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

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
67gtonr
Contributing MemberPosts: 587Gear list
Like?
Re: Speaking of lens size... (Convenience)
In reply to justmeMN, 7 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.

I wouldn't put my camera (besides my cell phone camera) into my jeans pocket anyway. I have to put my keys in one pocket and as they scratch things I must put my phone into the other pocket this leaves no room for a camera(unless I'm willing to have it damaged by my keys).

 67gtonr's gear list:67gtonr's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 2,932Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 7 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
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 456
Like?
we are few but highly influential
In reply to meland, 7 months ago

I think there really isnt an effective long term strategy for people who flit from brand to brand or who owns multi brands like myself.

I believe our numbers are not significant, yet I think we are somewhat influential upon new buyers.

For example, any newbie I know who is in the market to buy a camera, gets immediate access to my cameras, pictures and my user experiences with them. I can tell you that for a beginner buyer, there is nothing like having a nikon 1 system and an eos m  to take a picture with, look at it in the display of their choice and see the system differences immediately.

For obvious reasons, no one in my circle of influence has yet to buy a nikon 1 or nikon dslr.

Perhaps companies like fuji and olympus ard the ones who somewhat realises this and are quick to come out with bodies AND quality lenses that cater to enthusiasts like me. Their only failing are the prices of their lenses.

In this respect, the m lenses are well ahead in both quality and value. This is the only reason why I like the m and recommend it to friends who are more interested in iq above convenience features and af speed.

meland wrote:

T3 wrote:

meland wrote:

calterg wrote:

Not the nex, been there and its highly over rated, however, I will be going fuji next, thats the only one left to play with for me and my limited budget these days.

I guess there will always be people who flit from one brand or interest to the next. Nothing wrong with that, if it makes them happy, and it probably helps photo retailers stay in business. But I wonder how any manufacturer can really factor such transient interest into their strategic planning?

I think you're completely missing the point. This isn't about "flitting from one brand to the next". Many of us would gladly stay with Canon if they simply offered the products that we see other brands are offering. But since Canon isn't offering those products, we are simply going to other brands that do offer those products. It's not about being brand fickle. It's about wanting to use an entirely new class of products that Canon doesn't offer...something along the lines of the the Sony A7/A7R, Sony A6000, Oly E-M10, Fuji X-T1, etc....enthusiast-oriented mirrorless cameras. This isn't about "transient interest", as if mirrorless is simply fad.

As for the notion that mirrorless is a "transient interest", I think it's like laptops vs tablets. I used to carry a laptop with me. But once I got an iPad, I didn't want to carry a laptop anymore when I left the house. (Frankly, carrying a laptop was always somewhat of a burden, but when the iPad came along, it finally gave me the excuse to not have to take my laptop anymore to client meetings, to shoots, for travel, etc.) Now, I'm realizing that the same thing has happened to me regarding DSLRs vs MILCs. I used to carry a DSLR with me, but it too was a burden. But once I got my m4/3 gear, I didn't want to carry a DSLR anymore when I left the house. Now, when I'm walking out the door, it's my m4/3 body, and one or two lenses that are on me. Is this simply a "transient interest"? No, absolutely not. For me, mirrorless is here to stay, and it's now my go-to gear when I'm around town, traveling, or anywhere where I'm not doing a paid shoot. In fact, my attitude now is that I don't carry my DSLR gear unless someone is paying me to use my DSLR gear.

For mirrorless I am using m4/3, but I also bought a Canon EOS M kit. So basically, my last two camera purchases were mirrorless. And my next camera purchase is going to be mirrorless too. I was hoping it would be a new EOS M model with an EVF and more advanced specs. But seeing as how no such camera exists from Canon, my next camera purchase is going to be the Oly E-M10. In other words, Canon had an opportunity to win my business, but instead my money will go to a competitor. Again, this isn't about "flitting" around, or following "transient" interests, because that foolishly trivializes these decisions. The reality is that I have a concrete set of goals that I want met, I'm waiting for the right products to reach the market at the right price, and then I'm going with the products that meet these criteria.

I'm seeing more and more of my colleagues (all DSLR users) picking up mirrorless bodies. And they are all realizing the benefits and advantages of these cameras. We all still keep our DSLR gear for our work. But outside of our work, it's mirrorless. So what is the significance of this? Well, we all spreading the word on how much we like using mirrorless. We're becoming influencers. And I think slowly, over time, it's definitely going to take hold amongst consumers. Because I honestly feel that, for most consumers, MILC is a better fit than a DSLR. If you are a working photographer who does high volume shooting, DSLRs are still a better choice. But that's because we shoot 5,000 images every weekend, and only a DSLR has the battery life to handle that.

Thank you for the lecture but I fear you appear to have jumped to a conclusion that I said mirrorless was a transient interest. Actually I did not say that, nor did I imply anything of the sort - all I was doing was responding to someone who said he had tried Nex and was going to Fuji next. Having been in camera marketing for nearly 30 years I recognise that there are some people who do flit from brand to brand, either because they get bored, or they think a new product will somehow improve their photography, or maybe because they just get pleasure from buying new shiny things. It's rather difficult to create a long term marketing strategy for people like that.

But to get back on track, I would certainly agree with you that the move to smaller cameras is a worthwhile objective for many consumers. But whether they will be mirrorless, or indeed some other type that wins out , or exists in harmony, I don't think really matters. And I strongly suspect it doesn't matter to Canon either. They are in the business of making cameras - not just DSLRs - and will no doubt respond to what the public want to buy. Obviously you personally may be ahead of the general buying curve at the moment, especially in the USA, and I admire your passion and evangelistic zeal. But to lambaste Canon for not having brought out the product you want yet might be a bit premature, even if it makes you feel better. They might surprise you and provide just what you want, sooner than you think.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lawrencew
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,508Gear list
Like?
I agree with T3
In reply to rrccad, 7 months ago

rrccad wrote:

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

Sorry, but I am with T3 on this one.

Of course I can see that once you start adding large lenses such as the 70-200 F2.8 then there is no size advantage in a MILC

But 90% of my images are shot in the range where the MILC + Lens is still smaller than the smallest DSRL.

So that's the camera I am more interested in.

I can get the EOS M and its entire lens line up in a bag that is lighter and almost smaller than some FF DSLRs. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51999888

I want something small and light that I can take out with me for the day without being as obtrusive as a DSLR.

-- hide signature --
 Lawrencew's gear list:Lawrencew's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 2,932Gear list
Like?
Re: I agree with T3
In reply to Lawrencew, 7 months ago

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

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

Sorry, but I am with T3 on this one.

Of course I can see that once you start adding large lenses such as the 70-200 F2.8 then there is no size advantage in a MILC

I agree. However T3 seems to leave out important details, and then ignore or belittle others when they get it pointed out to them.

While some users .. UWA is more important, to a vast majority of people a more balanced scenario is just as important - which is why for the camera industry as a whole, a system kit approach and looking at small primes is a flawed comparison when you are looking at it from the industry perspective.

I enjoy my little M travel kit. but i'm not naive enough to assume the 40 million or so canon EF mount DSLR users in the world would like a kit so limited. and it's not really that much more limited than any other MILC kit out there. Bang for the buck and size for the buck the M kit is nice from a UWA perspective - easily the best out there.

but to say DSLR's are doomed because of it? ridiculous assertion.

and PS .. you disagreed but were reasonable versus the quoted comment

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,988
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to rrccad, 7 months ago

rrccad wrote:

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.

Hahahah!  What in the world is this "absolutely more compact" non-sense.  Sure, if you put a really large lens on a mirrorless camera, it ends up being really large!  But the reality is that all you've succeeded in proving is that, in your own example, the FF Sony A7 MILC with a 70-200/2.8 is still more compact than the world's smallest APS-C DSLR with a 70-200/2.8 on it.  That's not much of a victory, my friend.

As for this silly non-sense that there is any crying going on, LOL, clearly you're projecting your own emotions onto this discussion.

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.

As I and and many others have stated, there are pros and cons to both DSLR and MILC.  As adults, we understand these pros and cons.  I've been a lifelong SLR/DSLR users.  I've been using SLRs since the film days.  I've been using DSLRs since my first DSLR, the Canon 10D, in 2003.  But today, I use both DSLR's and MILC.  And as a user of both, I have first-hand knowledge and experience of their pros and cons.  And I can tell you with absolute certainty that, as much as I have loved using DSLRs, I really, really, really enjoy using MILC's for their smaller size and weight.

Maybe you should get some first-hand experience for yourself.  Sure, continue to keep your DSLR gear.  But also buy a MILC camera and a few lenses.  Use it for a year.  I think you're realize, like I have, that each type of system has its merits.

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.

The reality is that camera size does effect every consumer in one way or another.  Some people just choose to put up with it more than others.  And many have put up with it simply because there's never been another alternative when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras.  But now, advancements in technology offer another alternative: mirrorless ILC's.

Plus, apparently you're not aware of the fact that mirrorless systems have their own zooms.  And, in fact, mirrorless systems offer pancake zooms which DSLR systems don't!  That's because, unlike DSLR systems with their retrofocus lenses, mirrorless systems don't have that design restriction.  The mirrorless manufacturers are now offering amazingly compact pancake and low-profile zooms for their mirrorless systems that attain levels of compactness that are simply unattainable with DSLR systems.

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.

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?!  LOL.  I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself.  Hahaha.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,988
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 7 months ago

Seriously, you need to calm down.  DSLRs aren't going away.  But let's face it, MILC's are a very promising development in camera technology.  It's like laptops vs tablets.  I used to carry around a laptop with me everywhere.  Then tablets came along.  And once I got my first iPad, I never wanted to carry my laptop again.  The iPad did most of what I needed.  And in a much lighter, slimmer package!  And as the iPad gets more and more powerful, there's less and less need for me to travel with a laptop anymore.  Many other consumers have realized this, too, which is why laptop sales are heavily in decline with tablet sales are exploding.

So I think of DSLRs as like being the "laptops" of the camera world, while MILCs are more like the "tablets" of the camera world.  One's bulky, while the other is slimmer and lighter.  Sure, a laptop can be a more powerful device, much like a DSLR can.  But for a lot of people, a tablet is all they need.  Especially when traveling, or going around town, or any other situation where you don't want to lug around a laptop...or DSLR.

I always have a tablet with me.  It's so light and unobtrusive, I hardly even notice I have it with me.   I feel the same way about my MILC.  It's always on me, and it's so light and unobtrusive I hardly notice I have it with me.  I can't say the same when when I'm carrying my DSLR.  Most people don't notice I have my MILC with me either.  Again, I can't say the same when I'm carrying my DSLR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
007peter
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,323Gear list
Like?
@T3 - Absurd "doesn't fit in my jeans pocket" arguments
In reply to T3, 7 months ago

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. 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.

Well Said T3.  I cannot put it as eloquently as you do.

 007peter's gear list:007peter's gear list
Nikon D3100 Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lawrencew
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,508Gear list
Like?
Case in point - coat pocket pics
In reply to T3, 7 months ago

T3 wrote:

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!):

These pics were taken on Saturday when we went shopping at the outlet mall, but which is in a very photogenic place and so I slipped the EOS-M + 11-22 into my coat pocket

Old Customs House, Portsmouth Gunwharf Keys

Basin in Portsmouth Naval Dockyards, with modern destroyer alongside

HMS Victorious

People abseiling down Spinakker Tower, Portsmouth Gunwharf Keys

I would never have taken a DSLR with me in the same circumstances.

And a compact camera would never have given me such a wide PoV.

The best camera is the one you have with you, and only a MILC would have fitted the bill on this occasion.

-- hide signature --

Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

 Lawrencew's gear list:Lawrencew's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 456
Like?
Re: Internet argument resolved
In reply to meland, 7 months ago
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 2,932Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 7 months ago

T3 wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?! LOL. I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself. Hahaha.

sure. so tell me, just what exactly would be different in the SL1 if it had a full frame sensor.

three things: mirror box and actual mirror and sensor assembly.

I'd call that a pretty trivial adjustment to the overall size of the unit.

but i'll wait for your profound engineering, camera design and marketing knowledge to educate me

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
calterg
Regular MemberPosts: 456
Like?
a fraction of an inch is life threathening
In reply to rrccad, 7 months ago

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/watch-everybody-trips-on-this-one-subway-stair/

Im quite sure a ff mirror box would add at least quarter of an inch to overall size.

What would that mean? I guess I would start dropping my expensive spanking new ff camera if I switched from mirrorless.

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?! LOL. I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself. Hahaha.

sure. so tell me, just what exactly would be different in the SL1 if it had a full frame sensor.

three things: mirror box and actual mirror and sensor assembly.

I'd call that a pretty trivial adjustment to the overall size of the unit.

but i'll wait for your profound engineering, camera design and marketing knowledge to educate me

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tomtom50
Senior MemberPosts: 2,778Gear list
Like?
Re: a fraction of an inch is life threathening
In reply to calterg, 7 months ago

calterg wrote:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/watch-everybody-trips-on-this-one-subway-stair/

Im quite sure a ff mirror box would add at least quarter of an inch to overall size.

What would that mean? I guess I would start dropping my expensive spanking new ff camera if I switched from mirrorless.

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?! LOL. I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself. Hahaha.

sure. so tell me, just what exactly would be different in the SL1 if it had a full frame sensor.

three things: mirror box and actual mirror and sensor assembly.

I'd call that a pretty trivial adjustment to the overall size of the unit.

but i'll wait for your profound engineering, camera design and marketing knowledge to educate me

Don't forget the pentamirror and finder

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gesture
Senior MemberPosts: 2,388Gear list
Like?
Re: Dear Canon, I'm not buying anymore DSLR Gear get on with the M
In reply to sop51, 7 months ago

Exactly. And there are enough bodies out there. Be gutsy!!!!!!!!!  Issue another one or two lenses already.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,988
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to rrccad, 7 months ago

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that APS-C vs FF makes no difference?!?! LOL. I think I'll just let the absurdity of that comment speak for itself. Hahaha.

sure. so tell me, just what exactly would be different in the SL1 if it had a full frame sensor.

three things: mirror box and actual mirror and sensor assembly.

I'd call that a pretty trivial adjustment to the overall size of the unit.

but i'll wait for your profound engineering, camera design and marketing knowledge to educate me

It makes a difference in this argument because you conveniently chose to compare a FF MILC with the world's smallest APS-C DSLR. That's called stacking the deck, LOL. Sure, it'd be great if the SL1 really did have a FF sensor, because then it would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison. But obviously, it's not.

Besides, the fact remains that even if the SL1 did have a FF sensor, it's still a chunkier body than the a mirrorless FF MILC. Plus, DSLR lens design is limited by their retrofocus requirement. Retro-focus lenses are designed to be positioned farther from the film/sensor plane in order to leave room for an SLR's reflex mirror. But to do so, the physics and elements inside the lens need be to completely different, and larger than for cameras that don't have reflex mirrors (such as Leica rangefinders). See the diagram below. Non-retrofocus lenses (aka true lenses) don't need to be positioned farther from the film/sensor plane, so they don't need these extra lens elements and larger lens elements inside the lens. Thus, they can be made very small.

The retrofocus issue doesn't effect lenses of longer focal lengths.  But it definitely effects lenses of shorter focal lengths.  When you don't have to design lenses to be retrofocus, you can make them much smaller.  Just look at Leica lenses, which are tiny compared to DSLR lenses.  And that's also why so many mirrorless lenses are also very compact.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rock and Rollei
Regular MemberPosts: 435Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to T3, 7 months ago

But there's one huge advantage of retrofocus lenses - telecentricity. Retrofocus lenses automatically are quite telecentric, which means that rays of light hit the sensor at a perpendicular angle even at the edges; non-telecentric lenses don't have this property. With film, it didn't matter, because they would still penetrate the film layer and be recorded; the physical depth of the sensor makes that a lot more difficult, and without special measures, much of the light at the edges of the frame would be lost, leading to massive vignetting in effect. That's why it took Leica quite a while to dip their toes into digital with the M, and when they did, the M8 was APS-C - and so on with lens coding etc.

The way round it has been with the design of microlenses angled towards the centre, allied with greater ampliciation of edges - and for most mirrorless designs, not going full frame, and having lenses specifically designed with this in mind - the 11-22 being a great example of how well it can be done.

Incidentally, the issue of sensor depth and not-perpendicular image rays would appear to be the reason for the size of Sigma's Foveon sensor - the depth being more significant and critical with that design.

 Rock and Rollei's gear list:Rock and Rollei's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 450D Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,988
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to Rock and Rollei, 7 months ago

Rock and Rollei wrote:

But there's one huge advantage of retrofocus lenses - telecentricity. Retrofocus lenses automatically are quite telecentric, which means that rays of light hit the sensor at a perpendicular angle even at the edges; non-telecentric lenses don't have this property. With film, it didn't matter, because they would still penetrate the film layer and be recorded; the physical depth of the sensor makes that a lot more difficult, and without special measures, much of the light at the edges of the frame would be lost, leading to massive vignetting in effect. That's why it took Leica quite a while to dip their toes into digital with the M, and when they did, the M8 was APS-C - and so on with lens coding etc.

The way round it has been with the design of microlenses angled towards the centre, allied with greater ampliciation of edges - and for most mirrorless designs, not going full frame, and having lenses specifically designed with this in mind - the 11-22 being a great example of how well it can be done.

Incidentally, the issue of sensor depth and not-perpendicular image rays would appear to be the reason for the size of Sigma's Foveon sensor - the depth being more significant and critical with that design.

Conceptually this may be true.  But practically, it's a non-issue.  Just look at today's non-retrofocus lenses on today's non-mirrored digital cameras.  Is it an issue?  No.  From the user perspective, we just see compact lenses for mirrorless cameras that deliver great performance.  If that's someone's reason for sticking with DSLRs, then I'd say that's a rather false reason.  Go use any of today's mirrorless cameras , and you won't find this to be an issue compared to DSLR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Photato
Senior MemberPosts: 1,805Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to Rock and Rollei, 7 months ago

Rock and Rollei wrote:

But there's one huge advantage of retrofocus lenses - telecentricity. Retrofocus lenses automatically are quite telecentric, which means that rays of light hit the sensor at a perpendicular angle even at the edges; non-telecentric lenses don't have this property. With film, it didn't matter, because they would still penetrate the film layer and be recorded; the physical depth of the sensor makes that a lot more difficult, and without special measures, much of the light at the edges of the frame would be lost, leading to massive vignetting in effect. That's why it took Leica quite a while to dip their toes into digital with the M, and when they did, the M8 was APS-C - and so on with lens coding etc.

True, but M8 has an APS-H, not an APS-C.

The way round it has been with the design of microlenses angled towards the centre, allied with greater ampliciation of edges - and for most mirrorless designs, not going full frame, and having lenses specifically designed with this in mind - the 11-22 being a great example of how well it can be done.

But what happen with longer focal lengths and those shifted microlenses at the edge of the sensor?

Because of this Telecentricity the EF-S 18-55 kit lens has less vignetting than the EF-M one.

Incidentally, the issue of sensor depth and not-perpendicular image rays would appear to be the reason for the size of Sigma's Foveon sensor - the depth being more significant and critical with that design.

Probably.

BTW. It is puzzling to me how this issue was not even mentioned during the Sony A7 reviews.

 Photato's gear list:Photato's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon EOS M Apple iPad Mini +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rock and Rollei
Regular MemberPosts: 435Gear list
Like?
Re: you have a narrow-minded view of the benefits of compact size
In reply to Photato, 7 months ago

Photato wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

But there's one huge advantage of retrofocus lenses - telecentricity. Retrofocus lenses automatically are quite telecentric, which means that rays of light hit the sensor at a perpendicular angle even at the edges; non-telecentric lenses don't have this property. With film, it didn't matter, because they would still penetrate the film layer and be recorded; the physical depth of the sensor makes that a lot more difficult, and without special measures, much of the light at the edges of the frame would be lost, leading to massive vignetting in effect. That's why it took Leica quite a while to dip their toes into digital with the M, and when they did, the M8 was APS-C - and so on with lens coding etc.

True, but M8 has an APS-H, not an APS-C.

Indeed it does, my error.

The way round it has been with the design of microlenses angled towards the centre, allied with greater ampliciation of edges - and for most mirrorless designs, not going full frame, and having lenses specifically designed with this in mind - the 11-22 being a great example of how well it can be done.

But what happen with longer focal lengths and those shifted microlenses at the edge of the sensor?

Whatlonger focal lengths on the M? Or for that matter, on the M?

Because of this Telecentricity the EF-S 18-55 kit lens has less vignetting than the EF-M one.

Incidentally, the issue of sensor depth and not-perpendicular image rays would appear to be the reason for the size of Sigma's Foveon sensor - the depth being more significant and critical with that design.

Probably.

BTW. It is puzzling to me how this issue was not even mentioned during the Sony A7 reviews.

Me too.

I guess the lenses designed for it take it into account. Could be one reason why there are so few of them!

 Rock and Rollei's gear list:Rock and Rollei's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 450D Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 +34 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads