The Fuji X10 and X100 are both nice, Autofocus is on the slow side if you're used to an SRL but thats not the point. Although the are smaller / mirrorless cameras I think them and the new canon are going after different markets slightly. The Canon will be more consumer oriented while the fuji's are more enthusiast cameras. The Fuji X-1 pro does produce some great images there is no doubt abou that. Build quality is outstanding. As its already been said the lens lineup is lacking but that will hopefully change. Finally someone mentioned Leica, oh the M9. Is it over priced ? yes of course it is somewhat. But to be honest there really isn't anything else like it on the market at this point. The combination of it being a true range finder with a full frame sensor is pretty awesome.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 16,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian_photo
The Fuji X10 and X100 are both nice, Autofocus is on the slow side if you're used to an SRL but thats not the point. Although the are smaller / mirrorless cameras I think them and the new canon are going after different markets slightly. The Canon will be more consumer oriented while the fuji's are more enthusiast cameras. The Fuji X-1 pro does produce some great images there is no doubt abou that. Build quality is outstanding. As its already been said the lens lineup is lacking but that will hopefully change. Finally someone mentioned Leica, oh the M9. Is it over priced ? yes of course it is somewhat. But to be honest there really isn't anything else like it on the market at this point. The combination of it being a true range finder with a full frame sensor is pretty awesome.
If $7K is a drop in the bucket... then buy anything you want... Hasselblad H4D-40 ($17K)..?
__________________
WARNING: If you see links to ads in the above post, blame the ad-linking software used by the owners of this website. I do not endorse these links. Don't click on them.
Have to admit when I saw the intro of this camera I was lukewarm about it. EOS lenses aren't exactly small and therefore it seems like a bit of a contradiction to put them on such a smallish camera. Then someone showed me this body with the adaptor and a 400 f2.8. My reaction was why?
Perhaps the missing link is the announcement of a broader range of dedicated lenses for this camera? Or maybe this is meant for video shooters?
If Canon had been smart they would have made an adaptor for their older FD line of manual focus lenses.....
I have the FD and Leica M mount adaptors for my GF2 and they work ok albeit in full manual and 2X magnification but the difference between the EF and FD lenses on MF is night and day.
Someone mentioned the LCD panel, a touch panel is very handy, when you can see it. That thing on the top of my GF2 is an optional EVF, problem with the Panasonic version is that it does not lock to the top of the camera. Ask me how many times the darn thing has popped off but absolutely necessary shooting in bright sunlight or with IR filters.
We had an original Canon FD to EOS adaptor at work but there were a few problems with it. It was designed for longer telephoto lenses I think over 200mm and I don't think they focused to infinity so I never bought one when I converted over from FD to EF in 1989. That was back when I transitioned from photo retail to the Star so I still have my Canon retail sales guide with all the FD and EF data. I'm 100% sure I would have bought one if it had worked with all my lenses and focused to infinity and I think that is why I didn't.
The adaptors I have for my micro 4/3 Panasonic will infinity focus for both the Canon FD and the Leica M lenses I own. An M9 would be nice since I have the lenses but the cost talks me out of it when I start looking at what other gear I can buy with that much money.
Reason I wondered about this new camera is that Canon would have had to start with a clean slate, though it's interesting that they built an adaptor for EF. Makes me wonder if someone in Japan is still a bit gun-shy after the furor that erupted when Canon abandoned the FD mount and went with EF. Which means not much of a chance for an FD adaptor other than a third party one from China.
Oddly I have no interest in putting EF lenses on my M 4/3 camera mainly because they don't have a very smooth feel on manual focus. Perhaps also because the size of the lenses, most of my lenses are L so big, heavy and fast but that is what I need for the type of work I do.
I like the idea of smaller lightweight gear, mainly my age and back catching up to me so over the past couple of years I have been using bridge cameras, the Micro 4/3's and a Panasonic P&S super zoom camera. The new Panasonic with the 24-600 f2.8 really interests me because of the super fast lens. I shoot a lot of street so having the speed and versatility might make this a really good choice but I'll wait and try one out first.
I'm thinking that it's so simple and trivial to make an FD adapter for this new EOS-M (since there's no mirror) that there's no point in Canon wasting its time designing something that'll get knocked off by the Chinese manufacturers in no time.
I still don't understand if there was a practical (rather than economic) reason that Canon changed the FFD from FD to EF.
I'd like to get some extended play time with the EOS-M and I agree that the vast majority of EF lenses don't make much sense on a small mirrorless camera but at least there's the option of using your existing EF glass.
As you said, better thought out than the switch from FD to EF.
Didn't FD hit the end of the line 20 years ago? I think that fact is enough to explain Canon's lack of interest at this point. It's dead to them.
If this system catches on the market will be flooded with cheap adapters for FD and every legacy mount under the sun, flange distance permitting (which it should in most cases). Just look at Micro Four Thirds... $15-30 can get you an adapter for almost any mount you can name, even obscure ones such as Rollei QBM. In the early days, prices for adapters were more on the order of $60-100, but who knows if that will apply in this case.
Rest assured, small Chinese manufacturers are on it as we speak, and they'll do it for a fraction of the price you'd have paid for a Canon-branded version, if one existed.
FD may be dead to Canon but it's not dead to a ton of Canon users, some of whom are spending a lot of money to have FD lenses adapted to EF. And not via a cheap, Chinese adapter either...practically reengineered. Apparently there's a guy in Barrie who does FD-EF conversions.
Also add in the number of mirrorless users who don't own Canon cameras but love manual FD lenses and don't mind paying for them. There's a market there...I'm not surprised that Canon doesn't care about it, but there is a market there.
Either way, the new EOS-M is likely the first Canon camera that will be able to legitimately claim compatibility with every Canon lens ever made.
No doubt there's a market there, but like all camera companies Canon's primary interest is selling new lenses, not helping people make the most of their old ones. And if they are going to help with that (i.e. the new EF-to-M adapter), it's probably going to have some benefit for the company, like slowing the flow of customers to other mirrorless systems, slowing the flow of current-model gear to the second-hand market, etc.
Agreed - Canon wants to sell new cameras and new lenses...that was undoubtably the logic behind going from FD to EF in the first place. Engineered obsolescence. We live in a time when even a coffee maker can be engineered to become obsolete.
Linear Mode
