zonoskar

I think the problem would be that Canon would probably not give you an external charger with the camera anymore so it has to be bought separately for $50 (or more). But apart from that, I'm all ...

I don't notice any difference between focusing my 100mm f2.8 Macro (non-L) or 17-40L on my EOS-M and 5D bodies.

If you see the vigetting from the 22mm f2.0 on the APS-C sensor (around 3 EV), I would doubt that it can illuminate an FF sensor completely.

It's because that will net them the highest DXO mark score. That's what counts nowadays. I don't like it either.

The recording resolution doesn't have to be equal to the output resolution. You could record in 4K, then downsize to 1080p. That gives better results I guess.

He did say "I would also like more EF-M primes, but for now I'm happy with the adapted EF lenses." at the start of his excellent post. EF-M lenses make sense for focal lengths up to ca. 35mm. Here ...

Canon created EF-M lenses where they make sense (small, light, inexpensive) and let you use the EF line for all other lenses. How is that not complete. It's the most complete MILC system you'll ...

Unless the M5-II will have 4K, no crop and DPAF in 4K (if that's important to you). I'm waiting for an M6-II to come out and hopefully with a usable 4K implementation.

Don't forget the horrible rolling shutter in 4K mode.

Billy, The Sony IS is no match for an actioncam (any) with a good gimbal. Yes, that combo is more expensive, but soo much better. So I don't value camera IS that much.

#1 could be as simple as 4K + DPAF could need enabling more read-out lines from the sensor that could lead to a more expensive mainboard design. Maybe they now use a 2-4 layer design, but adding ...

How do you prevent these MILC EF lenses to be mounted on DSLR with EF mount? That's why Canon introduced the EF-s mount, to make sure nobody would be able to do that and slap their mirror against ...

How could you make EF lenses that hide most of their guts inside the body? That would mean these lenses are no longer compatible with DSLRs that have mirrors that will hit the guts of the lens ...

If Canons next FF MILC uses the EF mount, nothing changes. And there would be no need to develop new lenses for that camera, so that would put th EF-M lenses in the same boat as EF-s lenses. But ...

I have an old FD 100mm f4.0 macro and an FD 24mm f2.8 I'd like to use. Granted, I haven't got around to getting an adapter for my EOS-M though. And I also have the EF 100mm f2.8 macro...

At least for me, I won’t get one if it has the EF mount. I want the possibility to use FD or M42 lenses.

Doing UHD with DPAF with the one Digic 8 might require more RAM, or a sensor with more read-out lines enabled, or some other hardware limitation we are not aware of that adds to the MSRP. ...

Ah, I get it now. It's sometimes not easy as a non-native english speaker.

Wait, who buys all those Nikon mirrorless camera's?

So why have an adapter attached to every lens? You can leave the adapter on the body all the time if you don't have EF-M lenses. Switching lenses would be identical to using a DSLR body.