Canon has now reached NX300 (not yet NX500)

Kisaha wrote:

mordor_74 wrote:

Somewhere, years ago, i read that NX1 was developed with Canon 5D in mind (the so called Classic or Mark I ), the idea was to produce a crop sensor that could compete with that FF camera. And they did it. MarkII has a small edge in iso but NX1 has a small edge in DR. Then thay push all the specs and feature as far they could go and added adequate lenses . They push on everything but marketing, in fact.

If you look at ISO performance, since NX1 there is no crop sensor with a noticeable difference in better. I think that Samsung was very close to a limit of the APSC sensor (unless you introduce something new in the receipe).

We, here, have discussed many times "where to go from NX", EOS M was my long term option but, as many, i did not expect that the 2017 would be year of the surpass.

M6 is a product for the EOS M audience, not for the NX audience. Not yet. Do not expect to push features to gain a market that they already own.

But if you ask me, the real discussion here is the lens development. Canon will (luckyly) come out with a new EOSM lens every year or two (and that is already good, they are pretty busy, also upgrading lenses for the other 2 system etc etc). It will take time to have a complete lineup. Yes, you can adapt EF and EFS lenses, but it is not the same. A mirrorless system needs its own lenses to work at its best. And i dont think that the equivalent of the 16-50 2.0-2.8 is coming any soon.

I just read that they will have a new zoom and one prime out of the 3 that they are testing right now in this year.

There are NO plans for pro grade M lenses, whatsoever.

L lenses on M cameras it ain't funny at all..

Oh come on now, there is a touch of humor to using my 400 f/2.8 on my M5.

Dont get me wrong,  an EOSM is in my long term plan, and actually i think that my 40mm with an adaptor will do just fine, but sizewise the efm11-22 works better than a efs10-18 on a tiny body. And the 11-22 looks like a better performer...

Kisaha wrote:

ttbek wrote:

Kisaha wrote:

mordor_74 wrote:

Somewhere, years ago, i read that NX1 was developed with Canon 5D in mind (the so called Classic or Mark I ), the idea was to produce a crop sensor that could compete with that FF camera. And they did it. MarkII has a small edge in iso but NX1 has a small edge in DR. Then thay push all the specs and feature as far they could go and added adequate lenses . They push on everything but marketing, in fact.

If you look at ISO performance, since NX1 there is no crop sensor with a noticeable difference in better. I think that Samsung was very close to a limit of the APSC sensor (unless you introduce something new in the receipe).

We, here, have discussed many times "where to go from NX", EOS M was my long term option but, as many, i did not expect that the 2017 would be year of the surpass.

M6 is a product for the EOS M audience, not for the NX audience. Not yet. Do not expect to push features to gain a market that they already own.

But if you ask me, the real discussion here is the lens development. Canon will (luckyly) come out with a new EOSM lens every year or two (and that is already good, they are pretty busy, also upgrading lenses for the other 2 system etc etc). It will take time to have a complete lineup. Yes, you can adapt EF and EFS lenses, but it is not the same. A mirrorless system needs its own lenses to work at its best. And i dont think that the equivalent of the 16-50 2.0-2.8 is coming any soon.

I just read that they will have a new zoom and one prime out of the 3 that they are testing right now in this year.

There are NO plans for pro grade M lenses, whatsoever.

L lenses on M cameras it ain't funny at all..

Oh come on now, there is a touch of humor to using my 400 f/2.8 on my M5.

I take it back, it is much fun, comical at least!

I have one of those 500mm telescopic lenses, it is so funny having the NX500 on that one!

P.S oh, and this

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

check the photo of the Sigma! The read is good too, do not remember who suggest it.

Read the article before, somehow hadn't noticed what camera was on the end of that, lol, to be fair though, that lens even makes cameras like the 1DX look a bit silly.

Interesting article. And here is me thinking that my 1650S is better or at least as good as 45 prime! I seriously haven't touched any prime lens since I bought the S lens. So according to that article, there is no way a a zoom lens can be better or as good as a prime lens.

I'm finding it very hard to agree

Fact is the 45 is faster than 16-50 @45mm.

Other than that i did not own any of the two so i cant tell about their performance, but usually when i read reviews i always take in to account that the reviewer may have a different point of view. If i look at the reviews on ephotozine (it is hard to find someone who reviewed both lenses...) the 45mm is the perfect lens and the 16-50 is near or less "average" @50mm. But if i look to their review of the 30mm, that i own and know very well, i cant belive we are speaking of the same lens. Mine is near perfect open wide and perfect if i stop it a bit.

brownie112 wrote:

Interesting article. And here is me thinking that my 1650S is better or at least as good as 45 prime! I seriously haven't touched any prime lens since I bought the S lens. So according to that article, there is no way a a zoom lens can be better or as good as a prime lens.

The article didn't state that a particular zoom lens at a particular focal length could not be better than a particular prime of that focal length. My particular 16-50S is outstanding at 45mm, also; but it is still shy of being as good as my particular NX45mm.

I'm finding it very hard to agree

brownie112 wrote:

Interesting article. And here is me thinking that my 1650S is better or at least as good as 45 prime! I seriously haven't touched any prime lens since I bought the S lens. So according to that article, there is no way a a zoom lens can be better or as good as a prime lens.

That isn't how I would interpret those findings.  What I saw is that when looking at the very best of zooms and primes that the primes will be better (slightly) and are more consistent (perhaps the more important part here).  It doesn't apply so much when we start comparing a pricey pro zoom with a budget prime designed to be small.   Now just give me a moment to compare my 50mm Otus to the long end of my 16-50 S.  They are closer in price after all.  ;P

I'm finding it very hard to agree

ttbek wrote:

brownie112 wrote:

Interesting article. And here is me thinking that my 1650S is better or at least as good as 45 prime! I seriously haven't touched any prime lens since I bought the S lens. So according to that article, there is no way a a zoom lens can be better or as good as a prime lens.

That isn't how I would interpret those findings. What I saw is that when looking at the very best of zooms and primes that the primes will be better (slightly) and are more consistent (perhaps the more important part here). It doesn't apply so much when we start comparing a pricey pro zoom with a budget prime designed to be small. Now just give me a moment to compare my 50mm Otus

Sigma Art I mean.... I don't have the Otus and it isn't close in price, lol.

to the long end of my 16-50 S. They are closer in price after all. ;P

I'm finding it very hard to agree

TJL LTFF wrote:

brownie112 wrote:

Interesting article. And here is me thinking that my 1650S is better or at least as good as 45 prime! I seriously haven't touched any prime lens since I bought the S lens. So according to that article, there is no way a a zoom lens can be better or as good as a prime lens.

The article didn't state that a particular zoom lens at a particular focal length could not be better than a particular prime of that focal length. My particular 16-50S is outstanding at 45mm, also; but it is still shy of being as good as my particular NX45mm.

I'm finding it very hard to agree

I have 2 copies of each and, as much as I love the 16-50 S, neither is as good at 45mm as either of the 45 1.8 primes. I'm confident in saying that, generally speaking, the 45 prime results in better IQ for the majority of users. It doesn't mean it's the right lens for everyone-IQ isn't everything.

tecnoworld wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2937046154/canon-debuts-eos-m6-mirrorless-with-optional-evf

And the nice part is the optional EVF, like samsung used to have for the very first (and still my favourite for rangefinder form factor) NX100.

Perhaps an M7/M8 will finally reach NX1/NX500, at least performance wise?

Wow they're catching up fast I'll bet they have better than NX1 but have to milk us to keep a float. Samsung upset the Island Just look at the M5 wonder how many fps if raw + jpg is on that gets.

I doubt they have something better than NX1 right now, since not even the uber expensive 1dX mk2 is significantly better (older sensor technology, comparable shooting speed, just slightly better video specs at 4k).

But they'll eventually catch up, simply not for the same pricepoint the NX1 used to have back in 2014.

The first camera competitive with NX1 is D500, and even if lower specced and out 2 year after, it is priced at 33% more than NX1 at launch.

If a mirrorless camera with the specs of NX1 comes (say in 2 years from now) from CANIKON, it won't be less than 2000/2500$.

flip 21 wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

Canon has now reached NX300 (not yet NX500)?!?!?!?

At least not in video. Just check it out the link bellow...

1080p, that looks like 720p?!??!?!?! Well Cam'on...

The M5 it's worst than I thought... I Canon continues to follow this crazy path...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X1EhOm64QE

Although you can't trust YouTube to not butcher the compression so would be better to judge the original files.

tecnoworld wrote:

I doubt they have something better than NX1 right now, since not even the uber expensive 1dX mk2 is significantly better (older sensor technology, comparable shooting speed, just slightly better video specs at 4k).

But they'll eventually catch up, simply not for the same pricepoint the NX1 used to have back in 2014.

The first camera competitive with NX1 is D500, and even if lower specced and out 2 year after, it is priced at 33% more than NX1 at launch.

If a mirrorless camera with the specs of NX1 comes (say in 2 years from now) from CANIKON, it won't be less than 2000/2500$.

I looked at the M5 today all plastic build quality no way would I exchange the M3 for that. I held the Hasselblad X1D that is a nice camera about the size of a DSLR very high price 9K for the body.

I'm just praying Samsung jumps back in with some reasonable priced show stoppers like the NX1.

Well to be fair the M5 and M6 has CAF that the NX300 can only dream about.  The write speed and buffer of the NX300 s awful too.

I agree about the two features you quote. But for all the rest, the old NX300 is way ahead of M6 and NX30 way ahead of M5. NX30 also had a decent buffer.

What I really hated about NX300 was its "lagginess"