I've always had a P&S for walkabout and an SLR for portraits, macros, high-ISO, and high IQ. But the iPhone 4 and 5 have almost made me reconsider carrying a P&S. Unfortunately there's no optical zoom or RAW on iPhones, so I can't quite go there yet.
The other big thing I look for in a P&S is video, because I definitely don't want to carry a larger device dedicated to just video. Up until now the Panasonic LX-* series has served me well, but there have been a lot of interesting cameras released this year and I'm interested in a larger sensor for photos while maintaining good video.
The EOS-M is very interesting, but the LiveView AF speed is certainly limiting on the photography side and in my brief experience the focus hunting in video make that unusable too. But it made me wonder: how do Panasonic cameras have good video without constant AF blurring, but Canon can't seem to figure it out?
I tried the Sony RX-100 too, but it didn't have a dedicated AE-Lock button (an absolute must for me). The EOS-M had better IQ than the RX-100 IMHO, so it's unfortunate Canon missed the mark on AF speed. If they'd gotten it right, they'd be selling a massive amount of EOS-M cameras.
GC5 wrote:
I think Scott's quick review is consistent with everything else I have heard about the M. If someone wants a compact system, I would recommend NEX or m4/3 before the M. Otherwise, a rebel is small enough and is much easier to handle ...
I think its better than a rebel. The rebel is easier to handle but if I am going to take a rebel I am going to take my 5diii with 24-70. If I want it in my pocket - EOSM is better.
The NEx orm4 might be better for focus, but m4 is smaller sensor/4/3 eg not as good in low light and the netiher permits use of my 17-55 go to lens for crop frame.
Not saying you are wrong - just that there are choices that will vary with your style.If your goal is high quality image in low light that fits in your pocket, EOS-m is a good choice.
garydavidjones wrote:
Who the hell wants the non-SLRs? My wife has one--Sony Nex 5.
Lightweight, great for snapshots, not for real photography.
Wow. Nice to know that because of the tool I'm using, I haven't done any real photography for two years. Interesting, since I'm a better photographer now than I was two years ago, and MUCH better than I was 8 years ago when I got my first DSLR. But I guess when I was a newb with a Rebel, then moderately expereienced with a 1Ds Mark II and a bag of L glass, I was doing 'real' photography, while now, since I use exclusively Micro 4/3, I'm just doing 'snapshots.'
Any current m4/3 camera, any Sony NEX camera, any Fuji X camera, and yes, even with the slow AF, any EOS M camera, has better image quality than the majority of DSLRs from just a few years ago. The lenses are good too. Micro 4/3's better lenses are every bit as good as the pro-grade lenses from Canon and Nikon, and I hear wonderful things about the Fuji X lenses. Sony's been struggling a little with high end glass, but it's starting to come.
Jeffrey wrote:
There are few Canon products that are well received on this forum.
Yes, I'm surprised most forum members haven't yet fled to the other side...
Any current m4/3 camera, any Sony NEX camera, any Fuji X camera, and yes, even with the slow AF, any EOS M camera, has better image quality than the majority of DSLRs from just a few years ago. The lenses are good too. Micro 4/3's better lenses are every bit as good as the pro-grade lenses from Canon and Nikon, and I hear wonderful things about the Fuji X lenses. Sony's been struggling a little with high end glass, but it's starting to come.
Well, maybe as good as the worse DSLRs a few years back. A 3 or 4 years back includes the 5D2, 7D, 1Ds3, etc., and can't see an Olympus or Panasonic M4/3 touching those cameras in terms of speed, AF or IQ. I like my Panasonic and Olympus pancakes (I'm an Oly M4/3 shooter) but they are still a bit short of my EF primes in the same range.
RobDickinson wrote:
Its not much bigger than my s95. A full frame version would need a larger body and larger new lens mount and larger lenses.
I'd love a FF digital back kind of thing but I think there would be few buyers.
Time for a reality check. I guess you haven't seen the RX1 from Sony, or the M9 from Leica? They are full frame and way smaller than any DSLR.
However, the M9 is uber expensive, and the RX1 has a fixed lens.
Gochugogi wrote:
Well, maybe as good as the worse DSLRs a few years back. A 3 or 4 years back includes the 5D2, 7D, 1Ds3, etc., and can't see an Olympus or Panasonic M4/3 touching those cameras in terms of speed, AF or IQ. I like my Panasonic and Olympus pancakes (I'm an Oly M4/3 shooter) but they are still a bit short of my EF primes in the same range.
The full frame bodies? No...the 7D? Absolutely. The 60D, 50D, 40D and Rebels? Yup. The OM-D has better IQ than the 7D in essentially every metric, and it has greater dynamic range than any Canon DSLR. Even the 5D III. In speed of operation, they're every bit as good...AF, the Oly is faster for single shot AF, and woefully inadequate for continuous focus.
The pancakes, I agree. However, the 7-14, 35-100 f/2.8, Oly 12/2, PL 25/1.4, Oly 60/2.8 Macro and 75/1.8 are all way up there in IQ. The 75/1.8 might be the best lens overall I've ever owned (and I've owned the 35L, 85L, 135L and 100L Macro).
I'm not saying everyone should go mirrorless...there is a definite need for DSLRs for a lot of people. If you need continuous AF performance, shooting sports, events, etc. Yes, you need to stick with your DSLR. If you need ultra-shallow depth of field with a full frame sensor...yes, stick with your FF DSLR. But saying that mirrorless cameras aren't capable of producing anything but snapshots is ludicrous.
RobDickinson wrote:
Its not much bigger than my s95. A full frame version would need a larger body and larger new lens mount and larger lenses.
I'd love a FF digital back kind of thing but I think there would be few buyers.
Rickuz wrote:
Time for a reality check. I guess you haven't seen the RX1 from Sony, or the M9 from Leica? They are full frame and way smaller than any DSLR.
However, the M9 is uber expensive, and the RX1 has a fixed lens.
Of course I know about them. I've handled and used an M9, and it is not a landscapers toy.
Leica M9 is 16% (19.1 mm) wider and 20% (13.1 mm) taller than Sony NEX-7.
Leica M9 is 14% (5.8 mm) thinner than Sony NEX-7.
Leica M9 [585 g] weights 46% (185 grams) more than Sony NEX-7 [400 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
and it isnt comparative on size.
I havnt used a Sony RX1 and it looks comparatively the same size (ignoring the lens) but it has a fixed lens which usually allows you to make the whole package smaller.
garydavidjones wrote:
Who the hell wants the non-SLRs? My wife has one--Sony Nex 5.
Lightweight, great for snapshots, not for real photography.
I am sure you haven't used your camera for one single shot yet, because if you did you would know for sure that this camera is a serious photo tool. The small mrirorless camera's, including the EOS-M cameras have the future. The M may not be up to the level of the competition, but m4/3 cameras from Olympus and Panasonic and Sony NEX series are already at a level of performance that is more than satisfying for a lot of serious photographers.
Canon was late to the party in mirrorless and decided to target an in between audience for your wife and serious photographers that seems to be a small niche since many of the photographers in that segment already bought an alternative from the competition. The M will find it's way in the bag of a few EOS photographers as well some traditional Powershot G series shooters who like the idea of a compact system camera. Maybe even in your wife's handbag.
The only real bonus I see for this M in comparison to the Sony NEX-es, Olympus and Panasonic 4/3 models is the easy adaptation to an existing Canon system. But many of the photographers who toy with the idea to add an M to their Canon kit will find out that size matters and until Canon doesn't add a compact series of EF-M lenses it is probably a better solution for them to just have a second system based on Sony, NEX or Panasonic. They have all nice compact lenses that fit to this type of system. Sony seems to do less good than Olympus or Panasonic in this respect, but at the same time the Sony NEX system integrates with the D-SLR line just like the EOS-M does with an adapter to it's greater DSLR system. Also Sony NEX is the most populare system to integrate with legacy manual focus lenses and so it seems the NEX system takes the market position where Canon and Nikon should have been with their CSC offerings.
It is a known secret that this EOS-M camera from Canon is not their end of the line, but given their philosophy behind the EOS-M I'm not optimistic for Canon for their position in this market segment. The EOS-M is too much "defensive" offering, while the competition smells their opportunity to build up a market share in the compact system camera that Canon (and Nikon) do not dare to enter with convincing products because they will be cannibalizing their bread and butter business of low end D-SLR sales and high end compacts at the same time. But now that the big two don't cannabalize their own business, the competition will do. The worsening projections for turnover and profit for the next quarterly reports reflect what is happening. And the EOS-M stands as a symbol for what Canon's imaging division problem is at the very moment.
tonywong88 wrote:
Panasonic has been using the micro 4/3 system, compatible with the Olympus m4/3 system, for a few years now.
The GH-2 is a great body but the GH-3 will be even better. No in-body IS like the OM-D but better ergonomics and better video.
I prefer m4/3 over EOS-M simply for the fact that the 2.0 crop of m4/3 allows for a more compact lens system. Putting a huge lens onto a tiny body was already done better (than EOS because of the AF) by the Sony NEX system, and I'm not very convinced about that one either.
I enjoy the m4/3 for the same reason. I have the OM-D and GX-1 + EVF-2 and find both are fun, but the OM-D is the "more serious" work camera since it and it's kit lens are waterproof and the body has IBIS. Neither camera is quite as good as my 5DMK3 or 1DMK3, but there are a lot of times I just want something smaller. I can see leaving the bigger gear at home a lot more now that the m4/3 IQ is so close and the lens selection so large. I just wish m4/3 lenses did not cost as much as L lenses. At least they are 1/3 the size of a similar Canon lens.
Rickuz wrote:
Time for a reality check. I guess you haven't seen the RX1 from Sony, or the M9 from Leica? They are full frame and way smaller than any DSLR.
However, the M9 is uber expensive, and the RX1 has a fixed lens.
Sorry but both are uber expensive. Really, people complain about a Canon for $800 but you think a sony fixed lens FF P&S at $2800+ would sell better? The M9 is totally ridiculous and the lenses are also ridiculous. Sure there is a market but only in the ultra high end users.
I think it is a huge myth that the masses want FF sensors. There is very little that a modern asp-c can't do compared to a FF. People want a sensor that is larger than a cell phone or traditional P&S sensor, but the difference in IQ for a vast majority of users isn't worth the cost.
alfarmer wrote:
I don't see any buzz on this camera on any forums on any photography websites. Is it a stillborn product?
It is not a "Canon-mount DSLR," which is the subject of this forum. (NOTE ADDED 11/22: The point of the preceding sentence was not especially to upbraid the poster for asking here. It was more to point out one probably reason that the topic was getting little discussion in this forum.) It is also not intended to be a particularly high-end product. There is a sense that Canon introduced the low-end model first, and that more capable and interesting bodies in this series may come later.
For some people the current one is probably a fine option.
