Re: Mano a mano (Canon vs Canon)...
RLight wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
If it's impossible to justify the M system because of the lack of a preferred zoom, you just start comparing to the AF of the G1X III so you can justify it anyway.
To me it's pretty simple: you won't be satisfied with anything less than the RF f/4.0 L as a zoom. That lens is the sweet spot between good IQ and acceptable size. Just keep the 24-240 as your 106-240 with some added flexibility on the wide end, and you're good to go.
M can't give you what you want. Certainly that 15-45mm can't give you what you want. Don't do it.
The RF 24-240 is going, just posted it. It’s a decent lens but not truly compact. It gets left home for a PowerShot 99/100 times.
Regarding the 24-105 f/4L? Still too big.
That's as bright as you want your M zoom.
RF f/4.0 L IS = 3.29 x 4.22" / 83.5 x 107.3 mm, 700grams
Sony crop 17-55 f/2.8 = 2.87 x 3.94" / 73 x 100, 494 grams
So yeah, that's 206 grams more, but you're getting ILIS, a better range, better performance, Canon handling, Canon colors, and more compatibility.
Now that 15-45? We’ll see. The G1X III isn’t up on flea bay just yet for a reason. I’m giving it another go. It’s a gamble, I may hate it and it goes back to Amazon.
The camera I want doesn’t exist. The G1X III / M + 15-45 is the question, which is “better”? I’m trying it.
Unfortunately the small and slow zooms aren't very good. I was thinking about the RF 24-105mm stm, but I will pass.
Canon could use an updated stock zoom for the M, or, updated PowerShot G1X, or both. Those may never materialize…
The RF f/4.0 L exists. If that's too big I'm not sure if you want to have something manufacturers don't want to produce or something physics don't allow for.
If you're accepting small zooms are dark, I think it's the first. If you want something bright yet compact yet very good it's the last.
That said, I'm interested in your observations. You're reminding me I still have to sell the ef-m 15-45mm.
-- hide signature --
I love 50mm (equivalence)