TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

And I have given up waiting for you to read and respond to my response directly below your post. In the event you missed it:

“The comment was concerning EF-M series lenses, not the new R series, but you’ve demonstrated my point pretty well, and I appreciate that. I beleive the poster mentioned a very sizable difference (something like 1/4), and as you’ve just demonstrated, even comparing the newest lenses (which may incorporate lighter materials), the difference of the two you mentioned is approximately 10%, and if you decide to use legacy lenses plus an adapter for MILC bodies, the combination is actually likely heavier. Again, lens size/weight for a given max aperture and FL is determined by the imager format, not DSLR or MILC design”

BTW, the OP has made her decision, so you and the poster that made the ridiculous claim that you’re supporting and that I originally challenged (that MILC lenses are 1/4 the weight of FF) are beating a dead horse. The poster who claimed that MILC lenses were 1/4 the weight was apparently comparing crop lenses to FF. If your contention is that flange distance substantially affects lens weight, then please read the post by userID above concerning retrofocus lenses.

Bill P

Just had another thought. The folks that say that crop sensor/m4/3 is dead are the same as the people that said that "minature" cameras would never replace 4x5 and 2 1/4 cameras for news photographers and the like. Oops! Sure, a Graphic or a Rollie could produce better negs, but there were other factors that came to the top of the stew.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

It all depends on how far one wants to go and what one already has. My 50D is a great camera and when I bought it years 10 years ago it was top of the line. Today, not so much. Sure it's still a great camera but it's not capable of the IQ of a newer camera like 5DSr and doesn't have near the functionality of the 80D.
I don't even know what you mean by saying one can likely learn more with the camera they have; if it is an older camera lacking the features and functionality of a much newer camera, I sincerely doubt it. There's more to it than just shutter, aperture and ISO.
Also, by discouraging people to buy new gear, you are contributing to market and product stagnation. If people don't buy new gear the manufacturers have no incentive to develop new gear. The cost of the product is based on several factors, one of them being sales volume. Fewer are sold, fewer are made, cost of production goes up; not to mention the trickle down effect the lack of sales would have on the economy.

50-1.4

When I said I would testify for myself, I anticipated that you would resort to lying about what I said in order to "win" an argument. And, you have done so. You are too dishonest and emotionally involved to have a discussion with that generates more light than heat, so I will refrain from engaging with your dishonesty.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

All things are never equal. While the lens my show equal aperture and length the results are unlikely to be equal. A lens necessary to get equal results on M 4/3 is not likely to have significantly less weight. Northrup demonstrated this in a video already posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjXSnNMZ0PU go to 7:45



I doubt 50-1.4 will be able to prove it since it is not true.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Lying? dishonesty? Here is the entire transcript of what you posted and my replies plus the post previous to yours that made the 1/4 statement: has

markjay wrote:

Try an M lens !!
Maybe 1/4 the weight of some FF lenses... and the quality is excellent.

TriX wrote:

Same as the weight of the equivalent EF-S (crop) lens that the OP is considering replacing. The lens weight is a function of the sensor size, not whether it is DSLR or mirrorless. Example: Canon EF-M 18-55 STM - 210g, Canon EF-S 18-55 - 200g.

She could achieve the same weight saving over FF by staying with the body she has now. FF lenses (of which she has 4) are indeed heavier, but the majority of Canon’s high performance (and all L series) lenses are FF anyway.

50-1.4 wrote:

Hmmm...
RF 35/1.8 IS Macro - 305gm. EF 35/2 IS - 335gm
RF 24 - 105/4L IS - 700gm. EF 24 - 105/4L IS - 795gm
Hmmm...

TriX wrote:

The comment was concerning EF-M series lenses, not the new R series, but you’ve demonstrated my point pretty well, and I appreciate that. I beleive the poster mentioned a very sizable difference (something like 1/4), and as you’ve just demonstrated, even comparing the newest lenses (which may incorporate lighter materials), the difference is approximately 10%, and if you decide to use legacy lenses plus an adapter for MILC bodies, the combination is actually likely heavier. Again, lens size/weight for a given max aperture and FL is determined by the imager format, not DSLR or MILC design.

50-1.4 wrote:

I'll testify for myself.
All else being equal, a lens designed for mirrorless vs. slr will be lighter.
That is all.

TriX wrote:

Prove it. Post comparative specs for equivalent FL and aperture lenses for the same sensor size for both DSLR and MILC. And while you’re at it, try to think up a hypothesis for why your statement should be true.

50-1.4 wrote:

Done.
Flange distance difference alone is just one reason.

TriX wrote:

Only a factor in wide angle lenses and not necessarily a big weight saver then. I can post a series of equivalent MILC and DSLR lenses that show no difference (and already did comparing equivalent Canon EF-S and EF-M lenses) - please do the same if you can. I repeat: it’s aperture and format (and to a lesse extent material weight) that drive lens size/weight, not DSLR vs MILC. Waiting to be proven wrong with actual examples.

50-1.4 wrote:

Have given up waiting for you to discover the actual examples I posted.

TriX wrote:

And I have given up waiting for you to read and respond to my response directly below your post. In the event you missed it:

“The comment was concerning EF-M series lenses, not the new R series, but you’ve demonstrated my point pretty well, and I appreciate that. I beleive the poster mentioned a very sizable difference (something like 1/4), and as you’ve just demonstrated, even comparing the newest lenses (which may incorporate lighter materials), the difference of the two you mentioned is approximately 10%, and if you decide to use legacy lenses plus an adapter for MILC bodies, the combination is actually likely heavier. Again, lens size/weight for a given max aperture and FL is determined by the imager format, not DSLR or MILC design”

BTW, the OP has made her decision, so you and the poster that made the ridiculous claim that you’re supporting and that I originally challenged (that MILC lenses are 1/4 the weight of FF) are beating a dead horse. The poster who claimed that MILC lenses were 1/4 the weight was apparently comparing crop lenses to FF. If your contention is that flange distance substantially affects lens weight, then please read the post by userID above concerning retrofocus lenses.

You sir, need to read and comprehend more carefully before you resort to insults of that nature. Now I am done, and my apologies to the OP for this stupid argument, but I’m not letting being called a liar go by without a response. Worst ad hominem attack I have seen in my 3 years here - shame. I see that you are new here. While we have regular and sometimes heated disagreements, we do not refer to each other as liars or dishonest, at least until now.

Photocraig

The EOS R the direction I'm looking at if I move from APS-C to Full Frame. Reviews, so far, on the adapters sound good. And this would preserve your lens investment on the EF-S and crop only independent lenses. Meanwhile your EF lenses would translate to the 6DII. And for the "R" you may need two adapters, I'm not sure, for the EF and EF-S lenses. Otherwise the "R" is roughly similar in cost to the 6DII.

Meanwhile, I'm not in a rush to make the change. Given what you tell us, unless you're finding a limit and paying a $$ penalty because you're limiting your print sizes for sale, you should continue to see sales for it as it is. I like your work.

C