The form factor mainly but like I said, I already have a S95. Even though I might want one, spending $800 on it plus $200 for the converter so I can use my current lenses seems a bit much.
It baffles me that canon would introduce a brand new system and then slap another mount on it - why oh why did they not make it EF-S so that every piece of glas can be used?
That's what kept me of the Nikon1 System earlier, I would love to use my glas without a special 200$ adapter.
The APS-C size sensor is great tho, making it really something to think about.
It baffles me that canon would introduce a brand new system and then slap another mount on it - why oh why did they not make it EF-S so that every piece of glas can be used?
That's what kept me of the Nikon1 System earlier, I would love to use my glas without a special 200$ adapter.
The APS-C size sensor is great tho, making it really something to think about.
I'm guessing it comes down to being an issue with where the lens sits and distance to the sensor. There's just not enough depth in there for a standard lens to work without an adapter. The adapter looks like it adds about an inch or so in depth, which would make it about the same distance to the sensor on the dslr. The lenses designed for this camera will be designed to focus onto the sensor at a much smaller distance.
I have to admit, even though I want to upgrade my personal camera (still using an xti), this doesn't look like it'd be a good choice for me, simply because when you add that adapter in, it really looks pretty awkward to use.
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by piper28
I'm guessing it comes down to being an issue with where the lens sits and distance to the sensor. There's just not enough depth in there for a standard lens to work without an adapter. The adapter looks like it adds about an inch or so in depth, which would make it about the same distance to the sensor on the dslr. The lenses designed for this camera will be designed to focus onto the sensor at a much smaller distance.
This is indeed correct. The smaller flange back distance enables smaller and less expensive lenses, among other things. The M mount has FLB of about 18 mm as opposed to the 44 mm of the EF and EF lenses.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, SPG Platinum, HH Gold, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 25,550
I read through the preview at dpreview.com - I just don't see anything compelling about the camera at all...nothing 'break through' and nothing that puts it in the same league as the NEX7. I am very disappointed in the lack of innovation from Canon.
__________________ Rich and 50 is the same as middle-class and 30
I am trying to figure out why they mount the 400 2.8 IS II on this camera. If I am going to mount a lens with that size, it will be a proper DSLR. Thinking more about it, while able to mount EF lens sounds great, but in reality, it just doesn't seems practical. The balance between the body and EF lens will be awkward without using a tripod/monopod, which really defeat the purpose. The battery only last 230 shots is off putting also. I guess that is the price to pay for camera without viewfinder and relies on LCD screen to do most of the functions.
Originally, I was thinking it maybe good to use it as a backup body for people already has a collection of EF lenses, but now I think T4i is the better option.
I am trying to figure out why they mount the 400 2.8 IS II on this camera. If I am going to mount a lens with that size, it will be a proper DSLR. Thinking more about it, while able to mount EF lens sounds great, but in reality, it just doesn't seems practical. The balance between the body and EF lens will be awkward without using a tripod/monopod, which really defeat the purpose. The battery only last 230 shots is off putting also. I guess that is the price to pay for camera without viewfinder and relies on LCD screen to do most of the functions.
Originally, I was thinking it maybe good to use it as a backup body for people already has a collection of EF lenses, but now I think T4i is the better option.
My thoughts exactly. One use would be as a spare body if you already have investment in canon glass - but the chances are that if you have an investment in the glass you likely already have multiple bodies.
If the new lenses they release for it are decent I might jump, but it looks hard to beet the M4/3rds glass that panny has out.
Programs: MR PLT/LT PLT, SPG PLT50/LT GLD, HH Gold, US LT SLV, AA GLD, EK SLV, Hertz 5*
Posts: 11,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hades2k
It baffles me that canon would introduce a brand new system and then slap another mount on it - why oh why did they not make it EF-S so that every piece of glas can be used?
That's what kept me of the Nikon1 System earlier, I would love to use my glas without a special 200$ adapter.
The APS-C size sensor is great tho, making it really something to think about.
For the same reason they made the EF-S mount originally. A smaller sensor allowed for a smaller mirror which allowed for lenses that could have smaller spacing and be made lighter and cheaper. Now with no mirror they can do that again - smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses. And to allow the protrusion of the EF-S lenses to fit, the body would need to be thicker. When you're trying to build a small, compact, light body, you take advantage of these opportunities.
It baffles me that canon would introduce a brand new system and then slap another mount on it - why oh why did they not make it EF-S so that every piece of glas can be used?
That's what kept me of the Nikon1 System earlier, I would love to use my glas without a special 200$ adapter.
Which further reduces the benefit of a smaller form-factor.
(Although I suppose part of me is thrilled my T3 wasn't such a bad idea after all.)
consider the market for this new camera. It's not those of us who have full dSLR and a kit of lenses. It's for the newbie moving up from a P&S who doesn't want the complexity or bulk of our favorites.
When the EF-S lenses were announced, along with the Rebel, you heard the same gripe. Why a new mount? Anyone still asking that question?
Canon has been in this biz a long time, and successfully stole the lead from Nikon some years back. I suspect they know a thing or two about the marketplace we don't.
While we're on Canon, it's interesting to note that they pioneered stationary mirror SLR around 40 years ago with the Pellix. Note that they haven't gone back to stationary mirrors even though others like Sony have. Curious. Wonder what Canon knows that the others don't?
i think i want one. i think it be an excellent solution for me. we have a 7D. that is a big brick. it is firmly attached to a 600mm lens, and a tripod and dedicated to the osprey nest.. we have a T1, that is just too big to be a point and shoot. we have a panasonic that is very nice for a p&s, but the end result is a bit blurred. i do not know the quality of M photo, but if close to t1 quality, i am very interested. i have about 7 or 8 canon lenses rattling about that fit this thing. why would i buy a sony, which with an extra lens or two will run a couple grand or more?
by the way what does this mean? "The M mount has FLB of about 18 mm as opposed to the 44 mm of the EF and EF lenses."
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by slawecki
by the way what does this mean? "The M mount has FLB of about 18 mm as opposed to the 44 mm of the EF and EF lenses."
First of all it means I managed to make a typo. FLB is nonsense, it should be FBL, meaning Flange Back Length. This is the distance from the flange, i.e. where the camera and the lens meet to the sensor. This distance with the M mount is 18 millimeters and with the EF and EF-S 44 millimeters. Consequently, the M mount allows for a much thinner body and smaller lenses.
Cheers,
T.
__________________
Did William of Ockham ever nick himself?
