ytwong wrote:
It makes some sense for small player like Pentax, which might not have the capacity to instantly design and make a lot of new lens.
I have a thought ... does it make sense to make the space (that used to hold the mirror) retachable ?
That would be the adapter...
michael49 wrote:
I don't think I'll get really excited about any new mirrorless system until (if) someone releases a FF mirrorless camera.
Same here. I just love small DoF with wide angles, natural vignetting etc.. I think I'll hang onto my beloved old 5D until it breaks and hope that by then there'll be some smaller option. With the new 40/2.8 it's almost small enough for me to carry everywhere, so if they could just shed off 200g or something it'd be perfect. If the only way to do that is to lose the mirror, that's OK, but if possible I'd like to keep the old optical "view though the lens" finder. I'm probably in a minority regarding that though and I guess I could live with a good EVF.
HelenaN wrote:
Same here. I just love small DoF with wide angles, natural vignetting etc.. I think I'll hang onto my beloved old 5D until it breaks and hope that by then there'll be some smaller option. With the new 40/2.8 it's almost small enough for me to carry everywhere, so if they could just shed off 200g or something it'd be perfect. If the only way to do that is to lose the mirror, that's OK, but if possible I'd like to keep the old optical "view though the lens" finder. I'm probably in a minority regarding that though and I guess I could live with a good EVF. ...Show more →
Hi Helena, good to see you here. Have you used any of the new EVF's? - they are vastly improved compared with the initial offerings and in particular the peaking feature makes MF so much easier. I actually prefer to use MF over AF when I have an EVF with peaking available.
I love my NEX, but there is a certain tonality, depth and smoothness to the images out of my 5d that I just can't replicate with the NEX and I suspect its due to the FF sensor. Come on FF mirrorless!!
No, I haven't tried the newest ones (I think), only the one that you could mount on E-PL2. However, even if MF is new to me and I'm relatively young, I prefer to MF looking through an optical VF and turn the focus ring on the lens. It feels so natural and relaxing.
I have to say that this camera looks like it was designed by a committee that, after compromising on any unique or daring aspects, ended up with a bar of soap.
I imagine the EF-S department was there to make sure the EF-M doesn't have enough feature to step on their collective toes.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have to say that this camera looks like it was designed by a committee that, after compromising on any unique or daring aspects, ended up with a bar of soap.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have to say that this camera looks like it was designed by a committee that, after compromising on any unique or daring aspects, ended up with a bar of soap.
Yeah, I'm not sure I can find many reasons why one would choose this over a NEX camera, outside of the 22/2 lens and the ability to adapt EOS lenses with AF.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure I can find many reasons why one would choose this over a NEX camera, outside of the 22/2 lens and the ability to adapt EOS lenses with AF.
The lens does look promising and it will be interesting to see how well it performs.
It does look like it may be related to the new 40/2.8. The only opinion I have heard of this is that it is competent, but ultimately uninteresting. I am curious to see if the 22/2 follows the same basic trend.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure I can find many reasons why one would choose this over a NEX camera, outside of the 22/2 lens and the ability to adapt EOS lenses with AF.
There's one unfortunate and very sad reason for what what you envision.
The small badge on it saying "Canon".
I know of many large-body Canon shooters that had been planning for a long time to downsize, and had been eyeing both the NEX and the µFT systems very seriously. Now that a Canon option exists, intelligence and rational thinking goes out the window, and the credit cards will fly like hummingbirds as soon the camera is available.
It doesn't matter if it's worse than a comparable NEX option, in every conceivable way including price. The buyers who were loyal to Canon will buy the camera.
carstenw wrote:
It does look like it may be related to the new 40/2.8. The only opinion I have heard of this is that it is competent, but ultimately uninteresting. I am curious to see if the 22/2 follows the same basic trend.
Uninteresting means the same as "very good" in my book. The only thing that can make a lens "interesting" is a noticeable increase in some aberration modifying the pure image.
The interesting lens might work very well in it's intended usage area, but will produce junk in some other cases. The uninteresting (but good) lens will work whatever you throw at it.
That leaves it up to the you to make the image good. A lens with lots of "character" is just like Hipstamatic. It might make something look superficially more interesting, but it's still crap underneath, no substance.
(a nice little rant from someone that no doubt qualifies in the bottom 5% of photography image making talent on this board... )
:-)
Well what's rational to some may not be that for others. I wont buy it for reasons already said (lack of articulating screen) - but to me it looks like a new great (small) alternative platform. What have we out there mirrorless with APS-C sensors, NEX and Samsung and what, yeah the oddbird Ricoh? Now a Canon too. Appreciate that competition is a good thing, even if you like to dislike a certain brand.
Yes, competition is good, to the extent that it increases development while keeping prices low. I am a bit afraid of what happens to the little guys when the big players enter the ring though. Nikon removed themselves by choosing a small sensor with a very powerful processor, but Canon chose an APS-C sensor and a mainstream aim. I hope they don't knock out someone like Ricoh or Fujifilm...
