Dan writes, "In reference to the post I quoted above, I'm not so sure that these cameras will necessarily have to be that much larger, and there are quite a few folks who would be happy to have them be small - especially when they use them as adjuncts or alternatives to larger gear. I do wonder if they may decide to reduce or simplify the control systems as they evolve these designs, since the point about operating very small controls makes some sense."
I meant for certain pro shooters hand holding great white telephoto optics and large aperture zooms. You really need something substantial to hang on to, especially in cold weather when wearing gloves. I think for most casual shooters the wee form factor will be preferred as they mainly use a small zoom or pancake and don't access controls much other than the shutter button. I compromised on controls, size and weight when bought the E-P3 and pancakes so I could leave it in my messenger bag 24/7 without dinging my shoulder. So I grin and bear the microscopic wheels and buttons, tiny grip and awkward menus. Still a lot better than using my S90 or iPhone...
One oddity about small cameras is they encourage me to use my tripod more. Even with sensor IS I get a lot more blurred images compared to using a heavy DSLR. Those tiny things tend to bob up and down a lot more and even a light breeze can mess up an image I'd never miss with my 5D2/7D..
The M is a crossover in several ways. It belongs here and the Alt forum. Since it mounts and functions with EF lenses, it belongs here. Since it is also mirrorless and soon adapters will be available for off-brand lenses, it belongs in Alt. I don't see the problem being in both forums.
Rob -- I want to thank you for exploring this camera, and the others you bring to the discussion here.
It's obvious that the Canon forum doesn't overall have interest in the M, or the G1X, or video for that matter! But these are topics worth discussing here as long as Canon has a foot in them. I applaud Canon for making these imaging tools -- it makes for a richer experience.
thw2 wrote:
I don't mind not having pop-up flash, OVF or EVF. But I mind slow AF. There is NO WAY I will get a camera with slow AF. Even the G15 has much faster AF. Sigh...
For some things it will be OK, but clearly for others it will be a deal-breaker. But no camera is perfect for all things and all people - every camera is the embodiment of compromises of some sort. :-)
Gochugogi wrote:
However, ILC cameras will need to be physically much larger to replace DSLRs among most pro and serious shooters. I carry an Oly E-P3 everyday to work because it is tiny and light. However--although AF is very fast--using the tiny buttons and wheels is very slow and frustrating compared to my 5D2/7D. It's also so small it's difficult to hold steady and balance even a moderately sized zoom. Of course the hassle is worth it as I can take it into concerts and similar venues I get turned away from with my DSLR. And that Panasonic 45-200 zoom (90-400 equivalent) tucks into my coat pocket with barely a bulge......Show more →
The GH-3 will be much more to your liking, I think. It's a much more substantial body than the ones before it. I fooled around with the prototype last month and it felt much more comfortable to hold and use than the OMD E-5 I tried and my GH-2.
spdntrxi wrote:
you know how many soccer mom's I see carrying 5d mkII and III's.. alot. No popup flash on those. Would I want those features they left out ? Honestly I would not mind, but it's a great little cam without the built in flash and the EVF.
On a side note the 90ex flash is so cute.. I'm afraid I will lose it.
You can't really compare a DSLR to a mirrorless though. For whatever reason, those ladies picked a DSLR, and a full frame one at that. If they were looking for a mirrorless and found out that a Sony model has pop up while the M doesn't, chances are they'll pick the Sony one, unless they're on a budget and Canon is cheaper than Sony.
The average non-enthusiast consumers don't go to DPreview to check their sample gallery and compare images at different ISO, they don't know dynamic range or noise. They rely on a family or a friend or the sales guy at the shop to give them a recommendation. The only other way for them to pick a camera is to tick off the feature list as well as brand reputation.
tonywong88 wrote:
The GH-3 will be much more to your liking, I think. It's a much more substantial body than the ones before it. I fooled around with the prototype last month and it felt much more comfortable to hold and use than the OMD E-5 I tried and my GH-2.
Haven't seen the GH-3 yet but have heard good things about it. The Olympus OM felt really good, especially with the grip/battery pack. Of course, with flash, grip and a fast zoom it's nipping at at DSLR territory so I'm happy using my 7D/5D2 and E-P3 for point 'n shoot/messenger bag duty.
Came for the EOS-M, stayed for the cat fight. Seriously, guys. 6 pages of definition of SLR, "IQ exactly same as PS" trolling, and "real photographers don't use mirrorless" trolling. You just can't make it up.
Mirrorless is the future. I was reminded of that just recently when I acquired a 5DIII and had to calibrate all my lenses to it. What a chore, and something I'll probably have to do a few years down the line when the tolerances start drifting. It's not there yet in some areas but it's already clearly pointing the way forward. Japan in particular and Asia in general are ahead of the curve in terms of adoption rate, while we here in the U.S. are way behind.
In essence don't judge mirrorless by the EOS-M, because it's a pretty poor ambassador for the mirrorless concept. Olympus and Panasonic and to a lesser extent Sony are all doing a much better job right now, but they've all had a few years head start so let's wait a couple years and see where we are on the Canon side.
n0b0 wrote:
You can't really compare a DSLR to a mirrorless though.
Yet.
This is a bit like saying you can't compare a rangefinder (e.g. - Leica M series) to a DSLR. You certainly can, and while your choice or my choice might go one way or the other depending upon our preferences, subjects, and shooting conditions, there are those who do and who have compared such options and chosen the non-DSLR cameras.
Functionally, I think that the mirrorless bodies have the potential to be extremely useful in situations somewhat like those in which photographers might have chosen (or might still chose) to use a rangefinder body rather than a DSLR. For some people in some situations, there are already a few mirrorless options that might persuade them to leave the DSLR at home.
Two caveats on this:
First, notice that I wrote "potential" - this category is still new enough and it is still growing out of its P&S roots that we have not yet seen the best that come from mirrorless designs.
Second, notice that I wrote "some" regarding the situations and photographers for whom these cameras may provide a compelling choice.
n0b0 wrote:
The average non-enthusiast consumers don't go to DPreview to check their sample gallery and compare images at different ISO, they don't know dynamic range or noise. They rely on a family or a friend or the sales guy at the shop to give them a recommendation. The only other way for them to pick a camera is to tick off the feature list as well as brand reputation.
Very true. And that may also be part of the answer to the next post that I quoted below. Canon - regardless of what some forum critics here may believe - has one of the best brand reputations among the buyers you mention, and perhaps the best reputation.
n0b0 wrote:
It's too bad that with the EOS M, Canon seems to only be dragging its feet towards the future instead of running towards it.
I can sort of see why you wrote that. In this forum there are certainly a lot of us who probably won't get the current EOS-M, instead waiting to see what Canon does with those predicted higher-end, more capable versions of this design in the future. However, Canon frequently introduces certain new features in models that are not at the high end - think of very high-density sensors, for example - and only later migrates those technologies to the high end. And here, too, I suspect that Canon may have realized that there were/are dangers in trying to create a break-out product in a niche that already has a bunch of unusual and special cameras. Since they are, arguably, behind other manufacturers, they may well have decided to make their first attempt in a market segment in which they could sell for a bit less and get more sales compared to introducing a high-end model that would necessarily be a lot more expensive and probably sell fewer copies.
Finally, and not directed at any particular post but at the discussion in general, it is important to keep in mind that camera buyers - even high end camera buyers - are not a unified group among whom all features and designs are equally valued. Because a 5D2 works very, very well for me in much of my work, it does not follow that the 1Dx is not a better choice for someone with different needs. The same holds true for the mirrorless/DSLR question. Because many of use are well-adapted to (D)SLR photography and have come to expect cameras to work that way, it does not follow that all good photography requires these cameras, nor that other designs both old (say view cameras) or new (small mirrorless bodies with electronic displays) will not be right or even better for others.
In DSLR market, maybe Canon is the more obvious choice for many people but in the consumer market, I think Canon doesn't really stand that much taller than other brands. It's especially true in mirrorless market since they're a latecomer. Sony is the more known brand.
That leaves feature list to tick off. In this regard, the EOS M is behind than, for example, the cheaper Sony NEX F3 with its tilting LCD and pop up flash. I think even the average MP obsessed consumers can sacrifice 2MP for those two extra features. And if they want to get fancy, they can also buy an optional EVF for the Sony.
Don't forget, these people are probably happy with only a single zoom kit lens, maybe two zooms if they also want longer reach. That makes the EF adaptor irrelevant. Only Canon DSLR owners would see that as an incentive, but then the lack of features also means that only a very small percentage of Canon DSLR owners would be interested in this EOS M.
Now, if there is a full frame mirrorless, even with a crappy AF, it could still potentially attract landscape shooters who would mostly shoot on a tripod with manual focus. But then again, I don't see it happening since Canon would probably prefer them to buy a DSLR instead.
n0b0 wrote:
Now, if there is a full frame mirrorless, even with a crappy AF, it could still potentially attract landscape shooters who would mostly shoot on a tripod with manual focus. But then again, I don't see it happening since Canon would probably prefer them to buy a DSLR instead.
Logically, I'm slightly sympathetic to this point of view. I almost always shoot in live view when I do landscape from the tripod. (Though I almost always prefer to do initial composition through the viewfinder.)
But I really don't think that this is going to be the first place where mirrorless cameras will have serious market penetration, nor do I think that Canon or any other mass-market company would find it profitable (at least not for a long time) to produce a speciality landscape camera such as this.
The place this is most likely be an initial success, I think, is in much smaller (no reflex system!) cameras that can use smaller lenses and which could be rough replacements for rangefinders. There is a high-end market for such cameras, but I think that from a marketing perspective there is probably more of a "serious prosumer" market for them at this point.
Photography--well camera ownership--seems to foster an odd sort of quasi-religion or tribalism where peeps think for example Nikon is clearly superior and you're crazy or dumb not to think the same as them. The problem with this attitude is we are not all the same and have different needs and tastes. One man's brilliant solution is another's failure. The ILC is an emerging market and I suspect Dan is exactly right: the ILC is both an upscale replacement for the rangefinder (Leica, Fuji, etc). and a prosumer camera. I can't see it as "the future" but certainly is part of the future.
For me the ILC is probably a little closer to a crude rangefinder. I prefer using small primes and mainly use the VF-1 (brightline optical finder) on my E-P3. The E-P3 LCD is actually better than than those on my 5D2, 7D and 60D but, still, it's a PITA to compose at arm's length. Oddly Olympus allows LCD color calibration and can compensate the display for ambient WB.
senzazn12 wrote:
Can you use third party lenses on the eos-m?
There is an EOS adapter so you could use EF mount optics from Tamron, Sigma and others. I don't know for sure, but I assume any adapter that fits the EF mount could be used with the EOS adapter. But an adapter screwed into an adapter is bound to be awkward and front heavy.
senzazn12 wrote:
Can you use third party lenses on the eos-m?
Yes you can, ebay already has some EOS-M adapter to number of third party lenses. Or get the EF adapter then stack with EOS to XXX lens adapters (which I did).
gdanmitchell wrote:
Logically, I'm slightly sympathetic to this point of view. I almost always shoot in live view when I do landscape from the tripod. (Though I almost always prefer to do initial composition through the viewfinder.)
But I really don't think that this is going to be the first place where mirrorless cameras will have serious market penetration, nor do I think that Canon or any other mass-market company would find it profitable (at least not for a long time) to produce a speciality landscape camera such as this.
The place this is most likely be an initial success, I think, is in much smaller (no reflex system!) cameras that can use smaller lenses and which could be rough replacements for rangefinders. There is a high-end market for such cameras, but I think that from a marketing perspective there is probably more of a "serious prosumer" market for them at this point.
Don't forget Canon is already late joining the market. They needed to be aggressive but it seems like they're betting on their reputation and user base to get people to buy their camera. We'll see if it works.
Finally got to check one out with the 18-55 lens. I was expecting autofocus not to be quite as good as say the E-M5 but holy cow, it was pitiful. The whole camera gave the impression of being a cheapish attempt at "going mirrorless" and I really do not see the point.
I think the point may be that, you have to start somewhere. The mirrorless craze is only five years old and I doubt it will take Canon very long to become competitive, assuming they decide to continue with this product line. I think the EOS-M sales will be considered a failure, but hopefully they improve the the product, instead of abandon it.
corndog wrote:
I think the point may be that, you have to start somewhere. The mirrorless craze is only five years old and I doubt it will take Canon very long to become competitive, assuming they decide to continue with this product line. I think the EOS-M sales will be considered a failure, but hopefully they improve the the product, instead of abandon it.
any numbers you have to share why it would be a failure ? I looked and the only thing I could find is... it's 3rd in % sales in Japan in the mirrorless market. Yes it's only Japan, but that's not bad so far.
