofocus (DSLR) lenses and non-retrofocus (MILC) lenses.  And, of course, you completely ignore the size differential of the bodies themselves, which obviously take up a good chunk of space and volume in any camera bag.  Especially for those of us who generally work with more than one body.  It's not uncommon for many working travel photographers to pack 3 or 4 bodies.  I think some time in the future, a lot of us will be packing higher-end mirrrorless bodies instead because they would take up so much less room than our DSLRs!

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