JeffG wrote:
have you seen the zeiss 24? you may as well use a full sized DSLR
E mount lenses are far too large. why can olympus put out a 45mm 1.8 and an upcoming 75mm 1.8 and have them be stupid small (well until you put a hood on) and their excellent 12mm look like something from leica M3 days but sony has to make E mount stuff so bloody massive? have you seen the panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for m43?
I own both the NEX-7 and OM-D and I've owned the 24 Zeiss since launch. It's not that big, people overblow it.
jotdeh wrote:
I am 100% (give or take a little) EF-s lenses will work too. Even if it was a funky adapter with mirror (for which there is no reason, since the camera itself has PDAF) then it would only be an APS-C mirror, so nothing to interfere with EF-s lenses.
Yeah, I agree it's logical but it does not say so.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I own both the NEX-7 and OM-D and I've owned the 24 Zeiss since launch. It's not that big, people overblow it.
Agreed, I actually find the size of the ZA E 24 quite nice, it's big enough to handle well without being too large. The size is comparable to many RF lenses mounted on an adapter.
I actually find pancakes on a mirrorless body to be small enough to be awkward, the two Sigma lenses are about the smallest I'm actually comfortable with on my NEX-7.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I own both the NEX-7 and OM-D and I've owned the 24 Zeiss since launch. It's not that big, people overblow it.
I disagree that the Zeiss is small, although it certainly doesn't make the camera DSLR sized. I owned the Zeiss 24mm for a while with the NEX-7, and I found the proportions off for my daily carry lens, especially since the NEX-7's strap lugs don't point the camera down like they do with the NEX-5N. I wear my daily camera on a strap diagonally across my chest, and long lenses get in the way of my arm and have the potential to bang and catch on things.
The Ziess 24 has a great build, but I would have much rather seen something like this new Canon 22/2 or the Samsung 30/2 come first. Frankly, I'm surprised Canon was able to make a 22/2 this small, and, although we don't know how it performs, I'm a bit envious of this lens as a NEX user. Carrying my X100 around everyday is a much more enjoyable experience than the NEX-7 and Zeiss 24, because the lens length dimension is where I notice size the most, at least in how I carry the camera. If I was using a camera bag or something, the lens size would be less of a big deal.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Can't argue that the X100 makes a much better daily carry camera than the NEX-7 + any lens.
I could, the X100 is just not there in terms of UI or viewfinder for me. I'd take any NEX over it as a daily carry camera. Personal taste of course, the X100 seems to work very well for some.
mawz wrote:
I could, the X100 is just not there in terms of UI or viewfinder for me. I'd take any NEX over it as a daily carry camera. Personal taste of course, the X100 seems to work very well for some.
Hmm, guess some folks don't like dedicated dials for things like EC, shutter speed and aperture and prefer an EVF to an optical finder....
Figure it had to happen sooner or later. For ages photographers have been asking for things like more dedicated control, optical finders etc. Now I guess we have gotten to the point where a younger generation who never even used such style cameras now actually has no desire for those features and instead prefers things like multifunction soft keys and EVF's.
Strange how technology and taste change.
As an example, I remember growing up how the bigger stereo speakers were the better. Other kids at school would be so jealous if you got some 15" woofers for your bedroom. Now days though, bigger is viewed as worse. Everyone wants to spend hundreds of dollars on little earbuds for their m4/3 players.
Guess for every old timer who see's the X100 and has memories of great cameras growing up, another person see's it and wonders who on earth would want a camera with all those silly dials and stuff
Not a bad camera for manual focus lenses owners...
-> Handy prime kit lens (great for street and travelling/outdoors.. P&S replacement)
-> Whats the need of dial (Always keep in Av mode for manual focus lenses).
-> No need for expensive adapters... Stack the few cheapo macro tubes (EOS) and use current adapters (which are in use with current DSLR)...
Initial price is high.. But can wait for an year..
millsart wrote:
Strange how technology and taste change.
millsart, this is quite true. I have a friend whose photography experience is totally based on P&S cameras and cell phone cameras. When I handed him my Nikon D7000 to take some photos, he didn't want to use the optical view finder. I had to switch over to live view for him to use the camera. While we might complain about the lack of evf and dedicated dials for the camera, other photographers might be completely fine and might actually prefer utilizing a simple interface.
So seeing as it has a short flange distance (18mm), the question (for me) will be how nicely it plays with M mount glass... But considering it's apparently the T4i sensor and probably has non-optimized sensor toppings, I'm not optimistic about wide angle lenses.
IMO the price point seems a bit high, but perhaps not a surprise considering Canon's recent pricing trend. I'll be interested to see what they release in the form of an advanced-user camera.
The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.
If you think about it, an ovf is a disconnect from the most common way a person views an image now. A live view or evf is a more accurate representation of the image that is about to be made.
