The Panasonic 20/1.7 is clearly SOFTER than this Canon. Shockingly so.

I prefer the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8, though it is arguably not a pancake, still very small.

You get the same field of view and DOF, but a 22 mm renders differently from a 35 mm lens, and anyway most FF 35 mm lenses are f/2 not f/3.2, thus offering additional flexibility in terms of DOF options that are beyond the reach of the 22 mm lens featured here.

Woof! :)

@ badi: I get your point and agree. But this is not entirely true:

"In terms of perspective and FOV, if you put a 35mm lens on a FF body, and shoot is at F3.2 you get *EXACTLY* the same image."

It is not exactly the same image as the angle of view is different. It comes close, but it is not the same image. Comparing APS-C and FF this difference is not that prominent, take a picture with a small sensor smartphone and with a DSLR with an equivalent lens and you'll see it clearly.

Toni, actually that is mathematically accurate. Exposing correct, and ignoring other factors (total light gathering, ISO performance, etc), and of course rendering differences - usually higher priced lenses we use in comparison wit these $200 ones, tend to render smother transitions, better contrast, etc, the two images would be perfectly identical.

The best way to test this yourself is with a zoom on a FF nikon or sony body (that offer APSC mode witout needing a second camera). Shoot a 24/2.8 in APSC mode, then zoom to 36mm and close the aperture at 4.2 (or any other settings, keeping the 1.5 multiplier in mind), print the images on two A4 pages, and compare them.

oh.. and for those who don't care to do the test for themselves, there are plenty comparison materials on a simple google search. And for those who don't care to do either ... well... what can i say, how can we prove that the Earth is not flat? :)

Pesky facts... :)

@ badi: Have you even conducted your proposed test on your own? ;-) If not, I would recommend to try it out. You will see, that the pictures are not identical.

Tipp: Pay close attention on the background. It will be more "compressed" (looking further away) on the small sensor camera than on the bigger sensor camera. That is a physical fact.

As I sead before, when comparing APS-C and FF, the difference will be small, but it's there.

@ badi: BTW, have ever wondered why DPR staff describe equivalence with circumscriptiond such as "it behaves like" or "it is similar like" and just simply say "it equals". Because it doesn't. ;-)

@Toni - yes i have, and yes i know what i am talking about.
The difference you are talking about appears when you use similar apertures, not equivalent ones (Ex. F2.8 on both FF and APSC). If you use the correct ones there is no difference other than the lens rendering, and that is why i suggest to use the same zoom lens. Note that for *perfect* match, if you use 24/2.8 on APSC you have to use 36mm and F4.2 on FF (typically you will select 35mm @ F4, so there will still be minute differences.)

And since you seem to be one of the guys that just keep preaching that the earth is flat without bothering to test for yourself or even try to document yourself on the matter, here is quick help for you.

A guy shooting a 55/1.8 on a cropped sensor against 85/1.4 on FF. The day images are shot with the 55 lens at 1.8 and the 85 at 2.8 - about the same "equivalent" aperture in terms of DOF, and the night images are shot with both lenses at 1.8 - and here you will see the differences you are talknig about.
Also note that even this comparison is not perfect mathematically: the 55mm lens translates to a 82.5mm / F2.7 compared to the 85mm / F2.8, and of course the lenses are complete different beasts - the rendering of the nikon is pretty hard to beat.

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/

@ badi: "And since you seem to be one of the guys that just keep preaching that the earth is flat"

No, I'm just a guy who did not miss on my physics class. ;-) Jokes aside. Would you be so kind and pass on insulting me. I just wanted to contribute to the topic. Thanks!

1. I never talked about DOF. I don't know where you are getting this from. I always talked about the angle of view.

2. You do not fully understand the concept of the crop factor. The crop factor only works at one specific image distance. That’s because via optics three dimensions are “compressed” to two. It does not work for everything that is projected on the sensor. If one compares a FF sensor and a crop sensor with an "equivalent" lens, more/less of the background/foreground scene will be captured on the cropped sensor.

I said the difference will not be big when comparing APS-C with FF, but it is there. The difference increases with sensor size difference and with depth of the scene is.

@ Richard: Thanks for putting the dsicussion to the main Topic again :-)

I share your opinion about the EF-M 22. It's a fine Little lens with a great value as it is really cheap and compact. But that's about it

I used to own the EOS M3 and the M5 with that lens. I had a very high opinion of the EF-M 22 until I fully switched to Fuji some weeks ago because of the limited EF-M lens selection.

What can I say. Now the Quality of the EF-M 22 does not look so impressisve anymore. The Fuji lenses Play in another league IMHO (admittadly not only in Quality but also in price).

@Toni, i didn't try o insult you, i was trying to be sarcastic/make a joke ... I am really sorry if i failed so badly.

But my point was about a simple experiment you can do (which i did, and for which you can find dozens on the internet if you search), and then you brag with superiority on your understanding of physics :) ... making a totally wrong point. By the way, for your info, i am an engineer, and photography is just a hobby, so attending and graduating the physics classes was not optional in my case.
Have you even checked the images in the link, for example?

If you don't take the DOF or background blur into account, than it's even easier, it all reduces to the angle of view of a lens. And nothing can be simpler than that.

So, just to conclude, regardless of your understanding of physics, or mine the simple way to see it for yourself is to test it yourself.
Regards!

@badi:

I will do so. But please so so too and just simply demand it from me. When doing so, please use a small aperture so that differences are visible and pay close attention on the forground and background.

BTW, I really tried to find an excellent depiction that I once saw. But sadly I couldn't find it.

P.S. I'm engineer, too. ;-)

Regards.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/3

:) I did the tests for myself, as i said (twice, i think).

@ badi: This will be my last post just to clarify again.

1. The linked article is solely about DOF and I already said clearly that I never talked about DOF. I was talking about what is included in the picture and what is not.

2. As I said multiple times too, one will only see the difference if the main subject is well separated from foreground and/or background depthwise. This is certainly not the case in the linked article too.

Regards

@Toni: My curiosity is piqued. Either you are completely wrong, or you are taking this to a level of advanced optics way past the point most people stop thinking about it.

Foreground/background compression is a function of the distance ratio (foreground - photographer)/(background - photographer) ... and nothing else. It's basic geometry. Not the lens, not the sensor size, nothing.

But dig far enough and if you start considering the fisheye distortions of WA lenses and the optical corrections to bring the image back to rectilinear, I suppose that could change the look vs. an equivalent telephoto lens and large sensor combination. I doubt it, but I concede I don't know enough to discount it out of hand.

@Ebrahim Saadawi, why not just keep using my xxD cameras. Then I save money from not buying the M to EF adapter. I have genuine Canon EF and EF-s autofocus lenses from the 10-22mm to my 85mm f/1.8, and none of them are inexpensive kit-zoomz. Voigtländer makes a $1,100.00 13 oz 10mm M-mount lens that seems like overkill to me. Plus I'd have to spend more money on a M to EF-M lens adapter—no I don't think so.

Either Canon are monumentally stupid or arrogant for not releasing an approx. 53mm prime. Lack of lenses is the main reason the mirrorless system isn't used by more people.

If you want EOS M specific lenses, why do you want 35 and 50? Those work out to 56 and 80mm equivalent. I would think you'd want 31 and 53mm which with the 1.6x factor, give 50 and 85mm equivalent.

That's what they did with the 22mm (x1.6 = 35)

I expect Sigma to start adapting their APS-C mirrorless 'DN' lenses to EF-M soon enough.

And hell, Zeiss will likely bring their cross-mount Touit lenses over too.

And that's just APS-C mirrorless AF primes.

The big guns are all going for FF due to the profits, and seem happy to leave Fuji as the only mirrorless APS-C option. Canon and Nikon will probably put a few bodies out there, but they aren't going to create a full set of APS-C lenses like Fuji has.

But the lenses aren't.

@KL Matt

Not much choice on lens size unless Sony starts making PF lenses, which brings its own set of issues.

And yup, McDonald's wins, again... :/

@blueBomberTurbo what are PF lenses? Purple fringing lenses? Already have more than enough of those already... ;-)

I also would like to add that I don´t miss anything from my Fuji X-T1 in M6

@Keg:
1) Tele lens or 18-55 or 15-45 don't have a better aperture than f/5.6 at certain focal lengths.
2) Generally Auto Iso makes much more sense in P and A than in M or S. When the amount of light increases suddenly, Auto Iso can't decrease the Iso more than Iso 100 => camera will choose extremely small apertures (=> much diffraction) in S mode or will overexpose in M mode. In P and A mode you don't need to worry in theory. Moreover P mode + Auto Iso is something like full auto, therefore very useful if one doesn't want to change something all the time.
3) No, even my smartphone camera is able to do this (max Iso 7600) And even Canon DSLRs show a blinking warning.
4) In-camera HDR is not useless at all. Never heard of Google's HDR+? It is so good that it's often better than shooting in raw as the camera captures much more light with HDR+.
5) 4k isn't an issue for other cameras.

"you would know that changing ISO is really quick by using the rear wheel"
I used the M6 and actually the position of the real dial is very bad because you can accidentally touch it when you use the exposure compensation dial. Several users reported this issue. And yes, photography is about choices, and often composition is the most important choice and not the settings. Photography doesn't mean that I have to alter the settings for every image! Moreover a camera needs to be user friendly.

"For HDR+ , it is not possible for JPEG to contain more data than 14 bit RAW file"
Of course it is possible because HDR+ captures more light by combining up to 10 raw files automatically. Bracketing raw files manually with a camera is not comparable as this won't work well with moving subjects whereas HDR+ can handle this.

Lower end Canon APS-C has always been primarily aimed at women. Just not in the US, since naming a camera Kiss wouldn't go over well with the guys. Guess rebadging it Rebel alone was manly enough. ;)