[uofmtiger]

Yeah, my main issue with it is the current lack of EF-M lenses, when compared to the numerous lenses for micro four thirds. The 50 & 85 f1.8s would still be in the right size range, but I would just use the FF DSLR if I was carrying something bigger. I still may get one down the road, but I may wait to see if they continue supporting the format.

Is the autofocus as bad as I have been reading? I heard they did a firmware update, but I haven't heard if it fixed this (supposed) issue.

 

[Jon L]

Is the autofocus as bad as I have been reading? I heard they did a firmware update, but I haven't heard if it fixed this (supposed) issue.

 
Yeah, I wish it had an EF-M 35 or 50 fast lens, but then again, many people have a Canon nifty fity or 35 f/2 to use which are pretty light.  I unfortunatley sold off my nifty fitty and 50 f/1.4, leaving me with the large 50L 

 
The firmware is mainly meant to fix the AF speed, and I would say it does a great job.  Unless you are shooting fast-moving sports, I don't imagine you will find AF speed to be the limiting factor.  See video below:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbGLFuWRVY

 

[uofmtiger]

Yeah, I wish it had an EF-M 35 or 50 fast lens, but then again, many people have a Canon nifty fity or 35 f/2 to use which are pretty light.  I unfortunatley sold off my nifty fitty and 50 f/1.4, leaving me with the large 50L 

The firmware is mainly meant to fix the AF speed, and I would say it does a great job.  Unless you are shooting fast-moving sports, I don't imagine you will find AF speed to be the limiting factor.  See video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbGLFuWRVY

Thanks for the video. It is definitely a lot faster. I am going to wait to see if the new EOS M, that is rumored to be out before year end, has more lens support. To me, that is the main weakness in the format now that AF is fixed. Like you mentioned, there are some regular lenses that are small and work with it, but if they could add just a few more it would show more commitment to the format. I do plan to keep am eye on it, but this next year will tell me whether I should commit more fully to micro four thirds, when I want I carry a small camera, or whether I should switch over to EOS M. Personally, I would prefer EOS M since I could get double use (with autofocus) out of my Canon Lenses.

 

[MadCow]

If the new EOS M is equipped with the 70D's sensor, it would bring it back in line with the competition in regards to AF speed, and also give it an edge in AF tracking.
 
However, I am also curious about the growing rumors of Sony's fullframe NEX, that's going to be another big thing to look forward to, if true.

 

[Jon L]

However, I am also curious about the growing rumors of Sony's fullframe NEX, that's going to be another big thing to look forward to, if true.

 
The big issue is the estimated body-only price of $2800 or so, with each Zeiss prime in $1500 range, so the body + 2 lens will run you $5800 

  I just don't see how the current NEX E-mount will support full-frame sensor, which means one will be limited to the expensive NEX-FF mount lenses Sony/Zeiss offers.  

 

[Cat Face]

As far as not-huge FF bodies are concerned, I would look no further than Canon EOS 6D. Smaller body than EOS 5D Mark III, with slightly better IQ at high ISO sensitivities, for nearly half the price. Sounds really delicious for under $2000. I'm getting one the second I get a job, unless they release something absolutely revolutionary soon (to beat 5D mkIII already is better than I could've ever imagined from a budget FF body)

 

[uofmtiger]

The main issue is that most of these smaller cameras still use large lenses.  Personally, I have no issue carrying a typical FF camera, but the lenses start to get really heavy and take up a lot of space when you carry several of them.  I don't feel that the Rebel or other small cameras that use heavy lenses like the 100-400mm compare with the micro four thirds that use a 100-300 ( 2x) that weigh nothing in comparison.  EOS M really needs more lenses for it fit that same need.
 
The idea is that the full package needs to be small, not just clipping off 7 or so ounces for the body.

 

[MadCow]

   
The big issue is the estimated body-only price of $2800 or so, with each Zeiss prime in $1500 range, so the body + 2 lens will run you $5800 

  I just don't see how the current NEX E-mount will support full-frame sensor, which means one will be limited to the expensive NEX-FF mount lenses Sony/Zeiss offers.

Yeah, initial entry and early adopter price can be stiff. However, if it turns out that they put a really good sensor in the body, then when someone eventually makes an M-mount adapter I am already covered in the 35/50/75 range.

 

[BoyFreak]

Well there is suppose to be a EF to E mount full frame adapter so that will make the transition for most of us with EF & EF-S lenses to the sony FF mirrorless camera a little less painful. 
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/mxphoto-working-on-a-ef-to-e-mount-full-frame-adapter/

 

[uofmtiger]

  Well there is suppose to be a EF to E mount full frame adapter so that will make the transition for most of us with EF & EF-S lenses to the sony FF mirrorless camera a little less painful.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/mxphoto-working-on-a-ef-to-e-mount-full-frame-adapter/

 
Do any of them have autofocus?  That is the main issue with the micro four thirds adapters.

 

[BoyFreak]

Sounds like there is some electronics in the adapter - but cannot be completely sure how much control / feedback there is from this. 

 

[Jon L]

Each time I use an adapter, I hate them more, leading me to not use them eventually.  
Rather than EF to E adapter, I'd much rather see Sony/Zeiss make NEX mount 35 f/1.4 lens instead of the 35 f/2.8(!) that's coming.  An expensive slow 35 mm prime.. Argg.

 

[musubi1000]

The Zeiss/Sony 24 is cool.

 

[Yazen]

Any reason I should return the brand new D5100 kit I got new at target for $375 after tax?

My other camera is the sx230 hs with chdk.

t3i is $450, body only afaik.

does a novice like me go for the d5100 or settle for the PS?

I hate the kit lens, and the autofocus speed is poor compared to my PS.

I use both in manual and auto depending on scenario.

Image quality is obviously better, but my Nokia 808 I returned seemed to crop nicer.

Not sure to spend extra to look at the canon spectrum, invest in some $$$ glass, or return the damn thing lol

 

[Yazen]

  very interesting, and educative. I liked it a lot. I shall get the book

Don't forget to check out the sequel, 4.png