Age old question - to M or to R?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,078
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

thunder storm wrote:

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

PerfectMark wrote:

I think we will know what Canon is doing with the M by the middle of next year, when they release the APSC R camera (R7). Will they release the rumoured M5ii at the same time with a higher quality zoom lens or will they just announce they are ending development for M (like they have for EF).

IF there will be an aps-c RF mount camera it won't be a replacement for M, as it's not worth it to develop another aps-c lens line up.

It is not like Canon has a massive investment in the EF-M lineup with only 8 lenses. The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS macro could easily replace both the EF-M 28mm macro and 32mm f/1.4 on a crop body.

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS won't be nearly as good on crop as the 32mm f/1.4. I would never buy that RF 35mm f/1.8 for a crop sensor. We need IBIS in M to stabilize that 32mm, not a crop sensor behind the RF 35mm.

This is the difference between "as good" and "good enough".  Especially for someone coming from the cheaper crop DSLRs, the RF 35mm would be an upgrade.

I think there are some rumored RF pancakes that could replace the EF-M 22mm. That just leaves a very small handful of crop zooms needing to be created.

An aps-c RF mount camera will only share the sensor size, but for all other aspects it will be the opposite of M. It will be big, expensive, weather sealed, lots of buttons and dials, etc. etc., as it will be a sports and wildlife oriented camera to be used with lenses like the RF 100-500mm.

That sounds a lot like what many are hoping for in a hypothetical M5 II.

This is where the mount incompatibility between M and RF is raising it's ugly head. For sports and wildlife telephoto zooms you would want to use RF glass, however, at the same time, for nice crop glass like the 32mm and sigma 56mm you would want compatibility with M.

If you want a single system to do everything, Canon does not have it, yet.  RF will probably get there, but EF-M definitely won't.

A6600 would be better except for its 24Mp in stead of 32........

For all but a few fringe cases, the difference between 24 and 32 is completely meaningless.  Besides, Sony has higher megapixel sensors in the pipeline.

-- hide signature --

victory

Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 853
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
2

For some people Canon strengths seem to always be meaningless while Fuji or SONY strengths seem to always be decisive. LOL.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +22 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,018
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

PerfectMark wrote:

I think we will know what Canon is doing with the M by the middle of next year, when they release the APSC R camera (R7). Will they release the rumoured M5ii at the same time with a higher quality zoom lens or will they just announce they are ending development for M (like they have for EF).

IF there will be an aps-c RF mount camera it won't be a replacement for M, as it's not worth it to develop another aps-c lens line up.

It is not like Canon has a massive investment in the EF-M lineup with only 8 lenses. The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS macro could easily replace both the EF-M 28mm macro and 32mm f/1.4 on a crop body.

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS won't be nearly as good on crop as the 32mm f/1.4. I would never buy that RF 35mm f/1.8 for a crop sensor. We need IBIS in M to stabilize that 32mm, not a crop sensor behind the RF 35mm.

This is the difference between "as good" and "good enough". Especially for someone coming from the cheaper crop DSLRs, the RF 35mm would be an upgrade.

Someone coming from cheaper DSLRs should compare the M6mkII against that yet hypothetical RF aps-c camera. I would happily accept the adapter for lenses like the EF 100-400mkII or the sigma 150-600mm and get those nice M lenses in return. The 32mm the sigma 56mm the 11-22mm.... it's all nice and compact stuff, and it's all an upgrade when coming from cheaper DSLRs. And with the big telephoto stuff there's never any balance anyway. The only downside: no compatibility with the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes. Ironically these are wild life lenses having somewhat M philosophy in their DNA.....

I think there are some rumored RF pancakes that could replace the EF-M 22mm. That just leaves a very small handful of crop zooms needing to be created.

An aps-c RF mount camera will only share the sensor size, but for all other aspects it will be the opposite of M. It will be big, expensive, weather sealed, lots of buttons and dials, etc. etc., as it will be a sports and wildlife oriented camera to be used with lenses like the RF 100-500mm.

That sounds a lot like what many are hoping for in a hypothetical M5 II.

This is where the mount incompatibility between M and RF is raising it's ugly head. For sports and wildlife telephoto zooms you would want to use RF glass, however, at the same time, for nice crop glass like the 32mm and sigma 56mm you would want compatibility with M.

If you want a single system to do everything, Canon does not have it, yet. RF will probably get there, but EF-M definitely won't.

A6600 would be better except for its 24Mp in stead of 32........

For all but a few fringe cases, the difference between 24 and 32 is completely meaningless.

Putting a crop sensor behind full frame glass is all about a higher pixel density.

Besides, Sony has higher megapixel sensors in the pipeline.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +14 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,078
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
2

Microprism wrote:

For some people Canon strengths seem to always be meaningless while Fuji or SONY strengths seem to always be decisive. LOL.

Strengths are subjective and personal.  What might be considered a strength for you could be a liability for someone else.  Take the EF-M 11-22mm for example... while this lens is very compact with good optics and a low price, some find the retractable design completely infuriating.

ken_in_nh Senior Member • Posts: 1,098
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
15

IMHO, there's only a few reasons to go to the full frame R system:

- you have money to burn, because lenses and bodies (excepting the obsolete RP) are expensve

- you're a pro, can write the cost off as a business expense, and besides, like the "pro" look of a bigger body

- you expect to make humongous prints, so you need the high IQ of those expensive lenses.

- you are eternally optimistic and have a good deal of FOMO, hoping the "killer" lens is just around the corner.

For the rest of us, those of us who have families, regular jobs and normal vacations, there are better alternatives.  They also are available right now, not next year - the Canon M series.

I switched last year from a 70D to a M6ii.  Best move I ever made.  The lenses are fine for what I do, which include some decent sized enlargements.  Its size and weight, body or lenses, are a winner.  Pocket sized lenses.

My biggest surprise is that I rarely use the EVF.  It turns out touch focus on the back screen is so great, at least to me, that I've learned a different shooting style, even in full sun (hint, use your body to shade the screen if you need to).

A pro might find it limiting.  but most users don't.  Just see the discussions of BIF, sports and every other demanding situation.

Canon may never launch another M lens.  So what?  You still have EF lenses.

If you really need fast glass, you obviously don't mind weight and bulk, because you're gonna get it with fast glass.  Me?  I prefer small and light any day.

Eddie Rizk Contributing Member • Posts: 730
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
1

nnowak wrote:

If you want a single system to do everything, Canon does not have it, yet. RF will probably get there, but EF-M definitely won't.

Canon has four systems that do everything.  While three of the four Canon mounts have lenses that are not compatible with two or three of the other, they are all fully compatible with the entire EF lens catalogue, which is the gold standard for "everything".

Having six tilt shift lenses is lavish enough.  24 would be a little impractical.

The RF telephotos have only small improvements over their EF counterparts.  Canon just did too good of a job with the EF lenses for a lot of us to care about changing to RF at all.  The lower priced RF 600 and 800 F11 lenses are unique, though, as are the lower priced RF 35 and 85 macros.

If I were limited to EF lenses only, I would not be suffering.

-- hide signature --

That's my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
Eddie Rizk
The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
Formerly "Ed Rizk"
My email was hacked and unrecoverable along with all associated accounts, so I got permission to create a new one.

 Eddie Rizk's gear list:Eddie Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
scrup Regular Member • Posts: 484
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

You should just wait and not buy into the R on price. There is a reason why it is discounted heavily.

 scrup's gear list:scrup's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS M3 Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 853
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
1

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

For some people Canon strengths seem to always be meaningless while Fuji or SONY strengths seem to always be decisive. LOL.

Strengths are subjective and personal.

Agreed.

What might be considered a strength for you could be a liability for someone else. Take the EF-M 11-22mm for example... while this lens is very compact with good optics and a low price, some find the retractable design completely infuriating.

If a retracting lens completely infuriates someone I would suggest that the problem is not the lens.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +22 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,018
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
1

ken_in_nh wrote:

IMHO, there's only a few reasons to go to the full frame R system:

- you have money to burn, because lenses and bodies (excepting the obsolete RP) are expensve

- you're a pro, can write the cost off as a business expense, and besides, like the "pro" look of a bigger body

- you expect to make humongous prints, so you need the high IQ of those expensive lenses.

- you are eternally optimistic and have a good deal of FOMO, hoping the "killer" lens is just around the corner.

For the rest of us, those of us who have families, regular jobs and normal vacations,

Hey, that's me.

there are better alternatives. They also are available right now, not next year - the Canon M series.

I switched last year from a 70D to a M6ii. Best move I ever made. The lenses are fine for what I do, which include some decent sized enlargements. Its size and weight, body or lenses, are a winner. Pocket sized lenses.

My biggest surprise is that I rarely use the EVF. It turns out touch focus on the back screen is so great, at least to me, that I've learned a different shooting style, even in full sun (hint, use your body to shade the screen if you need to).

A pro might find it limiting. but most users don't. Just see the discussions of BIF, sports and every other demanding situation.

Canon may never launch another M lens. So what? You still have EF lenses.

If you really need fast glass, you obviously don't mind weight and bulk, because you're gonna get it with fast glass. Me? I prefer small and light any day.

I don't think the distinction between pro and non-pro matters that much.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +14 more
Chrisinhouston
Chrisinhouston Regular Member • Posts: 455
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

Not sure what is best for you but I own both the R and I have 2 M-5 bodies and a few M lenses. I choose the camera to shoot with based on what I am shooting or perhaps if I am traveling and want the lighter and smaller M system.  Shooting my granddaughter at soccer in a night game and I use the R.

I started in the M system with the first model and moved up, I found the M5 was just want I wanted. My old eyes need a dedicated viewfinder, the LCD screen is just not right for me and I liked that the M5 had a built in one and was like a downsized version of a regular DSLR.  I got the R last  year when there were some price drops, picked up the battery grip and 2 RF lenses. I like that it is 30mp and will probably not move up to the R5 and a reason I won't drop to the smaller mp of the R6.

One thing to consider is that the M5 is old stuff so you won't get a great resale price; mpb.com has a few for $400 and there are a bunch on Ebay for less and not selling so fast.

Well, best of luck in figuring it out.

-- hide signature --

“Which of my photographs is my favorite? The one I’m going to take tomorrow.” – Imogen Cunningham

 Chrisinhouston's gear list:Chrisinhouston's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5DS Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R GoPro Hero5 Black +29 more
nopix
nopix Senior Member • Posts: 1,860
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
3

If low light is a consideration: go for the RP system.

If wildlife, sports, etc is a consideration: go for the M6M2.

Note that the frame rate for the RP is something like 2-3 fps in servo mode.

The frame rate for the M6M2 in servo mode is something like 14 fps.

If size and weight is a consideration think about the M6M2 with the 22mm lens and compare to the RP with a 35mm lens. The M6M2 with the 22mm lens is jacket pocketable. The RP is not.

The M6M2 has a viewfinder, it is detachable. Think about the size of the M6M2 with the viewfinder detached as a travel/vacation camera.

A M5M2 is a pipedream. Consider the M6M2 as the follow on to the M5. I have both and the M6M2 is far far better than the M5 in all respects.

I use a number of EF/EFS lenses on my M6M2 and M5 with a Vello adapter with great success. These include the Sigma 150-600, Sigma 105 macro, the EFS 18-138, 55-250, and 10-18. I also use the EF 400 F4 DO and 17-40 F4 lenses and the Canon 1.4X TC. The "lack" of M lenses does not bother me at all.

John

 nopix's gear list:nopix's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Sony RX10 III Nikon 1 V2 Canon EOS 70D Sony a6000 +18 more
RLight Senior Member • Posts: 2,870
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
3

M50 (either of them) or M6 Mark II solves all but your fast zoom problem.

For cost and size? Do an M. Especially if you're non-pro on a budget.

This is coming from someone who's owned every M, and has an R.

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS R Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3
Asla
Asla Contributing Member • Posts: 726
Hmm?
1

Feigerou wrote:

Whoops! In my list of priorities I also should have mentioned low light performance - both in AF and high ISO noise.

Hi!

I'm curious: what do you expect from high ISO noise? What is good and what is bad for you? I, for example, find about any camera today having good to excellent high ISO noise qualities (excluding phones). But then again, I also gladly accepted grainy photos made with TMZ3200. And are we in consensus, that 3200 is already pretty high ISO?

And what means "good AF" to you?

I do not want to nit pick or offend at all. I just think that sometimes it pays to define some things as accurately as possible to get most accurate answers... (And I really hope, that by asking you questions rather than answering or giving my opinions, I'll help you more!)

A s l a

noisebeam Senior Member • Posts: 2,852
Re: Ok---it's time ;)
2

D Lynch wrote:

Feigerou wrote:

lumenite wrote:

I have no rosy prospect on Canon's EFM and I am not satisfied with M system's performance. However, considering my real need as a hobbyist and my light wallet, everyday I am learning how to be content with what I have.

But the grass is always greener on the other side, dang it! ha ha

IF you won the lottery which would you buy?

DL

Both of course.

And I suspect I'd end up carrying the M with me more often.

 noisebeam's gear list:noisebeam's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 30D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM +8 more
PhotosByHall Regular Member • Posts: 378
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

Eddie Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

If you want a single system to do everything, Canon does not have it, yet. RF will probably get there, but EF-M definitely won't.

Canon has four systems that do everything. While three of the four Canon mounts have lenses that are not compatible with two or three of the other, they are all fully compatible with the entire EF lens catalogue, which is the gold standard for "everything".

Having six tilt shift lenses is lavish enough. 24 would be a little impractical.

The RF telephotos have only small improvements over their EF counterparts. Canon just did too good of a job with the EF lenses for a lot of us to care about changing to RF at all. The lower priced RF 600 and 800 F11 lenses are unique, though, as are the lower priced RF 35 and 85 macros.

If I were limited to EF lenses only, I would not be suffering.

This x 1,000,000.

Those RF lenses are eye wateringly expensive - I've got a stable of EF L lenses that will last another 10 years. (although getting to f2 from f2.8 for the 24-70 sounds good, but not enough to sell out just yet)

If you build your kit around EF lenses, you can use EF, R and M no problem.

"The lower priced RF 600 and 800 F11 lenses are unique, though"  - I'd rather buy Canon 100-400 2nd hand for the same price as the 600 new.  Or I tested and enjoyed the Sigma 150-600mm.

The 100-400 is 640mm on APS-C and 400mm on FF and it doesn't have an insane max aperture. Appreciate the new RF superteles are lighter though.

 PhotosByHall's gear list:PhotosByHall's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +4 more
IoannisZ
IoannisZ Regular Member • Posts: 171
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

ken_in_nh wrote:

IMHO, there's only a few reasons to go to the full frame R system:

- you have money to burn, because lenses and bodies (excepting the obsolete RP) are expensve

- you're a pro, can write the cost off as a business expense, and besides, like the "pro" look of a bigger body

- you expect to make humongous prints, so you need the high IQ of those expensive lenses.

- you are eternally optimistic and have a good deal of FOMO, hoping the "killer" lens is just around the corner.

For the rest of us, those of us who have families, regular jobs and normal vacations, there are better alternatives. They also are available right now, not next year - the Canon M series.

I switched last year from a 70D to a M6ii. Best move I ever made. The lenses are fine for what I do, which include some decent sized enlargements. Its size and weight, body or lenses, are a winner. Pocket sized lenses.

My biggest surprise is that I rarely use the EVF. It turns out touch focus on the back screen is so great, at least to me, that I've learned a different shooting style, even in full sun (hint, use your body to shade the screen if you need to).

A pro might find it limiting. but most users don't. Just see the discussions of BIF, sports and every other demanding situation.

Canon may never launch another M lens. So what? You still have EF lenses.

If you really need fast glass, you obviously don't mind weight and bulk, because you're gonna get it with fast glass. Me? I prefer small and light any day.

"Pro" are using high end full frame cameras only becousd there are not many medium format cameras out there.

Years ago most "Pro" like you name them, were using medium format film cameras and not the normal reflex 35mm that the rest of us normal people were using.

How all of a sudden digital cameras became so much better in confront with the film and everybody call full frame digital cameras, "Pro", I really can't understand, except if I am the older on this site and none have used a film camera.

-- hide signature --

More pixels, less ideas

OP Feigerou Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Ok---it's time ;)
1

D Lynch wrote:

Feigerou wrote:

lumenite wrote:

I have no rosy prospect on Canon's EFM and I am not satisfied with M system's performance. However, considering my real need as a hobbyist and my light wallet, everyday I am learning how to be content with what I have.

But the grass is always greener on the other side, dang it! ha ha

IF you won the lottery which would you buy?

DL

Honestly I'd probably just skip this 'next step' and go straight to the R6.  But since that's more than all the gear in my current kit is worth, it never made my "realistic options" list.  Nevermind a lens to put on it....  

 Feigerou's gear list:Feigerou's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,078
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?

Eddie Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

If you want a single system to do everything, Canon does not have it, yet. RF will probably get there, but EF-M definitely won't.

Canon has four systems that do everything.

Hardly.  There are far too many missing lenses to say that either Canon crop system can "do everything".

While three of the four Canon mounts have lenses that are not compatible with two or three of the other, they are all fully compatible with the entire EF lens catalogue, which is the gold standard for "everything".

The EF catalog is very complete, as long as you are shooting full frame.

Having six tilt shift lenses is lavish enough. 24 would be a little impractical.

Canon is already planning on releasing T/S lenses in RF mount and the rumor is they will come with AF.

The RF telephotos have only small improvements over their EF counterparts. Canon just did too good of a job with the EF lenses for a lot of us to care about changing to RF at all. The lower priced RF 600 and 800 F11 lenses are unique, though, as are the lower priced RF 35 and 85 macros.

So are the 28-70mm f/2.0, and 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1, and lightweight 70-200mm zooms, and a 50mm f/1.2 that is usable wide open.  Even the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 is unique.

If I were limited to EF lenses only, I would not be suffering.

As long as you are shooting full frame.

OP Feigerou Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Age old question - to M or to R?
1

ken_in_nh wrote:

IMHO, there's only a few reasons to go to the full frame R system:

- you have money to burn, because lenses and bodies (excepting the obsolete RP) are expensve

- you're a pro, can write the cost off as a business expense, and besides, like the "pro" look of a bigger body

- you expect to make humongous prints, so you need the high IQ of those expensive lenses.

- you are eternally optimistic and have a good deal of FOMO, hoping the "killer" lens is just around the corner.

For the rest of us, those of us who have families, regular jobs and normal vacations, there are better alternatives. They also are available right now, not next year - the Canon M series.

I switched last year from a 70D to a M6ii. Best move I ever made. The lenses are fine for what I do, which include some decent sized enlargements. Its size and weight, body or lenses, are a winner. Pocket sized lenses.

My biggest surprise is that I rarely use the EVF. It turns out touch focus on the back screen is so great, at least to me, that I've learned a different shooting style, even in full sun (hint, use your body to shade the screen if you need to).

A pro might find it limiting. but most users don't. Just see the discussions of BIF, sports and every other demanding situation.

Canon may never launch another M lens. So what? You still have EF lenses.

If you really need fast glass, you obviously don't mind weight and bulk, because you're gonna get it with fast glass. Me? I prefer small and light any day.

Yes, I'm pretty much right with you here.  Although with the M5 is a wonderful camera, it still has some drawbacks that often result in missed shots - especially the frustrating shutter lag.  For many family shots, even a 1/2 second lag means a missed moment but it can be 1-2 seconds on the M5 and can be hard to predict when it will happen.  It seems that if I had moved to mirrorless via the M6ii this wouldn't be an issue at all.  Maybe I should take up more landscapes!  

As I've been thinking through what an M versus R system would mean and reading some of the feedback here, I'm going to be sticking with the M system.  Just checking into that M6ii upgrade some more...  

 Feigerou's gear list:Feigerou's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4
OP Feigerou Junior Member • Posts: 26
Re: Hmm?

Asla wrote:

Feigerou wrote:

Whoops! In my list of priorities I also should have mentioned low light performance - both in AF and high ISO noise.

Hi!

I'm curious: what do you expect from high ISO noise? What is good and what is bad for you? I, for example, find about any camera today having good to excellent high ISO noise qualities (excluding phones). But then again, I also gladly accepted grainy photos made with TMZ3200. And are we in consensus, that 3200 is already pretty high ISO?

And what means "good AF" to you?

I do not want to nit pick or offend at all. I just think that sometimes it pays to define some things as accurately as possible to get most accurate answers... (And I really hope, that by asking you questions rather than answering or giving my opinions, I'll help you more!)

A s l a

Good call.  I guess for me that probably looks like-

  • Avoiding colored high ISO noise up to roughly 6,400?  I checking some comparisons, it seems like full frame or Fuji's do a much better job of avoiding adding the red and green colors along with high ISO noise.
  • Increased ability to pull up shadows without adding too much noise.  That would definitely help to capture moments while "on the go" since I don't have the luxury of time and space to carry more gear (aka tripod) and setup to get many shots or do an HDR..  This is hard to define I guess, but at least you get the idea.

I totally agree that the comparison is the key here.  Even a 12,800 ISO shot on my M5 blows away my phone.  Maybe I'm a victim of spending too much time on a site like DPreview?!  

 Feigerou's gear list:Feigerou's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads