jim_larson1

Indeed - - > we have much in common. While I have a steady stream of spendable coin; I am not buying new bodies if there is no reasonable glass. I guess most people in that range don't pay attention to glass (just look at the reviews) SO - - > Out of the APS-C mirrorless world. And I don't have so much money that I can blindingly buy *new* R glass (at a premium) that essentially duplicates existing EF glass. I have now concluded that I am not in the target market - - sad but true - - - and I will probably bank the camera money this year. I appreciate the sounding board.

Gary; Thanks for the feedback. You are confirming my suspicions that mirrorless just "isn't there yet". I appreciate the feedback. I know about P&S lag. . . currently, I use a G7x II (1" sensor, F1.8 lens) as my P&S. That camera really serves well when I need to have a pocketable camera. Edge distortion is a bit intense; but overall it takes really nice pictures in most cases. As for the Canon APS-C dSLR lenses. . . .the EF-S. . . Well, the truth is I try to ignore these lenses and only buy EF lenses. (no adapters needed!); with the exception of the 10-22/3.5-4.5 which is reasonably fast and until recently had no EF equivalent. Sure. . . .full frame "L" for an APS-C might be overkill, but I always figured that if I ever jumped to full frame; I wouldn't need to buy all new lenses. Didn't figure that the "next gen" mirrorless would use a different mount! I have been shooting Canon for a while. I did go through a prime phase - - - I shot the 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 for a number of years as my day kit. Good stuff! But finally recognized that the F4 zooms were quite good and much more convenient. I am thinking that going back to primes in a mirrorless camera is the "wrong direction". In the interests of full disclosure: My better half also shoots Canon APS-C. She CHOSES EF-S glass because - - weight is a factor; and she is not the discriminating pixel peeper that I am. So therefore, I have shot a bunch of EF-S through the years, since effectively the EF-S gear becomes my "backup equipment" when travelling. EF-S isn't that bad for what it is. . .but when squinting, I do see the quality difference in the glass beyond the physical "this glass is slower" limitations. Enough so that EF-S wouldn't be my first choice for purchases. When I eventually do go mirrorless, I don't have a problem with mounting an adaptor for special occasion lenses (like the 100-400; or a 85/1.8); but for the *everyday lens*, like a 16-35 or 24-105. . . those shouldn't need adaptors. . . . and in a native mount definitely shouldn't have "F6.3" on the long end. . . .(oh. . .and neither should it cost $2300!). Hence my rant above! Have a good day!

Well, yes to everything you said. ***warning*** ***Internet Troll Rant Follows*** **EVF Rant** To me, I am simply not getting the EVF. I am replacing a simple mirror with a screen? That doesn't sound like it improves camera handling. What's the benefit? The only one I read about is that since it gives exposure simulation -> it reduces chimping. After two shots - - I don't need to check exposure again. Focus and composition are other stories. Half the time when I chimp, I am looking for closed eyes. EVF won't show that. The M6 II EVF uses the hotshoe. Removable. I can buy into that. Although - I do like external flash units. I like using the back screen for composition and focusing. I use it on my 80D - - > in a number of cases, it really helps composition; especially for Macro situations. But I have found "live view" laggy compared to using the viewfinder for action situations. It has caused me to miss shots - - -> which is defeating the whole point of the camera system. A key question is if that lagginess is resolved on the new mirrorless cameras. **Lens Rant** Regarding lenses - - - yes. I get it. APS-C should be smaller. Slapping a full frame 16-35/2.8 on the front of a M6 II is madness. So I looked at the EF-M lens lineup. 15-45/3.5-6.3 6.3??? ALL the M zooms are slow. I don't want that. OK. . .in the days of ISO 6400 photography, I don't *need* F2.8; but at least offer a constant F4. With F6.3 on APS-C; maybe the Sony RX100 VII is not as bad as I think. Now, the EF-M 32/1.4 sounds sweet. Need to read more about the quality of the "M" primes. From a cost standpoint - A 32/1.4 on a M6 *together* is still cheaper than 35/1.4-II EF lens. ALTHOUGH - - if a goal is "small, light, agile"; building a prime kit is not the way. (been there. . .) Moving to the "R" system. .. .well. . . simply put: I am priced out of that market.. I could have jumped if they used the EF mount - -> but I am not an "adapter" guy. With "R" lenses generally at $2300 a pop - - > now we are starting to talk real money. Frankly, they lost me when all the "L" lens upgrades seemed to jump $500 a few years back. ***** SO - - where am I going with this venting? Venting is the point. ***** I want to buy into the hype. I have some coin jangling in my pocket. . . . . . . . . . but the bottom line is that the "integrated EOS system" with EF lenses (and a smattering of EF-S for the crop boys) has been fractured into three lens lines as we move to the mirrorless market. Jumping from a crop camera to FF always had an appeal - - -> just plunk down coin for a body and you have arrived. Now it's "Pony up for a whole new system!". Well - - - if I am doing that. . . . Sony has nice new systems too. The "M" system isn't pricey. . but the glass is simply not compelling. Breaking into three lines really compromises the canon sales pitch. I don't even want to buy another EF lens. . . . the universal MARKETING conclusion is the dSLR line is dead. Why buy more into that? **** Ok rant complete. I will spare you all my 1" sensor angst. Wallet going back into my pocket - - - - - - - - - - I'm going out with my rusty old stuff and take some pictures.

Gary; One of the best comments on "mirrorless" vs "DSLR" that I have seen. All the reviews I find on the net ->especially the videos are complete biased rubbish.. I might be inclined to try a mirrorless; but I am balking at using a mirrorless camera with adapters and my existing lenses. Silly - > I know. For me, getting a M6 could be very easy - - > but the EF-M zoom lenses are just too slow. Putting a 24-105/4 with an adapter on a M6 sounds. . . wrong. The RP / R - - -> bit more of a stretch. . and the R lenses are simply. . . isn't a selling point of mirrorless supposed to be smaller and cheaper???? I guess this is why they include the EF adapter with the RP.

I concur with this viewpoint. I have many issues with photography - - -most (if not all) are behind the viewfinder. Having said that. . . having great equipment makes it *easier* to get better shots. I never cease to be amused at struggling to take a lowlight shot with a DSLR and an image stabilized F4.0 lens. . .only to have some yahoo come up beside for two seconds with an iPhone and yell "got it!". Yeah. . . .no. . . they didn't get it. So I am in the same boat. . . I have a pile of EF lenses; and an APS-C body. I like "travel" and "landscape" and "architectural". My view: *The new mirrorless sounds sexy. . .but I read about too many issues. The lenses are crazy expensive. Sure. . . you can do adaptors. . . but won't you feel like you are missing out by not getting the new lenses? Even though they cover the same ranges you probably have now? * I shoot a canon P&S alongside my DSLR - - -> frankly, there is no substitute for a DSLR viewfinder. * I have no doubt mirrorless is the future. Not today. I am *personally* thinking one more DSLR body before I jump to the mirrorless world. Yes. . . lense preinvestment is influencing that decision. * Frankly, weight is not a factor for me. BUT. . .I do notice that carrying around a collection of zooms and a DSLR in a camera bag *all day* on my back really does weigh me down and make me crabby. ESPECIALLY, if I have need for the 100-400. Carry that for two days straight, walking for hours on end - - -and I am ready to chuck it all into the sea. I find that I like to limit myself to three lenses (10-22; 16-35, 24-105), an APS-C body and a P&S for travelling. I leave the 100-400 in the room most days, unless I have special needs (wildlife; airshows). I debate carrying both the 10-22 and 16-35. . .but I really like the 10; and I really like the 16-35 :) ) Weight of the day-bag is one of two reasons I have not jumped on a T/S lens for architectural shots * I occasionally think about the $5000 in camera gear I am walking around with in sketchy neighborhoods at night. . . but I am careful not to tell the other half the actual *replacement value* of the bag. The cost of the T/S lenses is the second reason I have not added one to my bag. . .just puts the value on my back too high when playing tourist. So someone asked for an opinion: In 2019 - - > I would get the 5D-IV. And do get the 11-24/4L with it- - -> going crazy wide should be 1/3 of the reason to go Full Frame (afterall, the 10-22/EF-S won't work on 5D).

<p>Actually, the RATIO really does refer to power. A 1:2 ratio means the second unit is putting out twice the power of the first unit.</p> <p>As for exposure, ALL the exposure math is done by the camera. First, there is a preflash (metering flash). Then, based upon the exposure the camera will command a total output of some output, and the flashes will fire to meet that output, biased by the set firing power ratio. Flash exposure based upon each individual flash is simply not possible, considering that there is only one metering flash and one observer (the camera).</p> <p>In my experience, firing two flashes based upon ratio is as complex as I want to get in casual situations. Even then, figuring out the right way to balance ratios is very much a trial and error affair. Not to mention controlling shadows . . . .Add anything more than two flashes I find that so much trial and error is involved with the ratios and flash placement that you may as well be fireing everything in manual. But the ST-E2 is a great device. . . I have gotten very good results with it.</p>

<p>The top price is $900 for the body... . which is less than the original digital rebel debut price.:)</p> <p>I suspect the AF system is identical to the 70D. As for image quality -> I may well be wrong; but isn't it the same resolution as the 7DII? In which case I would suspect it is the SAME sensor, and therefore the same performance.</p> <p>Not clear to me the future of the XXD line considering the feature set -> But I suspect the XXD bodies will be physically larger -> and that may be enough.</p>

<p>. . .and the third thing was a home theater receiver. Sparks and smoke! Awesome!</p>

<p>LOL - Joe Btfsplk period - I like it. Well.. . . .that probably means that I am going to have a "third" thing break in the near future. . .crup. :(</p> <p>The issue with the 24-105 is definitely intermittent -> first cropped up about 600 frames ago; then reared its head for a bunch of frames over the weekend. I was then able to get about 20+ shots off at a family gathering over the weekend. Hmmm. Yeah -> Will look into fixing over the holiday. I have a long business trip coming up which would be the perfect time to send it in for work. </p> <p>oh. . .and I am going to pick up another nifty fifty. Just deciding what kind of Mic to buy with it :) (want to upgrade something!). The Sigma ART is a bit more money than I want to spend on a non-canon prime at the moment.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.</p> <p>The Sigma Art 50/1.4 is too rich for my blood (for a prime). I am not hearing great endorsements for the 50/1.4; so I will replace my broken 50/1.8 with a shinney new . . . . . . . . . .50/1.8. - - - Hopefully, it will last 20 years like my first one :)</p> <p>The main reason my 24/2.8 fell into disuse is because I didn't see much optical benefit over my 24-105/4L. The image quality seemed similar . . . . . and being only one stop faster wasn't enough of a draw to put it in my bag like I was with the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. I was wondering if the new 24/2.8-IS or 24 STM was significantly better optically. . . . I guess I am not hearing ringing endorsements on this; so I will spend money elsewhere!</p> <p>And thanks for the recommendation on the 40/2.8. . .. . but given that I will buy a 50/1.8 -> the 40/2.8 does not hold any appeal for me. Maybe if it was a 40/1.2. . . .</p>

<p>Wow. Talk about non-ringing endorsements!</p> <p>Anyone playing with the new 24mm lenses? </p>

<p>Yup -> Looking for a gift for myself. I get tired of socks.</p> <p>Yup -> Getting the 24-105/4 fixed seems like the smart money. I have a 70-200/4L (NON-IS); which would pair nicely with a 24-70/4L. However, what I have found is that with the 24-105/4L I don't often actually need to bring the 70-200/4 along. . .. and from a weight/carrying perspective; that is a good thing.</p> <p> </p>

<p>So- Bad week for me. My nifty 50 broke. The last shots I took where great - > but the thing now wants to come apart like a slinky. -> So, it is now permanently out of my bag. I have owned for LITERALLY 20 years; back from my film days; so I think it has served well.</p> <p>In the past, I was a prime fanatic. For a few years, I used a 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 complement. Over time (like 10 years), the 35/2 focusing mechanism died, and I have migrated to the 10-22 and 24-105/4L as my go to Day Kit lenses. The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are often in my bag. . I like them both at F2.2, .but they are under utilized. The 24/2.8 is WAY under utilized. . . . it just doesn't strike me as that much better than the 24-105 at 24mm.<br> I have been considering to freshen things up with the newish 24/2.8-IS USM -> but have been balking at the $500+ price tag. Now -> I see a new plastic-fantastic 24/2.8 and 40/2.8 STM lenses are out. . .so. . .</p> <p>QUESTION: Is the 24/2.8-STM pancake any good? Or will I be disappointed? Should I just pony up for the 24/2.8 IS? (yes -> I am a crop shooter (70D))<br> Followup: I do need to replace my 50. The 50/1.8 and 24/2.8 pancake are cheap enough to buy tomorrow. . . but I wonder if I am better served buying a 50/1.4 instead? <br> The 40/2.8 pancake is cheap. . .but frankly at 40mm I really want something faster than F2.8. </p> <p>I know. . .the obvious answer is to splurge and get the 24/2.8 and 50/1.4; but frankly that combo is a bit too pricey considering the problem I posted in another thread regarding a 24-70/4L option. </p> <p>Thanks for the feedback.</p>

<p>Been a bad week for equipment. My nifty 50 broke almost in two (LITERALLY); but considering I bought this lens in '94 (or so); I am not complaining.<br> Next, my 24-105/4 has been cropping up with good ol' err 01 lately. On one level - I have had this lens for probably since about '06; and I have dragged it EVERYWHERE. What did I think would happen? I think the groovy live view AF of the 70D is wearing it out?On another level -> This is a might expensive lens to replace for a guy who isn't really a photographer.<br> Lately, I pair the 24-105/4 with a 10-22/EF-S on a 70D; and this is my walkabout kit. I occasionally toss the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 in the bag as well if I am feeling artsy and not travelling light. Yes -> I do have flashes and a longer lenses; but the long guns are ALWAYS too big for my day kit.<br> So I am thinking that I might need to do something about the 24-105. Part of me says "send it in for service right now"; Part says "wait till it breaks real good". Another part of me says "Hey -> Any interesting lenses out there?" <br> SO: Here is the question: Should I buy a 24-70/4L-IS. The 24-70/2.8 is simply too expensive for me to justify at $2K. The 24-70/4L, however, is currently well under $1K.<br> Is the 24-70/4L BETTER than the 24-105/4L or is it a step backwards? I would sure miss having the 70-105 range. Should I pair a 24-70/4L with a 100/F2 (not the 2.8 macros) and call it a day? (I am not afraid of primes). Is the 100/F2 a worthy lens for the bag?</p> <p>Note that I shoot cropped bodies.<br> Opinions welcome. Help me spend money :)</p>