Why don't I see Canon get mentioned more when it comes to

>>3117629
hm, don't know. looks pretty cute, though.

didn't even realize Canon had a mirrorless kek. their marketing department needs to hire some shills or something

>>3117629

>more ergonomic sony

Not really, roughly the same.

>more lenses than Fuji

Not even close, there is one good EF-M lens.

>>3117629
M5 is actually quite a decent piece of kit. Their native/dedicated lens lineup just isn't up to it. Also the the introduction of th eos-m line was a disaster, and those sort of things tend to stain the reputation of the product which is really hard to turn around. Some idiots still think that fuji still can't focus for shit based on some videos they saw on youtube years ago.

>>3117649
Can't I just use the existing APS-C lens line-up from their DSLRs?

>>3117650
i think you need an adapter

>>3117650
With an adapter you can use all canon ef and ef-s lenses to varying results. Though in my opinion that defeats the whole point of a small system camera.

>>3117629
>no dedication to it
>gimped mount preventing the format improving
>canon sensor
>no lenses
>no 3rd party support
>overpriced

Oh boy, I remember when we first stocked the EOS M at the photo-store where I worked at the time. I took one quick look at it and told my boss we wouldn't be able to sell the two(2) cameras we had received.
Nearly two years later he finally managed to get rid of them at 50% off.

Autofocus SUCKED.
It had no native lenses, so you needed the adapter, and that just made the camera feel bulky and unnatural.
The touch-screen menu was pretty shit, and to top it off the price was way higher than the 600D kit+70-300mm or whatever meme camera-bundle was on the market at the time.

>>3117680
to be fair they did patch the AF in a firmware update but it was still not impressive and the camera was still just as expensive and underperforming.

>>3117645
He probably includes the whole EF lens line-up. If you count all fully functional lenses that can be put on a camera, Fuji is indeed behind since no one makes electronic adapters for X-mount.
But if you want to use EF lenses adapted to mirrorless, there's little reason to buy EOS M since Sony does it just as well, but you can also get a full frame sensor, image stabilization and a choice of at least two additional mounts with autofocus.

>>3117650
You can, but the adapter makes it fat, the lenses even more fat, and you might as well get a Rebel instead.

>>3117680
The newer EF-M cameras have improved the AF significantly, so they at least have some value as a light backup camera for a Canon DSLR shooter.

Canon have said they are working on a full frame mirrorless option but so far there has been no hint of when it might appear.

>>3117681
>still just as expensive
They were pretty cheap cameras, even I nearly bought one and I have no interest in mirrorless.

That said the M5 and 6 are much better, as good any any other mirrorless on the market.

>inb4 yah-boo muh dynamic range
There is only a gnat dick's worth of difference and the way you retards employ it, it is nothing more than a crutch for poor exposure and lack of compositional gumption.

>>3117629
no lenses. thats it. its just so idiotic to use the adapter if you want a speedy prime. Why then get the mirrorless? Just buy the fucking 80D.

>>3117629
No decent features and a lackluster lens selection.
Mirrorless are especially interesting for their video functions and the canon system doesnt even have decent magiclantern support.

If Nikon get their shit together and creates a full-frame mirror-less camera that can basically accept all their lenses, with 35mm aesthetics - I will strongly consider it.

>>3117704
>that can basically accept all their lenses
you know thats not possible without welding a fucking tube in front of the mount?

>>3117705
Adapters don't need to be welded onto a mount, anon.

>>3117705
Are you shitting me? It's like the most trivial thing in the world to increase the flange distance? Have you even used an adapted lens on a mirror-less?

>>3117675
>>no dedication to it
They're released like six bodies and multiple lenses.

>>gimped mount preventing the format improving
The fuck you talking about? It's the same dimensions as Sony's. They can go FF whenever they decide to.

>>canon sensor
Yeah...the Canon DPAF sensor with on-chip ADCs and DR equal to many Sonys. (Speaking of the M5 and M6.)

>>no lenses
Not enough lenses, I'll grant that.

>>overpriced
Not really. The thing holding them back is glass. They need to release 3-4 primes like the EF-M 22mm.

>>3117629
No glass, no interesting features and worse connectivity than the competition.

And the first three-four or so released bodies were just shit wgen compared to their competition.
Even if the bodies became more average now, I see no point in buying one of these still.

>>3117704
Disregarding the retards in the thread, I'd love to see a couple of different styles of full frame nikon mirrorless cameras with good features and af system, but their legacy lens system is so convoluted that I don't know how they could get it to work well. Aperture control being mechanical in most lenses and different autofocusing systems... I dunno man.

>>3117727
Well they could make a separate line of mirror-less optimised lenses, or somehow adapt their SLR full-frame lenses to the system. Obviously the film lenses wouldn't be a focal point for buying into the system, only a solid feature. It could for instance have an mechanical to electronic couple for ai and ai lenses, and maybe something to accommodate non-ai lenses.

All it takes is a simple elegant solution, don't fuck with it. Fuji have done a great job, and they've struck a nostalgia chord with a lot of old film shooters, Nikon can do the same.

>>3117716
>>3117707
well thats what i meant. You have to fucking use an adapter which basically blows the whole idea of mirrorless advantage, so why get that instead of the dslr???

>>3117729

Sony does that already.

An adapter with a screw drive for older lenses, and a simpler one for more modern ones.

And Nikon deffinately should try to hit up the nostalgia factor. Fuji has used it to great success and has sold tons of a sub-par product.

>>3117778
DSLRs are old shovelware at this stage, having a mirror makes no more fucking sense.


I have no clue how to make good adaptorless lenses for Nikon, it's up to the Japs to come up with something. It would be nice to see it.

>>3117629
Not a fan of that lens, but olympus body styling is actually really nice

>>3117778
>mirrorless advantage
there's that meme again

>>3117834
Yeah buddy, sony doesn't make such an adapter, some third parties do, none of which work very well with the sub bar products sony makes.

File: D3S_0408-1200.jpg (253KB, 1200x1403px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1200x1403px

>>3118137

They do though. Unless you assume I meant a Nikon one.

The Canon adapters work extremely well with modern bodies. It is limited though since canon wont release its autofocus protocal.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3118148
Nikon to sony, yes. I know these sony-sony-minolta things exist, and I'm glad they do, however it's not what I'd call an elegant solution... I mean look at that horrible mess.

"Extremely well" is bit of a stretch, some lenses work well with some adapters and some bodies, but I've witnessed enough cases of the af just giving up to put me off of using adapted lenses for critical work.

>>3117674
Mirrorless is not about small cameras, it is about lens designs.

>>3118171
I'd be happy with an ef mount ff mirror-less body to avoid an adapter, since I already have according ef lenses.

My desire boils down to the features, neither the body size nor small lenses. Live-preview, zebra, magnifier and so on. Eye-tracking-af should also be possible for ovf cameras, they just require better resolution rgb metering sensors.

>>3117649
I thought some Fuji primes did have shit AF

>>3117680
I've been thinking of modifying an EOS M body for UV, how well does its focus peaking work?

Consider the following: SLT is the endgame design for SLR-type cameras. You get all the advantages of mirrorless constant image analysis, on sensor AF, and EVF, combined with SLR ergonomics and robust PDAF performance. Your camera body is now huge enough to have your IBIS, data processing, and battery needs. The camera is now as bleeding edge and state of the art as anything else, but still satisfying professional demands with respect to build quality and operation speed.

>>3117705
Nikon SD Quattro when?

>>3118161
>I'm glad they do

I wish they didn't.

>>3119215
>put a mirror and mirrorbox into a camera
>still don't get actual optical viewfinder
why bother?

>>3117629
I like the way it looks, but the shutter button looks like a nikon's

>>3119215
>>3119307
I still use my a77ii and a99, love them. Can't wait to upgrade to the a99ii at the next price drop/available used.

If you've never used an SLT camera it's worth trying out. What's the point of an optical viewfinder when the image will look nothing like as you see it? EVFs allow you to see in the dark and with focus peaking/magnification manual focus is absurdly easy. The SLT design gives PDAF speed with CDAF features like eye/face recognition. The SLT cameras also solve the battery life issue.

I wish Sony had/will put more effort into the A-mount system. It would also be nice to get more Sigma lenses

>>3119308
>It would also be nice to get more Sigma lenses
Sony doesn't want you to buy Sigma lenses. You buy what Sony tells you to buy Sunny Cuck-Jim

>>3119330
Sigma used to make plenty of lenses for A-mount before it was abandoned. It's understandable why Sigma didn't release most of their Art series for A-mount.

a7 series should never have existed

>>3119205

They do.

And even the fastest Fuji body still falls below Sony af speeds.

>>3119373
>Sony af
>speeds
>oxymoron

>>3119388

I know, right?

Really says something about how bad Fuji really is.

>>3119394
Not much difference desu, and yes I've used them both. If I had to choose I'd go for and XT2. Fortunately I don't, I have a real camera.

>>3119397
>desu
thefuck?
>thb
thb

t b h

>>3119398
desu

>>3119399
>desu
t b h

cunts

t.triggered