freaklikeme wrote:
Right, that was my point. The 22/2 is a much better choice than the 17 Oly launched with. Sorry, I didn't make that very clear in my original post.
I'd disagree, the 22/2 may be better, but it needs to be a good lens to not sink like the Oly 17. The biggest problem with the Oly 17 was that it was not terribly good (and there was a better option on the market for similar money) not that it was slow. we don't know how good the Canon 22/2 will be. It could be a dog, or it could be a great little lens.
buggz2k wrote:
Sad, everyone wants to build the same low end ridiculous stuff.
I see no differentiation.
I would still say Sony is the leader, everyone else being lemmings...
Are you completely forgetting about MFT, which leads Sony in everything by a long shot except sensor size, pixel count in the high-end viewfinder and peaking?
AhamB wrote:
There's a fair variety of aspect ratios among MF cameras isn't there? 6x4.5 is the only 4:3 one, isn't it?
6x8 is very close to 4:3 as well (around 75x56 mm). But I was refering to digital MF.
mawz wrote:
Note that 4:3 in MF came about as it was half-frame 6x9 and therefore got twice as many shots on a roll.
They could have cropped the film to 3:2 as well, giving even more frames per roll. But they didn't. Large format is also less "stretched out" and the only reason for the 3:2 ratio on 135 film is that the format is very small and inexpensive.
6x9 and 6x12 are likewise ratios that come from the want to use an as large image circle on an existing roll film height.
Without the restrictions of a film roll, it's just pure stupidity and/or regressive thinking to use 3:2. You discard usable image circle area and get a format that is much less usable in portait/standing position.
The lack of a control dial is a major turn-off. I can't see a touchscreen dial to be as intitive as a physical one.
The placement of the movie recording button may not be a problem if it's only active when the top-dial is switched to movie mode.
Makten: Good observation regarding the "EF-M" designation being a possible hint of backwards compatibility. Even if it kills the purpose of a portable system being the majority of EF lenses so big (with a few exceptions), it can may appeal to the great number of Canon users.
mawz wrote:
I'd disagree, the 22/2 may be better, but it needs to be a good lens to not sink like the Oly 17. The biggest problem with the Oly 17 was that it was not terribly good (and there was a better option on the market for similar money) not that it was slow. we don't know how good the Canon 22/2 will be. It could be a dog, or it could be a great little lens.
Marketing wise they could probably call it 21/2, that would sound more fancy.
carstenw wrote:
Are you completely forgetting about MFT, which leads Sony in everything by a long shot except sensor size, pixel count in the high-end viewfinder and peaking?
m4/3 has the advantage in lens size and lens selection. Likewise with the EM-5 m4/3 has the advantage with IBIS (which Sony doens't even offer on the NEX bodies)
However, Sony is better at high ISO (5n), resolution, and EVF.
m4/3 is the better overall camera system, Sony's NEX is the better overall sensor system and a far better choice for using legacy glass than m4/3.
I don't think either one really leads the other as they have strengths in different areas and are going to appeal to different types of users.
m4/3 is great if you want some native glass but rather poor for using some adapted M mount glass
NEX is pretty nice for M mount glass with its peaking, and lesser crop factor not to mention the potential for simply amazing IQ. However, choices for native glass, while getting better, is still lacking.
"Better" system really depends on what your needs are
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
The placement of the movie recording button may not be a problem if it's only active when the top-dial is switched to movie mode.
I was kind of hoping that the dial around the shutter button was one for controlling aperture or shutter speed but after seeing the pictures it only picks between three modes. However, the good thing as you mentioned is that placement of the movie button may not be a problem with that type of dial set-up. The movie recording button placement is a common complaint among Nex users though I've only accidentally hit mine on the Nex 5N a couple times.
Looks like the point and shoot division won with this thing! I also wish they had a camera that was a real competitor to Sony, something that was the next step up in design and innovation. What we have here is another incremental step designed to maximize profit. Canon is making one mistake after another.
mawz wrote:
I'd disagree, the 22/2 may be better, but it needs to be a good lens to not sink like the Oly 17. The biggest problem with the Oly 17 was that it was not terribly good (and there was a better option on the market for similar money) not that it was slow. we don't know how good the Canon 22/2 will be. It could be a dog, or it could be a great little lens.
As a first offering, I'm not surprised that it's striped down to the minimum, then if it sells well enough Canon will green light a higher spec version, more buttons(inc. a direct print) and an EVF.
dennishh wrote:
Looks like the point and shoot division won with this thing! I also wish they had a camera that was a real competitor to Sony, something that was the next step up in design and innovation. What we have here is another incremental step designed to maximize profit. Canon is making one mistake after another.
not sure that theyre mistakes from a revenue standpoint as much as they are from a functional photographic tools standpoint
and I need to remind myself that my 5d3 is ridiculously awesome, and their glass ain't too shabby either
goosemang wrote:
too bad you can't see the aperture on that 18-55
think it's the same variable slow kit lens deal?
It's probably going to be a standard 3.5-5.6. I have doubts that it be a faster 2.8 - 4.0 like the Fuji X-pro 18-55 zoom that's supposed to be released this year. The size seems to be roughly the same size as the Sony Nex 18-55 lens or slightly smaller. However, the fact that it's an 18-55mm indicates it's probably going to be an APS-C size sensor. The smaller size sensors don't seem to make sense with that zoom range.
LightShow wrote:
There are extra contacts on the hot shoe, for the EVF?
It can potentially use an EVF if there are extra contacts. It might also be used to power an external flash as there seems to be no pop-up flash built into the camera. I would assume that they will include a clip on flash like the Sony Nex series (though the Sony Nex F3 and 7 have built-in pop flashes).
Makten wrote:
They could have cropped the film to 3:2 as well, giving even more frames per roll. But they didn't. Large format is also less "stretched out" and the only reason for the 3:2 ratio on 135 film is that the format is very small and inexpensive.
6x9 and 6x12 are likewise ratios that come from the want to use an as large image circle on an existing roll film height.
Without the restrictions of a film roll, it's just pure stupidity and/or regressive thinking to use 3:2. You discard usable image circle area and get a format that is much less usable in portait/standing position....Show more →
MF started at 3:2 (6x9 format), then they cropped down to 4:3 or 1:1 to get more frames per roll and to allow for TLR film advances when TLR's and box cameras were introduced (120 started with folding cameras, although TLR's and box cameras quickly followed). Note that because of how the camera's at the time were designed, cropping to 3:2 wasn't really an option, it was too little in the way of film area (645 was long derided for the low IQ due to being a half-frame format) and also was awkward for cameras that would be shooting normally in the vertical orientation as 645 folders were, 645 is already an awkward format for horizontal advance cameras like the Fuji GA645 or the Bronica RF645.
6x7 and the other aspect ratios came later.
I personally prefer 4:3, but there's nothing inherently correct about it and 3:2 was long the standard in both the medium and small format worlds. 4:3 only got a boost in popularity when digital came around because it was a common imager format already due to video (which has of course completely abandoned 4:3 for 16:9)
