mawz wrote:
NX, not NEX. (Frikkin Namespace collisions, could Sony not have picked a name which wasn't only 1 letter different from an already existing product?)


Sorry, forgot about the Samsung NX, that inconsequential also-ran. ;-)

LightShow wrote:
My comment is about the 90% of the market that's not measurebaters, the EOS-M is in the ballpark spec wise, the sensor while not being cutting edge will still produce good images, the lack of EVF & peaking kills it for me(As I said before), but they did get the core specs right, it's compact, 18mm registration(I was worried it would be closer to 25mm), and the sensor is APS-C and not a smaller format(I do wish it was 1.3x or FF).

The next EOS-M(X/S/mkII) could have all the features we want(other than FF).

We'll find out how popular it is in the new year, and I predict it will do good enough for canon to continue with the format.

It will sell because it is made by Canon. If any other manufacturer came out with this camera, it would be dead before it hit the shelves...but enough people buy Canon because it is Canon that this camera will succeed.

chez wrote:
LightShow wrote:
My comment is about the 90% of the market that's not measurebaters, the EOS-M is in the ballpark spec wise, the sensor while not being cutting edge will still produce good images, the lack of EVF & peaking kills it for me(As I said before), but they did get the core specs right, it's compact, 18mm registration(I was worried it would be closer to 25mm), and the sensor is APS-C and not a smaller format(I do wish it was 1.3x or FF).

The next EOS-M(X/S/mkII) could have all the features we want(other than FF).

We'll find out how popular it is in the new year, and I predict it will do good enough for canon to continue with the format.

It will sell because it is made by Canon. If any other manufacturer came out with this camera, it would be dead before it hit the shelves...but enough people buy Canon because it is Canon that this camera will succeed.

Maybe people actually like it and will find it useful. I know, that's a crazy idea but it just might be the case.

chez wrote:
LightShow wrote:
My comment is about the 90% of the market that's not measurebaters, the EOS-M is in the ballpark spec wise, the sensor while not being cutting edge will still produce good images, the lack of EVF & peaking kills it for me(As I said before), but they did get the core specs right, it's compact, 18mm registration(I was worried it would be closer to 25mm), and the sensor is APS-C and not a smaller format(I do wish it was 1.3x or FF).

The next EOS-M(X/S/mkII) could have all the features we want(other than FF).

We'll find out how popular it is in the new year, and I predict it will do good enough for canon to continue with the format.

It will sell because it is made by Canon. If any other manufacturer came out with this camera, it would be dead before it hit the shelves...but enough people buy Canon because it is Canon that this camera will succeed.

I think people only buy the Fuji cameras so they can be wannabe hipsters and old school 'photographers'. That is a giant brick with a single fixed lens and horrible menu system.

chez wrote:
It will sell because it is made by Canon. If any other manufacturer came out with this camera, it would be dead before it hit the shelves...but enough people buy Canon because it is Canon that this camera will succeed.

There will always be people that buy things just because it has a brand name they have had good experiences with, or that the brand does things in a way that seems intuitive(I feel that way about my 1DIII), or how the brand is perceived in the market.

This thread reminds me why I deleted my long reply to this and got another beer instead.

Simply put, there will be ppl (usually Canon users .. or lets say "loyal to Canon) that fancy this camera. And then, there will be rest of population which doesnt, cause there is no good reason to do so. Cause Canon is where m4/3 was 3 years ago (minus EVF and decent controls).

chez wrote:

It will sell because it is made by Canon. If any other manufacturer came out with this camera, it would be dead before it hit the shelves...but enough people buy Canon because it is Canon that this camera will succeed.

It's a bit overpriced for the spec, but I expect it to sell well regardless of the brand name, just as the original NEX-3 and NEX-5 it so resembles did. I also think Canon could have done a much better job, but that would require Canon to actually put some serious resources into developing a competitive APS-C sensor, something they've been content to ignore for the last 3 years.

mawz wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
carstenw wrote:
Erm, how is Canon close? Of price, features and IQ it has none, as far as I can tell. The price is high, the features are few (well, there could be a lot in the menus I suppose, but no EVF, dual wheels, etc.) and the IQ of this by-now older sensor limps behind the Sony sensors. I think we will have to wait for the high-end EOS-M.

Agreed. The 22/2 is certainly a smart move, but, as far as camera bodies go, I don't find it much more appealing than Samsung NX, let alone NEX, m4/3, etc. Granted, I don't own any EOS DSLR lenses, but I wouldn't be interested in using those lenses on the EOS M, anyways. When I had Sony DSLR lenses, I didn't use them on NEX, either.

I dunno, I find the EOS-M LOT more appealing than a NX, because the mount is far more adaptable. I personally wouldn't buy one, but that's for other reasons, I dislike the Soapbar design inherited from the P&S world and I really dislike that 18MP Canon sensor. But if I was looking to get into Mirrorless now, in the sub-$1k body range, the EOS-M would be a strong option (I'd probably still choose the NEX-5N instead, it's a lot better value, but an EOS-M and the 22/2 would be a rather nice little kit).

Yeah, that's why I said "much" more appealing. The EOS M will be better for adapting lenses, but the NX line has a really solid native lens line. Plus, you can't adapt Leica M and Contax G on NX, but you can adapt LTM and SLR lenses, so NX is still pretty adaptable overall. Either way, for adapted lenses, NEX is still the better option.

Mescalamba wrote:
Canon is where m4/3 was 3 years ago (minus EVF and decent controls).
Totally agree, but IMO Canon picked a better sensor size and will have an advantage going forward.

Bigger = better?

IMO the APS-C mirrorless cameras have a real disadvantage in the market, in that their lenses will always be "too big", and the difference in image quality is not something which most people really understand or need. The pancake 22 is obviously an exception, but you cannot build a whole lens lineup of pancakes.

carstenw wrote:
The pancake 22 is obviously an exception, but you cannot build a whole lens lineup of pancakes.

why can't you? i see no reason they (or sony or samsung) can't build a full system up to 135mm (equiv) for aps-c out of pancakes lenses up to normal focal length and no bigger than the 75 summarit on the long end. the question is more whether they feel it's worth it to do. it's true zooms seem to need to be bigger for aps-c, but i look forward to seeing more collapsible designs.

I always hear how M glass is sooooooo BIG!! and it's FF.

It also is manual focus and the system is only small to about 135mm and there aren't any zooms.

So optical properties change for AF glass?]/sarcasm]
The difference is likely the experience within the R&D department at designing compact lenses.

Samsung NX already has a 16, 20 and 30mm pancake, and a 55mm pancake is on the roadmap.

LightShow wrote:
I always hear how M glass is sooooooo BIG!! and it's FF.


No AF, no IS, designed by Leica at a price unacceptable to Canon buyers. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but I am willing to bet that Canon is not going to release a series of AF EF-M lenses as compact as M glass. Canon lenses are typically very bulky, with very few exceptions.

What I'm saying is that the size of the lens has more to do with the choices the designer decided for the lens, and less with the size of the sensor, and if the designer has little or no experience designing RF type glass, odds are it will extend further away from the sensor, then add AF and it's now a big lens, as an example, take the Contax G 45, strip it down to the helicoid, add an AF system and it will become a pancake lens.

carstenw wrote:
No AF, no IS, designed by Leica at a price unacceptable to Canon buyers. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but I am willing to bet that Canon is not going to release a series of AF EF-M lenses as compact as M glass. Canon lenses are typically very bulky, with very few exceptions.

if canon thinks such lenses will sell, than they'll produce them. as douglas pointed out, samsung has already produced a nice line up of good performing pancakes for their aps-c NX system with more to come.

in fact the samsung lenses are pretty much equal to what µ4/3 has offered in the way of pancakes both in size focal length and performance:

µ4/3
14/2.5 (28/5 equivalent)
17/2.8 (34/5.6 equivalent)
20/1.7 (40/3.4 equivalent)

NX
16/2.4 (24/3.5 equivalent)
20/2.8 (30/4 equivalent)
30/2 (45/2.8 equivalent)

both systems have the same number pancake primes with no appreciable difference in size. by all accounts that i've read the performance of the NX lenses matches or exceeds that of the µ4/3 pancakes. the only advantage µ4/3 has here is that they also have a pancake zoom whereas samsung only has small zoom (but it has a real focus ring and zoom ring).

unfortunately samsung's NX system hasn't sold very well compared to µ4/3 or sony (who hasn't bothered to make small lenses). it's possible canon might interpret this as a sign that consumers don't care about small primes (i don't believe this is really the case) and not bother to make any more for the eos-m system. the fact that they made such a nice introductory lens however suggest maybe they don't interpret samsung's poor sales in that manner.

Anyway, in the end we should just put this discussion on ice until at least after Photokina, possibly later. Canon will show their hand sooner or later. So far, it is just one mildly uninteresting camera with one mildly uninteresting zoom and a prime with potential. We need to see in which direction Canon takes this.

carstenw wrote:
So far, it is just one mildly uninteresting camera with one mildly uninteresting zoom and a prime with potential.


And the choice of using all these lenses, some of which people already own and are using with the EOS-M:


Canon EF 14mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 15mm f2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 20mm f2.8 USM
Canon EF 24mm f1.4L USM
Canon EF 24mm f2.8
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM
Canon EF 28mm f2.8
Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM
Canon EF 35mm f2
Canon EF 50mm f1.0L USM
Canon EF 50mm f1.2L USM
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM
Canon EF 50mm f1.8
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II
Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro
Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM
Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x Macro Photo
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
Canon EF 100mm f2 USM
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro
Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 135mm f2L USM
Canon EF 135mm f2.8 Softfocus
Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM
Canon EF 200mm f1.8L USM
Canon EF 200mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 200mm f2.8L II USM
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f4L USM
Canon EF 300mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 400mm f2.8L II USM
Canon EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f4 DO IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM
Canon EF 500mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 500mm f4.5L USM
Canon EF 600mm f4L USM
Canon EF 600mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 1200mm f5.6L USM

Zoom Lenses
Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-35mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM
Canon EF 20-35mm f2.8L
Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 22-55mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 28-70mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II
Canon EF 28-80mm f2.8-4L USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 III USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 IV USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 II
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 III
Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f4-5.6
Canon EF 28-105mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 35-70mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-70mm f3.5-4.5A
Canon EF 35-80mm f4-5.6 PZ
Canon EF 35-80mm f4-5.6
Canon EF 35-80mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 35-80mm f4-5.6 II
Canon EF 35-80mm f4-5.6 III
Canon EF 35-105mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-105mm f4.5-5.6
Canon EF 35-105mm f4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 35-135mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 35-135mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 35-350mm f3.5-5.6L USM
Canon EF 38-76mm f4.5-5.6
Canon EF 50-200mm f3.5-4.5
Canon EF 50-200mm f3.5-4.5L
Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM
Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-210mm f4
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 II
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III USM
Canon EF 80-200mm f2.8L
Canon EF 80-200mm f4.5-5.6
Canon EF 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 90-300mm f4.5-5.6
Canon EF 90-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 100-200mm f4.5A
Canon EF 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 100-300mm f5.6
Canon EF 100-300mm f5.6L
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM