Printable View
Was looking the 90D DLA.... f 5.0. There is a lot of the world I want to shoot at f8 and knowing it is going to be getting softer makes me wince.
Makes me think the T/S lenses or some other tech needs to come along just so we can harvest the resolution available.
Damn physics, always getting in my way... this gravity thing needs to get managed better too. :).
Ha....
Yeah, resolution gains are not always linear. I even go back to some tests we did here that concluded the "gain" of a crop factor lens was more like 1.2x and not 1.6x. I saw a similar conclusion by someone who did a pretty detailed assessment of "MPix" equivalents on DXOMark.
Bottom line, its not like you are loosing resolution going from a 24 MP sensor to a 32 MP sensor. Its just that the gain may not be as linear as you'd like to think.
All that said, I am kicking around replacing my M3. It takes great images, my biggest issue with it was AF. That was probably already fixed with the original M6 and likely better with the M6 II. My big debate is 1) I really tend to take the G7XII when I want a small camera, should I just abandon the M series? Then, assuming I don't, 2) M6 II or wait for the M5 II with a built in EVF.
This is not a priority for me right now. We are entering probably my favorite time of the year for photography.
Not diffraction related, but speaking of the M, I thought the M mount was being gently swept aside to be replaced by the R mount. Instead, it looks like we're keeping both new mounts. Choice paralysis will mean a lot of people will not buy either, out of fear of buying the wrong one. Good job Canon!
I still see a lot of speculation that the M mount's days are limited. But Canon has created a problem...maybe not in NA, but the M's apparently sell extremely well in Asian markets. Not many companies dump money making products.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Unfortunately, I predict the future is sadder for the M than a quick death. Rather, Canon will never let it reach its full potential. This is a bit of an odd statement, as the M is surprisingly good. Quick case and point, the EFm 11-22 vs the 16-35 f/4 L IS. By this, I mean a fully populated ecosystem with additional lenses, additional better lenses, a more professional body (granted, M5/M6 were solid, IMO, but a M1 body), etc. Canon will let the casual photographer buy the M, but are clearly making the R series their high end. That is where the resources are going.
As to the future, I am a bit torn. On one had, the M is so distinctively small, both the bodies and lenses. And it punches well above its weight. In some ways, it is an amazing camera system for hiking, maybe travel, etc. So, I can see it having a distinctive niche and maybe that is enough for it to carry on. But, my other thought is that Canon is simply buying time to more fully populated the R ecosystem, if M sales drop once this has happened, say they do a series of f/4 zooms that are small and combined with an RP can come close enough to replacing the M's size/weight advantage, then I can see the M quietly being shown the exit door.
My personal problem is that the G7X II is actually pocketable, so it beats the M3 in size/weight. It also doesn't even take up a full "cube" in my camera bag, so I throw other stuff into the same space with it, making it much more transportable. While the images from the M3 are better, when I want good images, I go to the 5DIV, which is the majority of time.