I've Max'd out my T2i... Looking to upgrade to?

[beagle100]

How much n your Canon M5 APS-C sensor mirrorless, compared to the 100-400mm I would use on my 1600D?

LOL!
obviously you don't (yet) have a mirrorless camera !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

ever seen a wide mirrorless"pancake" lens?
(hint: it's science)

How about a 35mm SLR/d-slr "pancake" lens from Nikon that measures 0.7 inches long, and 2.5 inches around, or 17mm x 63mm. Nikon 45mm f/2.8 P

Here's a flatbed scan of my MIRROR-camera pancake semi-wide...a very sharp lens...shown with its 52mm Nikon lens cap, and its special "bowl-style" thread-in lens hood:

Or how about a MIRROR-system pancake wide-angle...shown on a huge mirrorless system lens adapter here ....Lens Review–Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series-E

But, again, look at the actual, common, modern, AF mirrorless lenses like the 2-pound Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 lens: BIGGER, and heavier, than a comparably-spec'd mirror-system lens.

What about a MIRROR-system wide-angle pancake lens from Olympus, their 28mm f/2.8 Auto-Zuiko W

shown with a Olympus OM-to-Canon EF lens adapter on my Canon 5D...

 

[beagle100]

ever seen a wide mirrorless"pancake" lens?
(hint: it's science)

How about a 35mm SLR/d-slr "pancake" lens from Nikon that measures 0.7 inches long, and 2.5 inches around, or 17mm x 63mm.

What about a MIRROR-system wide-angle pancake lens from Olympus, their 28mm f/2.8 Auto-Zuiko W[ shown with a Olympus O.

getting closer ... but Nikon has apparently abandoned their current mirrorless cameras

the Canon 22mm f/2 pancake is ....... n i c e
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

 

[Braineack]

Your logical fallacies are telling

 

[beagle100]

Your logical fallacies are telling

the obviously logically tellingly ... it's "scientific" !!!!

"compared with DSLR cameras, mirrorless cameras can place the lens mount closer to the imaging sensor, giving a shorter register distance. A shorter register distance means that wide angle lenses can be constructed simpler. With a long register distance, typically for a DSLR camera, you need a complicated retrofocal optical design to make wide angle lenses. With a shorter distance, the lens design becomes simpler, and you can make smaller, lighter, and less expensive wide angle lenses"

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


'
it's about the "wide"

 

[Derrel]

Canon has a neat 24mm EF-S pancake for their mirror-using d-slr line...and the lens is quite affordable. And Canon has a neat 45mm f/2.8 pancake also. Again, for mirror-using cameras. there is NO issue making small, short focal length lenses smaller and lighter by using a mirrorless camera design. But...longer focal length lenses can NOT be "miniaturized" any more than they already have been using modern optical design methods and modern high refractive index glass. A 300mm f/2.8 lens for Olympus mirrorless and a 300mm f/2.8 lens for a Nikon APS-C is basically the same weight and size and length. Only thing is, the Nikon has a bigger, better sensor, better low-light performance, better High-ISO perrformance, AND the option to be used on an APS-C body AND ALSO to be used on an ever-better-performing, full-frame sensor body...depending on the need of the shooter or the sport or event or shooting scenario. Buy a miror-using Nikon camera, and you can use your lenses on APS-C bodies and/or full-frame bodies. ALL Nikon FX Cameras can mount and use Nikkor lenses...Nikkor lenses work on APS-C cameras and on FX cameras: lenses with dual-format capability. Mirrorless is mostly a one-format, tony-sensor game for the most part, with the exception of Leica and Sony.

Speaking of HUGE lenses....look at the sheer HUGE size and weigtht of the new Leica SL pro-cam's lens set for mirrorless--big, herking lenses....huh...whaddaya' know....the smaller,lighter nonsense has once again, proven to be a cannard. (Cannard = a lie; a falsehood; a falsehood promoted as a truth.)

Leica-SL_Lens_Comparison-768x588.jpg

LOOK at the HUGE size of the Leica 24-90mm and the Leica SL's 90-280mm lenses. Fricking MASSIVE! Mirrorless lenses are smaller and lighter? Ummmm. NO.

Leica SL (Typ 601) Review: A Professional Mirrorless Camera | Red Dot Forum

Witness the sheer size and weight of Sony's 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for mirrorless--it's FRICKING HUGE. And heavy. And expensive. Same with 100-400 lenses for mirrorless...NOT small, NOT light, NOT inexpensive...$1,699 for the new Fuji 100-400.

It is easy to quote a few lines of text in a casual, offhand manner, but when you actually look at the totality of the lens offerings for mirrorless cameras, what happens is that the longer-length telephotos, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, and the 85mm high speed lenses are just as large, just as heavy, just as expensive, as the Canon and Nikon mirror-using d-slr systems' counterpart lenses.

Science. The idea that mirrorless lenses are ALL smaller and lighter than equivalent mirror-using d-slr lenses is total B.S. Look at Braineack's comparison above...the Sony 24-70mm is larger and heavier than the 24-70 Tamron VC lens...l_a_r_g_e_r and h_e_a_v_i_ e_r.

 

[beagle100]

Canon has a neat 24mm EF-S pancake for their mirror-using d-slr line...and the lens is quite affordable. And Canon has a neat 45mm f/2.8 pancake also.
e_r.

finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"
thank you Dr. Spock
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

"compared with DSLR cameras, mirrorless cameras can place the lens mount closer to the imaging sensor, giving a shorter register distance. A shorter register distance means that wide angle lenses can be constructed simpler. With a long register distance, typically for a DSLR camera, you need a complicated retrofocal optical design to make wide angle lenses. With a shorter distance, the lens design becomes simpler, and you can make smaller, lighter, and less expensive wide angle lenses."

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

but what about the flippin mirror ?

 

[Derrel]

No need for you to be a wiseacre simply because I just refuted your cannard.

Perhaps the OP ought to buy some new lenses for his Canon T2i, and see if he really has "maxed out" the camera. Good lenses can really improve one's photographic results, and many people are aware that buying a new lens can stimulate creativity, can stimulate interest in getting out and making photographs, etc.. Buying a new lens is a time-honored way to get one's self out of a photography funk.

Small-sized lenses. Normal-sized lenses. Large-sized lenses.

One of the things Zeiss did decades ago was to design an entire series of lenses, and to allow each lens design to be as large as was necessary for maximum lens performance. MANY of the BEST-performing lenses are large, because a large lens element is easier to grind to an ultra-high degree of precision; miniaturizing lenses makes the manufacturing process more-difficult, and makes even the slightest 0.0003-inch error in grind radius into a big issue.

Ever wondered why the Sigma 35mm and 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 ART lenses are HUGE lenses? Ever wondered why the Zeis OTUS series are all HUGE lenses?

You want smaller, lower-performing lenses? Plenty of them out there for mirrorless systems.

 

[beagle100]

No need for you to be a wiseacre simpl

You want smaller, lower-performing lenses? Plenty of them out there for mirrorless systems.

Thank you Mr. large-size "Leica" Spock
(obviously not a mirrorless camera user)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

"compared with DSLR cameras, mirrorless cameras can place the lens mount closer to the imaging sensor, giving a shorter register distance. A shorter register distance means that wide angle lenses can be constructed simpler. With a long register distance, typically for a DSLR camera, you need a complicated retrofocal optical design to make wide angle lenses. With a shorter distance, the lens design becomes simpler, and you can make smaller, lighter, and less expensive wide angle lenses."


Untitled

 

[William_Doyle]

Thanks' everyone for your responses. I do have a fairly local shop that rents everything pro that one could need. One of my friends rents a f2.8 70-200 from them when she needs it. I'm definitely leaning towards the 7D mII. I prefer shooting in manual 95% of the time. My new frontier is going to be learning Photoshop / Lightroom. I can get the CC version pretty cheap as a college instructor. In the old days, I spent a good deal of time in a darkroom dodging and masking. I understand the layers in PS, and the brushing selective areas concept I get. Hopefully it won't be a huge learning curve.

Lots of good and free tutorials out there. Photoshop Essentials is a good site for that. Recently Scott Kelby came out with a book "How do I do that in PhotoShop" with tips and tricks for PhotoShop, I found it to be very helpful. The learning never really stops, Photography is just too competitive and their are too many good photographers out there so, you need to keep learning new things. In general, not you specifically. LoL

 

[Braineack]

finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"

I appreciate you put quotes around debate.

but what about the flippin mirror ?

Here, I'll expose another one of your fallacies:

What about the freakin' flippin' mirror?! We are "debating" lens sizes. The premise was: as soon as you buy a real lens for a mirrorless, it's just a big, bulky, and heavy...

you've "debated" this with strawmen and attacks; much like a child who didn't have any basic education would.

Not only do you yourself use big, bulky, and heavy lenses on your own mirrorless (your flickr is full of examples), but Derrel and I have also provided a few examples where the lens for a mirrorless is just as big/heavy, if not bigger/heavier than a DSLR equivalent.

The distance from mount to sensor is only one argument for your case that you have actually brought to the table. And while yes, that's true, it's still just one small point. There's still the whole problem with N = f/D -- especially when comparing a aps-c mirrorless and dlsr. Obviously when you reduce D things get smaller overall, but what happens when D is the same for both the mirrorless and the DSLR?

Of course there are advantages with mirrorless, especially when we move the stabilization from the lens into the body, and move the sensor closer to the rear element, and use teeny tiny sensors.

and sure, the 22mm f/2 is a nice little small lens, but is the EF-M 55-200? at 2.5x3.5" and half a pound you're not putting that in your pocket. It's still going to require a bag -- just as a Nikon DSLR user with their 2.7x3.1" half pound 55-200mm lens would...


if we were actually "debating" the body size, then yes, most of size of the DLSR body is used up to make space for the flippin' mirror. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing -- some of these tiny mirrorless bodies are incredibly difficult to wield and put all the weight in your fingers; not your palm.

 

[beagle100]

finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"

I appreciate you put quotes around debate.

but what about the flippin mirror ?

use teeny tiny sensors.
and sure, the 22mm f/2 is a nice little small lens,necessarily see this as a bad thing -- some of these tiny mirrorless bodies are incredibly difficult to wield and put all the weight in your fingers; not your palm.

all those freakin' small mirrorless cameras !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless