-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More M10 and 15-45 pictures - not a pancake more like 11-22
- Thread starter Lawrencew
- Start date
R
rrccad
Guest
A testament to canon is that they managed to fit a full 3:2 screen on the M/M10.
and yes, that should be the comparison really from both size and function.
The M10 is very clearly a woman's camera. You only need to look at Canon's marketing for it to see that.
http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/digital_slr/eos_m10/
not a single image or video of it being used by a man...
(not that there is anything wrong in this. Could be a good piece of marketing)
--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/
Last edited:
M
meland
Guest
The cheaper end of the market is where the volume is. Once you have volume you can move into enthusiast territory much more easily than the other way around. Volume creates turnover, wide distribution and from that hopefully profits (and we mustn't forget profits as they tend to keep businesses alive.) Small sales of enthusiast products don't do anything much. Other than keep a few gearheads happy for a few weeks, that is until they decide something else is better.
R
rrccad
Guest
not only that, did you see the cases they are also selling in japan?
if you recall the initial interviews with Meada about the M (about 2 years ago) they had discovered that a high percentage of sales were to females.
sounds like they wanted to explore that, and target that a little more.
and why not? that's 50% of the population that still takes photos (and 80% of selfies) and really is unexplored by most of the sellers (olympus does a bit with the E-PL's, panasonic does as well ) but Fuji, Sony, Samsung completely ignore the female market.
Last edited:
R
rrccad
Guest
I'm not sure why people don't get this.
you have to establish the mount first, and to do that you do it by volume, you can then expand your offerings once you have an install base.
people in here tend to think .. "because I want it.. it's OBVIOUSLY the only proper way camera manufactures should operate."
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Then you are not looking? It is not too hard to find images with artifacts caused by the crappy RAW format. Of course, not every image will be as visibly affected.
At least Canon now has a similar lens in the new 15-45mm zoom. A tad larger due to IS.
My EOS M has a Canon FL 55mm f1.2 for portraits, with an FF equivalent of 88mm I like the FOV a bit more than of the Sony combination of 75mm FF equivalence, for portraits and such.
So I'm not quite sure where you get the notion that "E-mount lenses are simply to big..." from. In my experience, all of Fuji's lenses are at least the same size or larger.
sneakerpimp
Senior Member
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Not IMO.
I know, I meant a tad larger than it could be due to the Canon IS implementation in the design.
The Canon lens is 15mm longer.
Yeah, imagine that. Putting optical quality of the lens above even more compact build. LOL.
"At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.
Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.
At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you’ll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness."
"The RAW files show really dramatic amounts of geometric distortion"
"The native distortion reach epic dimensions at the wide-end of the zoon range. At 16mm it almost behaves like a fisheye lens with a barrel distortion of more than 7.5%."
"The above behavior also applies to the vignetting characteristic. With DEACTIVATED distortion (& vignetting) compensation, the figures are among the very worst we have ever tested (5EV at 16mm f/3.5). The corners are essentially black here. The vignetting remains unacceptable even at f/11 at the wide end of the zoom range."
"The native resolution characteristic is a bit of a mixed bag. Unsurprisingly the results are worst at 16mm. The center performance is fine, stopped down even excellent, but the outer image region is rather soft - especially at max. aperture. At 18mm the borders are boosted to good level followed by acceptable corners. The corners remain a bit blurry at 25mm f/4.5 and 50mm f/5.6 but after stopping down by one f-stop the results are quite sharp across the image frame here."
Meet the wiferrccad wrote:
if you recall the initial interviews with Meada about the M (about 2 years ago) they had discovered that a high percentage of sales were to females.
--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/
R
rrccad
Guest
and now i see why you were so interested in the M10 price.Meet the wife
if you recall the initial interviews with Meada about the M (about 2 years ago) they had discovered that a high percentage of sales were to females.
--
Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/
All this pixel peeping might be fine and dandy for pixel peepers, but it doesn't add up to much for the average shooter (or M10 target user). The reality is that I have no issues with the 16-50 for what it is: an ultra compact kit zoom that is almost the size of a pancake prime! Super convenient, super small, and it still produces great images.
I still think a pancake zoom would have been a much better fit for the M10. I have bigger and better lenses for my A6000, but I'll always keep the 16-50 because it's just a no-brainer for compact, casual shooting!
but a G_X might also work better for her. Pity the G5X is a bit ugly... as that has a nice spec.and now i see why you were so interested in the M10 price.
Also keeping an eye out for the SL1 replacement.
R
rrccad
Guest
yeah I'm not terribly fond of the G5X .. especially after they made such a classy looking G9X..but a G_X might also work better for her. Pity the G5X is a bit ugly... as that has a nice spec.and now i see why you were so interested in the M10 price.
Also keeping an eye out for the SL1 replacement.
releasing them at the same time makes it look worse
R
rrccad
Guest
I suspect the vignetting and distortion will be more under control as well.
even on a small web sized print you could tell a wide open 16-50mm shot as the resolution loss was even noticeable on something that small, unless you oversharpened to hell and back or stopped way down to make everything look as smearlily the same.
also since DR is important (apparently .. snickers) .. losing 7.5 EV of DR at 16mm, which means that in the corners (and pretty far in) you have a systematic DR or less than 5EV.. ouch. granted that was only the extreme corners, however the vignetting was certainly poor throughout.
Last edited:
Size wise it compares well thoughyeah I'm not terribly fond of the G5X .. especially after they made such a classy looking G9X..but a G_X might also work better for her. Pity the G5X is a bit ugly... as that has a nice spec.and now i see why you were so interested in the M10 price.
Also keeping an eye out for the SL1 replacement.
releasing them at the same time makes it look worse
Loading…
camerasize.com
R
rrccad
Guest
one thing that i noticed was the different "EVF" modes on the G5X - I wonder if they are able to do that to the external EVF or only an internal. 120fps would certainly be better (I think the current one is 60)Size wise it compares well thoughyeah I'm not terribly fond of the G5X .. especially after they made such a classy looking G9X..but a G_X might also work better for her. Pity the G5X is a bit ugly... as that has a nice spec.and now i see why you were so interested in the M10 price.
Also keeping an eye out for the SL1 replacement.
releasing them at the same time makes it look worse
http://camerasize.com/compare/#637,635
Sibir Lupus
Active member
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 43
You're right, after inspecting my EF-M 55-200mm I noticed that it is indeed a plastic shell. Canon did a great job of hiding this. It is slightly disappointing that the 55-200mm is all plastic but it's performance far outweighs that disappointment. And I paid $250 for a "white box" version of my 55-200mm lens so I'm still very happy with it
.Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum