deepbluejh wrote:
If you need anything smaller than the EF-M with a 22/2 or 45/2.8 then NO mirrorless will do. The only thing that will fit the bill is a small point and shoot.
Nope. My X100 fits the bill very nicely. I take it on all business trips, cross country skiing and biking without any hassles. I just cannot say the same for this camera with lenses attached.
Monito wrote:
If you have to hold it at arms length, then get better trifocals.
If that's not good enough for you, get a Hoodman and turn it into an electronic viewfinder camera with a very big viewfinder.
Or rather than compromise, just get one of the mirrorless cameras out there that have a nice viewfinder already incorporated into it. Oh...but it does not say Canon on it, right Monito.
chez wrote:
Nope. My X100 fits the bill very nicely. I take it on all business trips, cross country skiing and biking without any hassles. I just cannot say the same for this camera with lenses attached.
The X100 is a MUCH larger camera than the EOS-M. The included pancake lenses are of comparable size to the ones just released by Canon.
My camera needs fall into 3 categories which share one common denominator, image quality. I am agnostic to the technology/brand necessary to satisfy my requirements.
Category 1: Canon 5DM3
Full size, uncompromised performance/handling/ergonomics, my first choice whenever the situation permits (if not for a large commitment to EF glass, I would be equally happy with Nikon).
Category 2: Panasonic FZ150 (soon to be replaced with FZ200)
Full range compact travel zoom for when my 15 pound 5DM3/Sigma 300-800 combination is not a viable options (example kayaking, long distance trekking/climbing, business travel). A light weight integrated lens solution with plenty of reach and some semblance of a DSLR.
Category 3: Canon S100 (soon to be replaced with Sony RX100)
A pocket camera that is with me at all times.
In each category I have selected from among the best in class and I am willing to pay a premium for each camera provided it delivers IQ.
The Canon mirrorless appears to be targeted at entry level photography enthusiasts. While I believe it will deliver extremely good IQ it will not replace my 5DM3 (for obvious reasons) nor my S100 (for obvious reasons). If Canon comes to market with an image stablized 24-600mm M-mount zoom of reasonable size then it will be a candidate to replace the FZ200. As I believe this is unlikely I do not see a place for this camera in my toolkit.
As a recent purchaser of a G1X I have to compare the two in terms of which I'd prefer if they were both available at the time I bought - it would be a hard decision. I'm glad I have the G1X so I don't really have to decide. In the end the G1X does what I need it to do and the 5D# is still king anyway. But ...
The M has a preferable 3:2 aspect ratio sensor, a close focusing f2 35 mm equivalent prime, and the ability to use EF lenses. With the kit zoom the M is still a bit lighter than the G1X. I like that the EF adaptor has a tripod mount because the EF primes I imagine using it with, the 60 macro and 85 f1.8 would require it. Its all live-view photography. I wonder how useable it would be with the 55-250 as a light hiking wildlife camera? DPR says to expect AF through the adaptor to be slow so I doubt it would do even the stated 3 fps with continuous AF. No BIF then What would the IQ of that combo be like?
The G1X immediately gives me a control interface that I'm used to from previous Gs, the certainty of an available underwater housing, and a preferable general range zoom. I actually use the built in flash quite a bit. The swivel LCD is great and closes for better protection. I can't see replacing my 5Ds with the M system, so strictly as a supplement then, I prefer the G1X. Still the small camera with the f2 prime would be fun - as much fun as the 5D with the 40 pancake?
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I think in a few months to a years time the m could be a considered purchase .
there are many times when DSLR kit is too big . ive had Rebel sized stuff before and dont see the slight size reduction (over my current 7D) to be worth it.
But the M would make a decent option .
I actually feel the same way. If Canon were to create a line of good, small primes to work with this body, it might be something worth looking into. Of course, if I'm willing to go that far (i.e. buying lenses too) I'd much rather have an OM-D.
I think it's obvious that for the most, this camera is not for us. Like really not.
The target market will have to decide whether this camera is competitive relative to the competition. Methinks not but as I'm not the target market, I don't think my opinion counts.
In comparison to the OM-D or Nex-7, cameras aimed at people like us, not even close even though the price is.
As usual Canon will probably bring out a bunch of very competent though perhaps unexciting models and more importantly quickly overtake sony on lenses. It will probably end up being like most Canon bodies, somewhat under spec's compared to the competition but competent, easy to find and get hold of and with a good support network.
Monito wrote:
If you have to hold it at arms length, then get better trifocals. If that's not good enough for you, get a Hoodman and turn it into an electronic viewfinder camera with a very big viewfinder.
chez wrote:
Or rather than compromise, just get one of the mirrorless cameras out there that have a nice viewfinder already incorporated into it. Oh...but it does not say Canon on it, right Monito.
So many people want the earth and the moon too and want it dirt cheap, without thinking basics through. The world owes them a living and a dream camera and they will not compromise!
You are not going to get an optical viewfinder in a camera that supports a complete range of 10 mm to 1600 mm (800 x 2) lenses without one of these:
A) Restricting the range of lenses to a small range like 22mm to 55 mm, ala Leica (35mm to 90 mm)
B) No interchangeability: fixed 4x zoom.
C) Non-optical electronic
D) Bulky DSLR format
or
E) micro 4/3 format DSLR ala OM D-5.
It doesn't matter what name is on the camera; the above will apply.
When we met with Canon, reps were careful to note what the EOS M is, and what it isn't. In the US, the company is positioning the EOS M as a video-first camera, designed to be something of a companion tool for videographers and cinematographers much the same way the G1 X is designed for pro shooters who want something smaller than their DSLR. Since it lacks a viewfinder, reps said, it doesn't provide the same still photography experience as a camera like the T4i. Without the controls and ergonomics of a DSLR, it's also not as fast to operate. Canon's not even calling the EOS M a "mirrorless camera," lest buyers be confused into thinking it's a NEX or Micro Four Thirds competitor. Though the camera's clearly capable of the same functionality as a NEX-F3 or an Olympus OM-D E-M5, Canon imagines a different user, one much more focused on video. If you want to step up from a point-and-shoot, reps said, buy a T4i. (http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/23/3176697/canons-eos-m-arrives-a-799-99-aps-c-mirrorless-camera-competitor)
deepbluejh wrote:
So what do you think? Good move by Canon or did they miss the mark? Why?
I guess we'll know in a few years if it is a useful system, there's really no reason to buy it at this point.
I didn't get really excited about micro four thirds until a good, reasonably compact portrait lens came out.
For this type of system, sure you can fit a larger sensor into a small body, but larger sensor means larger lenses, and smaller apertures, so... tradeoffs. Pricing it's hard to compete with micro four thirds when an entry level olympus kit is in the 300 dollar range or below.
When we met with Canon, reps were careful to note what the EOS M is, and what it isn't. In the US, the company is positioning the EOS M as a video-first camera, designed to be something of a companion tool for videographers and cinematographers much the same way the G1 X is designed for pro shooters who want something smaller than their DSLR. Since it lacks a viewfinder, reps said, it doesn't provide the same still photography experience as a camera like the T4i. Without the controls and ergonomics of a DSLR, it's also not as fast to operate. Canon's not even calling the EOS M a "mirrorless camera," lest buyers be confused into thinking it's a NEX or Micro Four Thirds competitor. Though the camera's clearly capable of the same functionality as a NEX-F3 or an Olympus OM-D E-M5, Canon imagines a different user, one much more focused on video. If you want to step up from a point-and-shoot, reps said, buy a T4i. (http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/23/3176697/canons-eos-m-arrives-a-799-99-aps-c-mirrorless-camera-competitor)
Personally this camera raises my interest. Cost is on the high side but...Let me try to explain:
* In my case I usually shoot with a 7D+several lenses including wide (10-22) and telephoto (100-400) since my interest is landscape/wildlife. I kept my 40D as a back up or for my wife to use (including the purchase of the 15-85).
* Currently I never use the 40D. I am happy with that as it means that 7D haven't failed on me but it is heavy to carry (for instance, on my last camping trip in Alaska, I had to pay some $ fee for overweight with the air taxi guy). On top of that my wife prefer a PoS instead of using the 40D + 15-85.
As a result, I wonder if I can sell the 40D + 15-85 and go with this E-M5 instead. She will be happy with the size and I would love the small size to carry it as a back up as (with the EF adapter). If she needs to do a specific shot, she can use my lens when needed...
From my reading, there is no flash included in North America. It's sold separately for $150. The Kit only includes body with 22 mm lens.
Also from previews, the AF is slow and for me, that's the biggest downfall for all P&S and some Mirrorless cameras.
Otherwise it has all that I need from a small camera. I wish Nikon had gone this route.
The average mom and pops will just use their cell phone, or at most a compact P&S. How do you think they will figure out how to change lenses?
goosemang wrote:
i think it really does make sense, despite the things i wish it had. it probably appeals to a range of folks:
your average mom and pop can now take photographs/video with APS-C image quality in what is essentially a no brain point & shoot package. these are the folks who wouldn't carry a rebel, and even if they did they wouldn't want to learn how to use it.
I don't have any real complaints about the specs of the camera, it is just what I had been hoping for from Canon for several years...a camera with an APS-C sensor in a nice small package I could travel with that would give me the option to use a practically any lens. Unfortunately Sony got there first. I'm already well invested into the NEX system as my mirrorless option. The option of using EF mount lenses is nice on the Canon, but I already do that on the NEX with the Conurus adapter. And since the only Canon lenses I use on the Sony are the TS-Es, I don't really miss the autofocus capability. And, I get to use the fantastic Sony sensor.
I still might have considered picking up the EOS-M, but at its current price I just can't think of how it possibly would make sense.
+ EF compatibility : perfect backup on travel
+ Size
+ Sensor size
- Lack of flash for casual use (night out, fill for sun in the back).
- Lack of wireless connectivity with smartphone
- Lack of integrated GPS - this one I just cannot understand why canon keeps insisting on not having a built in GPS
deepbluejh wrote:
Canon doesn't seem to be interested in chasing low-profit niche areas of the market. An M9 is $7000. The Canon version might be half that... and people would still whine about it and not buy the thing.
A full frame mirrorless Canon with the properties shown would sell for $3000. It would sell likely better than the 5D III......
In the end the G1X does what I need it to do and the 5D# is still king anyway. But ...
What would the IQ of that combo be like?
