M Lucca wrote:
It is all X-type like the T5i and 60d. I am bowled over that Canon would use a robust AF system on this mini-me Rebel while the 6d is only X-type at the center.
You can't compare the AF like that between so different cameras. It's not like a cross-type AF point is the same thing in all bodies. The 6D cross-type AF also have a vertical AF line with f/2,8 sensitivity. So it has both cross and a extra line.
thw2 wrote:
I have the OM-D. Its contrast AF is amazingly fast. Couple that with a working face recognition algorithm and you have a darn useful tool in your hands. However, any AF advantage the OM-D has is lost because of the retarded EVF response.
snapsy wrote:
The m4/3 lens selection is rather mature and some are sharper than their DSLR equivalents, while being much smaller and lighter with ultra-fast CDAF that doesn't miss nor require any AF fine tuning. Downside is tracking AF performance but that should improve in time.
It's not mature when you compare it against Canon/Nikon DSLR lenses. And a lot of the Canon/Nikon lenses doesn't exist or have any similar lenses for m4/3.
And don't forget all the accessories for the DSLR that Canon/Nikon have
M Lucca wrote:
It is all X-type like the T5i and 60d. I am bowled over that Canon would use a robust AF system on this mini-me Rebel while the 6d is only X-type at the center.
They did the same thing with the 5DII as well (40D/50D had better AF systems at the time as well).
There are plenty of great mirror less cameras from Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc., so no crying need for another one. Perhaps Canon should concentrate on the DSLR since everybody else has dipped into the mirror less market. Like many DSLR shooters I jumped on the mirror less band wagon, and while it's nice for certain things, I great prefer optical VF over EVF/LCD and DSLRs for most of my shooting. I think if I were to do it again, I'd skip the mirror less and buy a wee DSLR...
Mar 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Gochugogi wrote:
There are plenty of great mirror less cameras from Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc., so no crying need for another one. Perhaps Canon should concentrate on the DSLR since everybody else has dipped into the mirror less market. Like many DSLR shooters I jumped on the mirror less band wagon, and while it's nice for certain things, I great prefer optical VF over EVF/LCD and DSLRs for most of my shooting. I think if I were to do it again, I'd skip the mirror less and buy a wee DSLR...
+1
I would also prefer this small DSLR over any existing mirrorless camera. I belive it will be very popular and sell a lot
I would also prefer this small DSLR over any existing mirrorless camera. I belive it will be very popular and sell a lot
Me too but the suggested selling prices of $799.99 and £799 are the usual terrible UK rip-off, even at our current hopeless exchange rate $799.99 is £530, not £799!
No words about the 700D. After 3 years, owners of a 550D still have to be given a reason to upgrade. Seems that Canon is not willing to compete in the non-pro market.
The baby EOS is a good idea, but without small lenses to accompany it, the small form factor makes little sense. The 40mm pancake is too long on APS-C for a general purpose lens. Something like the EF-M 22mm pancake or Sony NEX 16-50 powerzoom would make it much more attractive.
Albi86 wrote:
The baby EOS is a good idea, but without small lenses to accompany it, the small form factor makes little sense. The 40mm pancake is too long on APS-C for a general purpose lens. Something like the EF-M 22mm pancake or Sony NEX 16-50 powerzoom would make it much more attractive.
That said, I think it is a sensible addition to the line. Rebel/xxxD series had gotten fat over the years and needed to be slimmed down. The 100D is almost the same size as the 350D, at tad smaller but also almost 4 oz lighter. First time that's happened, since the 350D everything has gotten fatter and heavier. So I think the 100D is a nice new addition.
I don't "get" m4/3 cameras that cost more than the low end Canon/Nikon DSLRs with lenses that also cost a lot, don't have much variety, etc.. so it's cool to see APS-C DLRs marching forward with miniaturization.
I think it depends on what you shoot. I used Canon EOS for about twenty years and in the digital realm liked the small Rebel/xxxD series especially. These days it is a no-mans-land product for me. Big with no advantages for me over m43. But that is because I don't shoot sports or wildlife - which means I don't need telephoto L lenses and I prefer the accuracy of CDAF over the tracking performance of PDAF. If I up the ante on image quality and go for the heavy L lenses or move to Zeiss primes or the like then I really would skip APS-C all together and go for FF. And while I was doing that I'd skip over Canon this time and go to Nikon - though of course if I still had all the L glass already I'd probably go with 5DmkIII. But anyway, as a Devil's advocate I can't really see the point to APS-C DSLRs anymore for my shooting. And the one thing they are good at - PDAF and telephoto - I have no need for a particularly compact body and would go for the best AF and FPS camera I could attach to the big telephoto lens...
All that said, if Canon isn't going to improve their sensors or add any new features to their APS-C cameras then the 100D is at least smaller and a bit more back to the roots of the Rebel line. And better still they didn't cripple the dang thing like they did to the EOS-M. Personally I think it will sell well just like all the Canon introductory DSLRs have for years and years. No risk in predicting that!
If Canon disappoints us with the 70D & 7D like they did today Nikon's going to get a big jump in it's sales %. Canon needs to wake up. That said I'm waiting to see what develops with the 70D & 7D.
But how many people here never shot a moving subject? Or never shot with a tele lens?
Nearly all people take photos of family, children, pets and so on that moves.
dhphoto wrote:
As I have seen no end of comments here about how the Rebels are 'toys' and 'impossible to grip' and 'give me cramp after 5 minutes' I'm surprised anyone is even considering the SL1
I want a smaller lighter camera that I can put my current EF lenses on. The M series doesn't quite cut it, neither does the G series of point and shoots.
The SL1 just might be the camera I've been waiting for.
Just because a camera doesn't meet YOUR specific needs, it may be a great fit for many other people.
Can't wait to see some results and get some actual end user reviews.
Mar 21, 2013 at 01:03 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
That said, I think it is a sensible addition to the line. Rebel/xxxD series had gotten fat over the years and needed to be slimmed down. The 100D is almost the same size as the 350D, at tad smaller but also almost 4 oz lighter. First time that's happened, since the 350D everything has gotten fatter and heavier. So I think the 100D is a nice new addition.
I think it depends on what you shoot. I used Canon EOS for about twenty years and in the digital realm liked the small Rebel/xxxD series especially. These days it is a no-mans-land product for me. Big with no advantages for me over m43. But that is because I don't shoot sports or wildlife - which means I don't need telephoto L lenses and I prefer the accuracy of CDAF over the tracking performance of PDAF. If I up the ante on image quality and go for the heavy L lenses or move to Zeiss primes or the like then I really would skip APS-C all together and go for FF. And while I was doing that I'd skip over Canon this time and go to Nikon - though of course if I still had all the L glass already I'd probably go with 5DmkIII. But anyway, as a Devil's advocate I can't really see the point to APS-C DSLRs anymore for my shooting. And the one thing they are good at - PDAF and telephoto - I have no need for a particularly compact body and would go for the best AF and FPS camera I could attach to the big telephoto lens...
All that said, if Canon isn't going to improve their sensors or add any new features to their APS-C cameras then the 100D is at least smaller and a bit more back to the roots of the Rebel line. And better still they didn't cripple the dang thing like they did to the EOS-M. Personally I think it will sell well just like all the Canon introductory DSLRs have for years and years. No risk in predicting that!
Also compare the number of lenses and accessories you can get for those two cameras. And the AF performance. If it's only about smallest size, then a point and shoot camera beat both those.
thedutt wrote:
SL1 looks like a winner, would make a good upgrade from t2i.
Sensor wise, canon has hit a plateau for some time, those who want/need better, Nikon is the way to go.
Hey Thedutt What plateau are you talking about? Thats a serious question, not sarcasm BTW. I'm still stuck in the 1DII and XTI world for a little while, but look forward to the release of the 7DII
Is it the 18MP sensor? The MP count alone?
My son's 7D seems to produce better images than my daughter's T2i, both have 18 MP
But how many people here never shot a moving subject? Or never shot with a tele lens?
Nearly all people take photos of family, children, pets and so on that moves.
m43 has plenty of telephoto lenses. Just not wide aperture L-quality ones. So if I'm going to shoot Billy at the soccer game with a consumer zoom there really is no difference between the m43 offerings and the Canon offerings. Now, if I'm going to do BIF or shoot sports for a living well then heck yes even the best mirrorless CDAF is the wrong answer. If you want a wide aperture telephoto zoom or any telephoto prime stick with DSLRs. But if your question is how many people here don't shoot with those you'll find the answer is a whole lot. Most folks are out there with a 55-200 or maybe the 75-300 at best and those lenses are in the same class as the m43 telephoto offerings.
As to moving subjects you need to be more specific. Moving as in a sprinter charging the camera is one thing. Your kid or dog running around the room or yard is another. Having shot both I actually now find m43 to be much better for shallow DoF shooting of kids. As much as I've personally mocked face-detect over the years now for shallow DoF I'm finding face detect AF on the E-M5 to have a way higher keeper rate than any PDAF C-AF system. The E-M5 system detects the eyes and you can even select for left, right or closest eye for focus. It seems like a gimmick until you use it compared to a PDAF system with fixed AF sensors. Of course a skilled shooter with either system is going to do way better than a spray and pray shooter on either.
Right now the CDAF systems on the m43 cameras are faster in S-AF than all the Canon DSLRs and their kit lenses and even trumping some of the USM L lenses simply because everything is up against the mass of the focus group these days and the m43 lenses are designed with very low mass groups (like the STM lenses from Canon are doing). Which is shocking given how wickedly bad CDAF was in the not very distant past. The m43 C-AF tracking works comparably to entry level PDAF when subjects are moving mostly transverse to the camera. It falls apart when the subject charges the camera. That's what you miss with CDAF. And burst shooting of moving subjects as well, OVF+PDAF handles tracking focus during burst shooting vastly better. I don't run into the shooting situation very often myself but it is definitely still the handicap of CDAF. Oh, and don't even get me started on front/back focus issues with the entry level DSLRs and a shallow-DOF lens. That is one thing mirrorless has completely made a worry of the past. Maybe the newer Rebel's are better but that was a constant problem when I shot with them. In that realm my Rebel's were pretty much always wrong, fast or slow it didn't matter, just wrong.
Anywho - I digress into what is at this point probably an irrelevant discussion. I don't think the relative merits of the two systems are the subject here. My larger point was no one should kid themselves in thinking the 100D challenges the size of the mirrorless systems. It is still too big, especially with lenses. Beyond that all the same pros and cons of each system are the same as they always were.
