# EOS M4 wish list



## DRR (Apr 16, 2015)

I sold my M(1) last month. Just wasn't getting used enough.

The m3 is very intriguing but still not enough to make me buy. So here is my M4 wish list (it is really wishful thinking but anyway...)

1) Same basic form factor/size as M3
2) Integrated EVF
3) Smaller LCD with no touchscreen. I know it'll never happen but you need to make room for the EVF and....
4) A larger, better thumb wheel. That tiny one is impossible to turn, and you end up hitting a function button when you try to turn
5) Better AF
6) 55mm f/1.4 to go with it.

What's your wish list?


----------



## HaroldC3 (Apr 18, 2015)

Slap an EF-M mount on the A6000 and call it good.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 18, 2015)

DRR said:


> I sold my M(1) last month. Just wasn't getting used enough.
> 
> The m3 is very intriguing but still not enough to make me buy. So here is my M4 wish list (it is really wishful thinking but anyway...)
> 
> ...



#2, #5, and #6.

Integrated EVF and faster focus is what the body itself needs. A fast 85mm (full frame equiv) prime is the top of my list for the next EOS-M lens.


----------



## dcm (Apr 19, 2015)

DRR said:


> I sold my M(1) last month. Just wasn't getting used enough.
> 
> The m3 is very intriguing but still not enough to make me buy. So here is my M4 wish list (it is really wishful thinking but anyway...)
> 
> ...



You might want to try an M3 and update your list. These are my initial impressions after 2 days and 500+ images with the M3.

1) Check
2) EVF - check. Hotshoe EVF works fine and provides necessary relief for facial features. It really improves daylight shooting. The built-in tilt is a bonus. Someday they may squeeze it into the body but I personally like having both VF and display.
3) When I use the screen, I want a large screen. And I favor touchscreens over button navigation. As does all of the next generation. Eliminating buttons elminates mechanical elements, making it cheaper to produce, less likely to fail, and improves water resistance. Just like phones and tablets, I expect cameras to head in that direction over time.
4) Check. The M thumbwheel annoyed me sometimes, clicking instead of rotating. The M3 thumbwheel feels a bit different and no inadvertant clicks yet. I think they got it right this time.
5) Check. Purely subjective so far, but the new autofocus system is working fine for me, on par with my 6D. No annoying lags or hunting so far, even with an EF 100-400 II mounted. It did slow a bit with the EF 2X III extender but that was expected, it happens on my 6D as well.
6) Agreed, but this isn't the fault of the M3. A couple more fast primes with IS would be welcome for low light situations. In the meantime I'm using the 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8 with the adapter. 

As you can guess, I'm a glass half full kinda person. I considered the 750D/760D but am glad I stuck with the M system. The M3 shares a lot of the same components so I'd expect it to perform comparably in many respects. It will never be comparable to a professional FF dSLR, but it easily outperforms my old T2i and isn't that far behind my 6D IMO.

As a bonus I now have zoom and focus peaking in the viewfinder with the M3. Wonder when that will appear in a dSLR  The M3 also has several more mexapixels, expanded ISO range, a multi axis (pitch, roll) electronic level, wifi, and a few more programmable buttons. And I'm not done exploring it. All in all it seems like a substantial upgrade to the M and I'm glad I imported it. Too bad this wasn't the first version Canon released.


----------



## bf (Apr 19, 2015)

I agree with you dcm! The M is for someone who likes to shoot from screen. The screen needs to be large, bright and responsive!
Sony went to FF mirrorlesses and you can see the lenses are huge for a compact system. I think for classic viewfinder shooters DSLRs are the best solution to go. 
On the other hand, as I said several time earlier, M line does need compact nice primes as the adopter is not an acceptable option! We are compromising over several features to have a compact system and an adopter will take the size benefit away and pushes the real mirrorless users to other stems!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 19, 2015)

Point of note, it currently appears difficult to buy the M3 in the UK as a body only - I'd like to see that option in any new M camera


----------



## dolina (Apr 19, 2015)

Larger sensor.


----------



## twagn (Apr 19, 2015)

HaroldC3 said:


> Slap an EF-M mount on the A6000 and call it good.



Is their such a thing? I see plenty of EF mount adaptor to Sony E mount but no EF M adaptors


----------



## ecka (Apr 20, 2015)

Well, EOS M3 is not the camera I really want and the M4 will continue that tradition, but here is my list: 
1) FF
2) EVF
3) bigger grip and battery
4) 4K
5) under $1500
6) native primes
7) built-in RT
8 ) at least 5fps
9) good manual focus assist (peaking, pip magnifying, etc)
0) released in my lifetime (or before everyone else makes one)

As an APS-C alternative to that, it could have a Speedbooster-like optics built-in ant fully utilize all the existing EF lenses.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Apr 23, 2015)

twagn said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > Slap an EF-M mount on the A6000 and call it good.
> ...



I should have said an EF-M mount and a Canon logo, not an adapter.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 23, 2015)

bf said:


> We are compromising over several features to have a compact system and an adopter will take the size benefit away and pushes the real mirrorless users to other stems!



Well that and Canon has not made good focal length primes for EF-S either so even with an adapter you can't get "24mm", "35mm", "50mm", "85mm" primes. Of course an actual 85mm FL gives almost an almost exact "135mm" so at least that is covered! 

Just look at micro 4/3 or Fuji and how they have come out with glass that maintains the popular (equivalent) focal lengths (aka FOV) many people are use to seeing from their old 35mm camera days.

The 22mm pancake was the first crop lens from Canon to do this. It gives me hope that there will be more like it.


----------



## ecka (Apr 23, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> The 22mm pancake was the first crop lens from Canon to do this. It gives me hope that there will be more like it.



Which was born 3.5 years ago and no more primes since?
EF-M 55/1.4 would be nice though .


----------



## Tinky (Apr 25, 2015)

Canon translated the EF 40mm f2.8 to APS-C by means of the EF-s 24mm f2.8. M users get the 22mm which is as near as dammit, but with a stop brighter max aperture, which is also very usable wide open.

I'm going to go against the grain.

I would like to see another M pancake. Maybe a collapsable 50mm (80mm equivalent) but then with the new nifty fifty apparently on its way... do we need it... 

I think what we absolutely 100% need is a cheaper adaptor. Canon should either subsidise the metal one, or make a plastic one which can take the weight of EF lenses without a tripod ring, or make it EF-s only.

The greatest strength of the x0D and rebel series, and now the M, is the gateway.

I think m users are a tiny minority. I think making lenses exclusively for them is a waste of time, unless you are going to make them all pancakes / collapsable.

I look at the ef-m 55-200 and think, why would you want that on an M.... or if you really did why wouldn't you buy the adaptor, the Ef-s 55-250 and a half decent meal for you and the wife instead?

So my wishlist for the M...

Think small or not at all.

It has to be small.

The Ef-m 22mm is a brilliant statement of intent, a promising precedent.

In terms of body specs. You are doing fine. People can bang on about panasonics, alphas, fujis whatever. Do you want a retro trinket or access to the best lens system available?

But most of all, please let some reviewers fail to read the manual, fail to understand the af modes and give any new M a crap review. Not used to these prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2015)

ecka said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > The 22mm pancake was the first crop lens from Canon to do this. It gives me hope that there will be more like it.
> ...



The EOS M is a consumer camera, the typical consumer prefers zooms over primes. The selling point of the 22/2 is its small physical size, resulting from the 'pancake' design (which is easiest at certain focal lengths relative to the image circle size).




Tinky said:


> I look at the ef-m 55-200 and think, why would you want that on an M.... or if you really did why wouldn't you buy the adaptor, the Ef-s 55-250 and a half decent meal for you and the wife instead?



Compared to the adapted EF-S 55-250 STM, the M55-200 is >35% (~2") shorter, smaller in diameter, >40% lighter, and can share filters with the M18-55. So...that's why.


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 25, 2015)

My M4 wish list: 

1. I would like it to be sold in the United States. And as another poster noted, please keep it small. Personally, I love the size of my M1. 

2. I would like all the EF-M lenses to be sold in the United States. 

3. A native EF-M macro lens would be nice. 

4. A significant price cut on the EVF would be really nice. 

I think the EOS M is a brilliant idea. You can use it as a very compact and lightweight standalone system, which I recently did on a trip where I wanted nice photos but knew that I did not need my DSLR to achieve them. Since I bought my M1, I have not used my canon s100. I either use the M1 or my iPhone. And with the EF-M to EF adapter, you can use lenses and speedlites that no other mirrorless system has and it can function as a back up body, which will take almost no weight or space in your bag. 

I can understand why Canon doesn't market the M widely in the United States but I don't understand why you can't get it and the lenses through the Canon direct store or through some select stores such as the big three: Amazon, Adorama, and B&H. When my friends see my M1, they all love it, and when they see the quality of photos you can get from it, they want to know where they can get one. When I tell them they have to go through eBay, or pick one up when they're in Europe or Canada, it's a turnoff.


----------



## Tanispyre (Apr 25, 2015)

My EOS M4 wish list is very simple:

For sale in the USA.


----------



## Tanispyre (Apr 25, 2015)

And please don't let it get any bigger.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Apr 25, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I look at the ef-m 55-200 and think, why would you want that on an M.... or if you really did why wouldn't you buy the adaptor, the Ef-s 55-250 and a half decent meal for you and the wife instead?



I think the attached picture says all that needs to be said.

That being the case, I still decided t keep the 55-250mm STM lens as the performance can't be beat and the extra 50mm is very handy.


----------



## dcm (Apr 25, 2015)

HaroldC3 said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > I look at the ef-m 55-200 and think, why would you want that on an M.... or if you really did why wouldn't you buy the adaptor, the Ef-s 55-250 and a half decent meal for you and the wife instead?
> ...



Agreed - the picture says it all. Had them both as well. Preferred the 55-200 for size and weight - just wasn't using the larger lens. The extra 50 didn't matter as much to me. I preferred the extra 400 on my Tamron if I really wanted reach. For performance I'll use my FF. Gave away the 55-250 STM with my T2i to a deserving couple. 

Another benefit of the EF-M lenses that is noticeable with the M3 is manual focus. The AF/MF switch is on the body, the camera controls the focus mode which makes it more usable with focus peaking. While using the EVF, I can compose, auto focus (BBF), and touch MF button to turn on focus peaking to verify and fine tune focus without taking my eye away from the EVF or the screen. The EF/EF-S lenses must be switched manually on the lens to change modes - they can't be switched electronically.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

The picture says one thing to me:

Neither is going to fit in your pocket. 

Thanks for the very patronising explainations. Which totally missed the obvious point, contexualised if you'd read the whole frigging post. You might be 40% lighter and 35% smaller, but you are still negating the very advantage of a csc camera. Add a telezoom and folks are really no better served than with a compact DSLR.

So, do you spend double the money on a lens you can only use on your M, or do you spend half the money on a lens that will also work on your rebel or your 7D?

I think if you fit anything other than a pancake to an M and you've lost the size benefit. Thats why I see the real strength of the M as being a gateway to the EF system, and why canon shouldn't invest too much in duplication of focal lengths that already exist. Perhaps the exception would be collapsable standard and telephoto primes.

The M22 doesn't exist in any other format and is playing to the strengths of the CSC concept. I would argue that none of their other current EF-m lenses are. And that is a big part of the reason the system hasn't set the world alight. 

Exisiting EOS users don't want another lens system. Canons marketing has been so abysmal that I don't think anybody else is buying them. Other than on the basis of the fire price tickets.

And I say all of this as a great fan of the camera from a design, user & iq point of view.


----------



## dcm (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> The picture says one thing to me:
> 
> Neither is going to fit in your pocket.
> 
> ...



Guess I take a broader view of compact system cameras (CSC). It's not just a pocket camera to me - its a compact "system". We may have different definitions of pocketable. I don't carry phones or cameras in my pants pockets. I have carried the M, 11-22, 55-200, and a spare bettery in my jacket pockets to an event so I didn't have to carry a separate bag. Worked just fine for me.

I started with a Rebel, but replaced it with a 6D / M combo. The M replaced my DSLR system for most hiking, fishing, and similar uses. The M, 11-22 and the 55-200 is smaller and weighs much less than my DSLR kit, yet still gives me some options on the trail while letting me carry a smaller pack. It's also much cheaper than my FF and L glass. The M is my APS system.

There are occasions where the goal of my hike is the photography so I'll carry my FF DSLR kit in a larger pack with a tripod. And in the few cases I really want only a small pocket camera, my S110 or camera phone are okay.

I do agree that a couple of small, fast primes would be a nice addition to the M system for both your purposes and mine.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

HaroldC3 said:


> That being the case, I still decided t keep the 55-250mm STM lens as the performance can't be beat and the extra 50mm is very handy.



So you opted to keep the more compatable, cheaper lens with wider range and better performance after you bought the more expensive, exclusive mount lens with less flexibility and poorer performance.

I think that says it all. 

40% size, 35% weight. Sounds very impressive when you are maybe talking about large aperture metal bodied great whites. We are talking about fairly compact, fairly light bits of kit. Whats lighter, your plastic bodied lens or my plastic bodied lens? 115gm difference. Gosh, I'll need to leave that extra banana behind then. Oh no!

Oh yours is more compact. That's great, so it'll fit in a pocket then? No. Oh dear.

And it only cost you double? Thats great. etc etc etc


----------



## crashpc (Apr 26, 2015)

I decided to not buy M3 for current money. Not great step-up enaugh.

M4 should be healthy and competing model:

25Mpx+ AA-filter-less sensor, with on-chip ADC (lower noise floor)
8 FPS and 32-40 shots of buffer depth.
built-in EVF

That´s all. Nothing unreal.

What I really need to not jump elsewhere is more M lenses. Especially 50mm f/1,8 IS STM would really make me stay with Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2015)

crashpc said:


> 25Mpx+ AA-filter-less sensor, with *on-chip ADC *(lower noise floor)
> That´s all. Nothing unreal.



Just completely change their sensor fab process. That's all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> So, do you spend double the money on a lens you can only use on your M, or do you spend half the money on a lens that will also work on your rebel or your 7D?
> 
> I think if you fit anything other than a pancake to an M and you've lost the size benefit.



I don't have any APS-C cameras other than the M, so compatibility with them isn't a benefit.

The M + M11-22 or M18-55 fits in a small pouch on my belt. The SL1 + 10-18 or 18-55 would not.



dcm said:


> Guess I take a broader view of compact system cameras (CSC). It's not just a pocket camera to me - its a compact "system".



Exactly. Consider my full 'M kit' – EOS M, M22, M18-55, M11-22, 270EX II – compared to the equivalent dSLR kit, e.g. SL1, 24/2.8, 18-55, 10-18, same flash. The latter is much bulkier, the former fits nicely in the compact ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 20. 







My complete M kit takes up about the same amount of space as just my 1D X + 24-70. 

I just returned from a trip to Europe with my family (wife + three young kids). The M + 11-22 on my belt and the other two lenses in a regular backpack (along with snacks, diapers, etc.) made it very easy to get around with the family during the day in Paris, and late at night I went out without kids but with tripod, 1D X, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 17 and Rokinon 14/2.8. 

Lots of size benefit to the M ecosystem...


----------



## crashpc (Apr 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > 25Mpx+ AA-filter-less sensor, with *on-chip ADC *(lower noise floor)
> ...



They have to do it anyway. Nothing unreal. They do it sooner or later, or they end their business...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2015)

crashpc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > crashpc said:
> ...



Really? What makes you think that's true? The sensors in dSLRs and MILCs from many (most? all?) of Canon's competitors use on-die ADCs...and have for some time. Has Canon lost market share to them? Is it because of the lack of on-chip ADCs? 

The vast majority of consumers neither know nor care about these issues. The vast majority of consumers don't push their exposure 4-stops in post, either. 

YAPODFC.


----------



## smozes (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > That being the case, I still decided t keep the 55-250mm STM lens as the performance can't be beat and the extra 50mm is very handy.
> ...



I have the M3 with all EF-M lenses. The entire kit is amazingly compact and unobtrusive.


----------



## TAF (Apr 26, 2015)

Full frame and an EF mount.

That's all.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't have any APS-C cameras other than the M, so compatibility with them isn't a benefit.



I forgot. Canon are making bodies and lenses just for you.

But hey, you managed to drop in your 1DX. Slow clap.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any APS-C cameras other than the M, so compatibility with them isn't a benefit.
> ...



I suppose if you're unable to argue based on facts, you can always resort to lame attempts at derision. How sad.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2015)

ecka said:


> Well, EOS M3 is not the camera I really want and the M4 will continue that tradition, but here is my list:
> 1) FF
> 2) EVF
> 3) bigger grip and battery
> ...



It calls a7 ;D

With their recent release FE primes - 28mm f2 + 21mm UltraWide converter + Zeiss 85mm f1.8 + 25mm f2 - I feel these are enough to cover compact FF mirrorless system. 

I would love to have AF system in A6000 to be in next A7 series. In addition to that, I would love to have the battery life to be improved as well. Current ones are REALLY bad. It's nice to have a smaller and lighter body with larger sensor sometime. At this moment, options are limited 8)


----------



## Tinky (Apr 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Can argue fine using fact, but what we are dealing with here is opinion. A 'wish' is not fact. An opinion is not fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Can argue fine using fact, but what we are dealing with here is opinion. A 'wish' is not fact. An opinion is not fact.



Ok, then. I think the _opinion_ you stated:



Tinky said:


> Thanks for the very patronising explainations. Which totally missed the obvious point, contexualised if you'd read the whole frigging post. You might be 40% lighter and 35% smaller, but you are still negating the very advantage of a csc camera. Add a telezoom and folks are really no better served than with a compact DSLR.



...is shortsighted and totally ridiculous. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

Its my opinion the operational caveats intrinsic to all cscs make them a second choice to the handling, form, speed and flexibility of a dslr system, so their strengths, that is portability, small size, should not be compromised.

The Particular strength of the m system, in my opinion, which marks it out from the fujis, the a7s, the mfts, is access to the worlds most popular system of quality lenses.

I would opine that canon actually succeded in making a perfect compact body for those already substantially invested in that system, investing in lenses that are exclusive to that mount, rather than being able to be used across the ef mount and it's various off-spring, seems, in my opinion, counter productive.

I think its shortsighted to invest in a mount the future of which is often debated, particularly in the US where the 11-18 and m2 & m3 aren't officially available.

I think it ridiculous to buy a 55-200 when you already have the 55-250 as one earlier poster did..

But then, it's all opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Its my opinion...



Not surprisingly, I disagree. But you raise worthwhile points. 



Tinky said:


> Its my opinion the operational caveats intrinsic to all cscs make them a second choice to the handling, form, speed and flexibility of a dslr system, so their strengths, that is portability, small size, should not be compromised.



That's the whole point of the EF-M lenses – to deliver a small _system_. The M + 22 isn't really 'pocketable' unless you are wearing cargo pants. It won't fit in my jeans, nor in my slacks. The RX-100 series, that's pocketable. 




Tinky said:


> The Particular strength of the m system, in my opinion, which marks it out from the fujis, the a7s, the mfts, is access to the worlds most popular system of quality lenses.



That seems contradictory. You claim the strength of CSCs is portability, but then that Canon's differentiating factor is that their CSC works with lenses that are unnecessarily large for it. 

Still, they're not mutually exclusive. The M system is great because of its conveniently small system size, _and_ that the M + EF adapter serves as a travel backup for an EF kit. 




Tinky said:


> I would opine that canon actually succeded in making a perfect compact body for those already substantially invested in that system, investing in lenses that are exclusive to that mount, rather than being able to be used across the ef mount and it's various off-spring, seems, in my opinion, counter productive.



The same could be said – wrongly – about the EF-S mount. That's a mount that leverages the smaller image circle needed to result in smaller, optically optimized lenses for lower cost. Similarly, the EF-M mount leverages the shorter flange distance to produce a smaller, lighter lens. 




Tinky said:


> I think its shortsighted to invest in a mount the future of which is often debated, particularly in the US where the 11-18 and m2 & m3 aren't officially available.



The 11-22 is quite easy to obtain. Also, the non-release of the M2 and M3 in the US haven't stopped my M from taking pictures...something I expect it will continue to do for many years. 




Tinky said:


> I think it ridiculous to buy a 55-200 when you already have the 55-250 as one earlier poster did..



Perhaps. It depends on budget - considering that my entire M kit costs less than my least expensive L-series lens, paying a little extra for the convenience of a smaller size doesn't seem ridiculous to me.


----------



## bf (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > I think it ridiculous to buy a 55-200 when you already have the 55-250 as one earlier poster did..
> ...



It does not sound ridiculous to me either! If you hike seriously that weight difference matters more than size although the size difference is noticeable in this case . 
From different aspect, suppose you have a nice L tele like one 70-200s or 100-400s for quality and ef-m 55-200 for mobility, where would you place an ef-s 55-250 other than a shelf or ebay?


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's the whole point of the EF-M lenses – to deliver a small _system_. The M + 22 isn't really 'pocketable' unless you are wearing cargo pants. It won't fit in my jeans, nor in my slacks. The RX-100 series, that's pocketable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you don't have a pocket on any of your upper garments. Are you the Vladimer Putin of the cr forum, walking around all topless and that. Looking all manly? "thats not an eos m + 55-200 in my nice gap cargo pants pocket ladies, I'm just pleased to see you"

If you read back for context matey, the false dichotomy of the selective quoting troller. Do I not say that my wish would be that if canon are going to develop ef-m lenses, that unique, collapsable or pancake primes are the way to go, they coukd learn from pentax in this regard. In fact you allude to another point that I make... if you do fancy going all telephoto zoom, then canon already have a range of great lenses to suit all budgets that can be easily adapted.

To my mind, and from what I've seen with any csc system, (with the sole exception of the panasonic collapsable zoom) the second you put a zoom on a csc, the size advantage is somewhat lessened. 

I believe, have formed the opinion that, consider that, anecdotally, perhaps wrongly, but hey, it's a free world, that the m system would be more inticing if it could also compete with the likes of fuji, or say olympus, with high quality compact primes, the size advantage would imho justify specific ef-m versions, and make the system a contender rather than an also ran. 

I also sincerely hope that your m keeps on clicking for a long time to come and that you enjoy the health to use it, but the whole point of the thread was about future direction. I have two m's, which I'm in no rush to change, but I would like to think canon can do better than slow aperture plastic zooms in the future. I aspire to more than that for my plucky little m.

Like you I have other cameras, other lenses, presently the ef-m zoom lenses are so vanilla that, for me, for my purposes, they don't interest me, so I go to my other systems when I'm wanting that bit more. Now I realise that Canon aren't all that bothered about me, and so the chances are I'll just have to put on my big boy cargo pants and get on with it...
....but Fork me, was the whoe point of the thread not to discuss what you would like to see in the future?

p.s. congratukations on your L lens that cost more than your whole ef-m system. Another slow clap is due.

clap.

clap.




clap.


----------



## Zv (Apr 27, 2015)

I'm going to chime in here about the EF-M lenses.

At first I only had the EF-M 22mm and I too was of the opinion that the other lenses were expensive and too big to be compact and negated the whole concept of the M. However, after much deliberation I ventured out an bought the EF-M 11-22 which changed my opinion on the whole M system. Here was a lens and camera combo that weighed almost nothing and could be shoved in any old bag when you go out. Plus it had IS to boot so no tripod needed. Sweet. Not only that the IQ was superb meaning it was a real alternative to my 17-40L + FF when space was limited in my bag or when I wanted a two body system (wide on one, tele on other). 

looking at the EF-M 55-200, which I'm undecided about as I already own a 70-200 and adaptor, I do see the advantages of having such a lens. I've used the adaptor combo about twice in total. It's not ideal, at all. Forget about it, unless you have a tripod and tons of time in which case you might as well use the FF system. As a backup maybe but not as the main. 

I haven't bought it because I feel the M is better suited to wider focal lengths where acheiving focus and composing is generally easier. For telephoto I still prefer DSLR ergonomics. The M3 might sway me though with its better grip and optional EVF but right now I get what I need from the existing M. 

Edit - so my wish list is more EF-M lenses, preferably a short tele prime and for M4 similar ergonomics to M3 but more fps and better high ISO performance. Keep it at 24MP. Dual pixel AF really should be included by then too.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't have any APS-C cameras other than the M, so compatibility with them isn't a benefit.
> 
> The M + M11-22 or M18-55 fits in a small pouch on my belt. The SL1 + 10-18 or 18-55 would not.



But I remember you starting with a t1i, and you had a 7d for long enough. Say you hadn't discovered your natural gift, your extraordinary flair for photography? Say you had stuck with the t1i or 7d...

what if the 7d3 was 'all that' and you thought it would take your images to a new zenith? 

Besides even if you stuck firmly with ef... no appeal in adapting the shorty forty etc?

And how about that nice wee pouch on your cargo pant belt, room for an m + 55-200 in there?

We could go on all day I'm sure. But the lights good here, so I'll have to resume later. much love.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

Zv said:


> I'm going to chime in here about the EF-M lenses.
> 
> At first I only had the EF-M 22mm and I too was of the opinion that the other lenses were expensive and too big to be compact and negated the whole concept of the M. However, after much deliberation I ventured out an bought the EF-M 11-22 which changed my opinion on the whole M system. Here was a lens and camera combo that weighed almost nothing and could be shoved in any old bag when you go out. Plus it had IS to boot so no tripod needed. Sweet. Not only that the IQ was superb meaning it was a real alternative to my 17-40L + FF when space was limited in my bag or when I wanted a two body system (wide on one, tele on other).
> 
> ...



Thats kind of my thinking... I just end up going with the 70-200 in the end. Not least because if I'm using a telezoom, I want the optical speed and the af speed. 

I have a mini stabiliser for video and I like the 18-55 on the m with it, my tokina is just too heavy, or at least too front heavy to balance, but the 11-18 did appeal, then I saw the EF-s 10-18, which is a chunk cheaper and a chunk more compatable with my other gear as well... hmmmm


----------



## bainsybike (Apr 27, 2015)

Tinky, you have valid views and you can express them well.

Others have different, equally valid views, and we can all learn from the discussions about them published on this forum.

But not from this:


Tinky said:


> clap.
> 
> clap.
> 
> ...


Please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> If you read back for context matey, the false dichotomy of the selective quoting troller.
> 
> To my mind, and from what I've seen with any csc system, (with the sole exception of the panasonic collapsable zoom) *the second you put a zoom on a csc, the size advantage is somewhat lessened*.



Ok, let's read back, matey...



Tinky said:


> I think *if you fit anything other than a pancake to an M and you've lost the size benefit*.



It's pointless to conduct a discussion with someone who is mentally inconsistent, so I'll step out. By all means, though, feel free continue making yourself look more petulant and foolish.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

bainsybike said:


> Tinky, you have valid views and you can express them well.
> 
> Others have different, equally valid views, and we can all learn from the discussions about them published on this forum.
> 
> ...



I demeaned myself Bainsey. He brought 'fact' to an opinion thread. I'm wrong because he proved it, with 'facts'.


----------



## Tinky (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > If you read back for context matey, the false dichotomy of the selective quoting troller.
> ...



Mentally inconsistent? Because of 'somewhat lessened' vs 'lost'? Strong words. And in *BOLD RED*!

Yep. You got me there. And you got me in *BOLD RED*!

If by having a contrary opinion to the hallowed Neuro, if by challenging your selected quotation and lack of context, if that makes me mentally inconsistent, if that makes me petulant or foolish then so be it.

I won't allow you to put words in my mouth John. A lot of folks on here cow-tow to you, or assume that because of the amount you post, or because of the gear you own (I prefer this phrasology to 'use') that you are some kind of estimable sage.

You shot me down with 'facts' (although they read more like opinions) how dare I have the audacity to express an opinion on an opinion thread?

My choices are, run everything by you first for compliance, ignore you, or stand up to the bully fanboy (There is a consistent tack to your posts. Always ready with the 'facts' when anybody doesn't agree with your idea of what canon are doing or should be doing)

I wouldn't have got so riled you see, but when you accuse somebody of not being able to argue with facts, it's much the same as calling them a liar...


----------



## ecka (Apr 27, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Well, EOS M3 is not the camera I really want and the M4 will continue that tradition, but here is my list:
> ...



It's all true, my friend . However, such little things (like carrying 5 extra batteries) make me wait for the mirrorless camera I'd really enjoy. I just hope that retro and miniaturistic design (little grips, little wheels, little batteries, little SD cards, etc.) fetishes will go away soon and they (camera makers) will start improving the most important things (to me, from my list).
A7 is fine, but I really miss a touchscreen and battery "juice" .


----------



## crashpc (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Logic. You can compete with old technology only for certain timeframe. Then you´ll be ridiculed. 
For your second question - as I stated. Only for some time. 
There will come more features of advanced sensor, and you can´t do that with current setup. The change is kinda inevitable. Can Canon milk us for some more time? Sure. 
But not me. I´m not buying any other Canon cam other than heavily discounted for peanuts, untill they solve this issue. Sometimes I look around for nice Nikon deals. You have living case (I bought and recommended dozens of Canon cams), that they can loose their business.

The vast majority of consumers already left. Do they want to continue their trend, so not only consumers, but also enthusiasts and pros will show them backs, or something worse?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2015)

crashpc said:


> Logic. You can compete with old technology only for certain timeframe. Then you´ll be ridiculed.
> For your second question - as I stated. Only for some time.
> There will come more features of advanced sensor, and you can´t do that with current setup. The change is kinda inevitable. Can Canon milk us for some more time? Sure.



Ridiculed by whom? How many people know the differences between a 500 nm process and a 180 nm process? How many people know what a nanometer is? We're not talking about film vs. digital here, we're talking about incremental changes. The reality is that Canon / Nikon / Sony / Pentax / etc. can all take really good pictures, and outside of a few esoteric tests and use cases no one can tell the difference from a sensor quality standpoint. 

Does your computer have a Sandy Bridge? Haswell? Roswell? Does your car's transmission use a modified Hastings step-down converter or a decoupling gear block? Honestly, the inner workings of most consumer purchases are a mystery to buyers and have virtually no impact on sales. Number of megapixels and focus points, horsepower and fuel economy, the top line specs listed on a placard or window sticker – those matter. The technology used to produce a single component? Irrelevant. 

I'm sure that Canon will update their fab at some point, but it will be a business decision likely having little to do with the consumer (keep in mind they make litho equipment, and as processes get smaller it will become more cost-effective for them to stop maintaining older/larger processes). 




crashpc said:


> But not me. I´m not buying any other Canon cam other than heavily discounted for peanuts, untill they solve this issue. Sometimes I look around for nice Nikon deals. You have living case (I bought and recommended dozens of Canon cams), that they can loose their business.



Sorry, but anecdote ≠ data. 




crashpc said:


> The vast majority of consumers already left. Do they want to continue their trend, so not only consumers, but also enthusiasts and pros will show them backs, or something worse?



You're conflating an industry-wide trend and market share. Consumers have left P&S cameras, and ILC sales are suffering. That's affecting the whole industry - overall decline, but not much differential shifting of market share.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Logic. You can compete with old technology only for certain timeframe. Then you´ll be ridiculed.
> ...



Look at Intel. They owned pretty all competition. They didn´t compete. They went full blast, and they still have their jobs. That´s the way, and no "industry is falling" is gonna excuse it.

Too much to explain, and we will not agree anyway. I won´t continue. Have a nice day.


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 27, 2015)

Zv said:


> I'm going to chime in here about the EF-M lenses.
> 
> At first I only had the EF-M 22mm and I too was of the opinion that the other lenses were expensive and too big to be compact and negated the whole concept of the M. However, after much deliberation I ventured out an bought the EF-M 11-22 which changed my opinion on the whole M system. Here was a lens and camera combo that weighed almost nothing and could be shoved in any old bag when you go out. Plus it had IS to boot so no tripod needed. Sweet. Not only that the IQ was superb meaning it was a real alternative to my 17-40L + FF when space was limited in my bag or when I wanted a two body system (wide on one, tele on other).
> 
> ...



Agree 100% with you. 

11-22 on M works really well. It's much more so on M3 because of the tilt screen. I can now do a lot of low angle shots from almost touching the ground. Focus peaking is also an important feature that I now use quite a bit. Basically I stop down to f11 and use MF with focus peaking. It's easier than AF and I could concentrate on composition and timing of the shot. Anyway, enough endorsement of the m3.

I've given a lot of thought about 55-200 but I haven't made up my mind. It can never do what my 70-200 can deliver on 5dmk3 but it can potentially replace my 70-300 as a travel lens. 55-200 + 11-22 + m3 + evf + batteries still weigh less than one 70-300L. Right now I just don't want to ruin my setup. I shoot with mk3 with a tele attached and m3 with 11-22 attached. It's been working great. If I get a tele for m system there's too much redundancy and too many options, which is bad in the field. 

My wish list for M4 is exactly the same as yours. 

I will add that I don't wish the m line to be full frame. Well, I should say that it must remain the same body size. If bigger sensor or more features mean bigger body, then I'd much rather live with what I already have---m3.


----------



## JMKE (May 1, 2015)

Would like a build in Time-lapse option, as in the Sony's. Or at least a wired remote option.


----------



## thedanj (Aug 11, 2015)

I would like the Canon colors back. The white balance and color rendering (especially with skin tones) has gone wrong in the M3. I shoot raw, and even then I can't get the colors right. My M3 is on the chopping block. May replace it with an M2. It's sad because I like so many other things about the M3.


----------



## bf (Aug 13, 2015)

+1 for more ef-m lenses and time laps option. Lack of OVF is a plus for long exposures and night photography; time laps is needed here.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

DRR said:


> I sold my M(1) last month. Just wasn't getting used enough.
> 
> The m3 is very intriguing but still not enough to make me buy. So here is my M4 wish list (it is really wishful thinking but anyway...)
> 
> ...



ew. i'd never buy that in a million years - what a .. go buy a sony if you want an EVF and a rediculous sized LCD screen without touch.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

DRR said:


> What's your wish list?



1. split the line into two cameras - make one look like a canonnete with a built in EVF just to shut everyone up about retro and EVF.
2. put BACK the features that the M2 had that the M3 doesn't.
3. FIX AEB.
4. give me BACK my mag alloy body that was in the M/M2 versus the hollow steal crap body in the M3.
5. leave my EVF alone! I love the tilting articulated EVF.
6. crank the FPS and the AF - seriously canon.. put some faster mice into the thing.
7. add in USB charging and USB power and control tethering.
8. canon DSLR colors - slap the powershot firmware guys silly for screwing this up.
9. put master control onto the flash please. (rf no thank you .. battery blows as it is).
10. NFC is really cludgy - fix your apps.
11. make this thing drone capable (tethering for both camera functions and a power zoom please)
12. give me BACK the amazing livewiew UI of the DSLR's instead of this powershot hack crap (able to turn off of course)

someone mentioned higher ISO performance - hmm? it's already basically equal with it's peers - in the realm of diminishing returns.


----------



## DRR (Aug 28, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > I sold my M(1) last month. Just wasn't getting used enough.
> ...



I did exactly that. It's a far superior camera.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 29, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That's the whole point of the EF-M lenses – to deliver a small _system_. The M + 22 isn't really 'pocketable' unless you are wearing cargo pants. It won't fit in my jeans, nor in my slacks. The RX-100 series, that's pocketable.
> ...



I genuinely don't get the 'pocketability' argument. Everyone seems to have differing opinions on what is pocketable, and the truth is interchangeable lens cameras are always going to be larger. The pocketable sector will always be dominated by mobile phones and a few compact cameras.

Can I be the only person who wouldn't take a camera out in their pocket? They seem a lot less robust and a lot more easily accidentally activated than a phone. I often/almost always carry a bag with me so I'd put my camera in there. And then the size and weight advantage of the M over a DSLR is significant, and that remains true with all its native lenses.

Even if we could all agree on what pocketable means, if that is the primary criterion for you then I don't think the M is the right system for you.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 29, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I won't allow you to put words in my mouth John. A lot of folks on here cow-tow to you, or assume that because of the amount you post, or because of the gear you own (I prefer this phrasology to 'use') that you are some kind of estimable sage.



Actually many of us read the threads on here and judge people according to what they say, the quality of their arguments and evidence. Maybe don't get so personal - or get so upset by other people's responses.


----------



## richro (Aug 31, 2015)

thedanj said:


> I would like the Canon colors back. The white balance and color rendering (especially with skin tones) has gone wrong in the M3. I shoot raw, and even then I can't get the colors right. My M3 is on the chopping block. May replace it with an M2. It's sad because I like so many other things about the M3.



This.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2015)

thedanj said:


> I would like the Canon colors back. The white balance and color rendering (especially with skin tones) has gone wrong in the M3. I shoot raw, and even then I can't get the colors right. My M3 is on the chopping block. May replace it with an M2. It's sad because I like so many other things about the M3.



Then use a color checker and make a camera profile.


----------



## twagn (Sep 7, 2015)

At least a sub mini port just like the Rebels....to accommodate lighting triggers, intervalometers for time lapse and star trails...or built in intervalometers like most Nikons


----------



## moreorless (Sep 12, 2015)

scyrene said:


> I genuinely don't get the 'pocketability' argument. Everyone seems to have differing opinions on what is pocketable, and the truth is interchangeable lens cameras are always going to be larger. The pocketable sector will always be dominated by mobile phones and a few compact cameras.
> 
> Can I be the only person who wouldn't take a camera out in their pocket? They seem a lot less robust and a lot more easily accidentally activated than a phone. I often/almost always carry a bag with me so I'd put my camera in there. And then the size and weight advantage of the M over a DSLR is significant, and that remains true with all its native lenses.
> 
> Even if we could all agree on what pocketable means, if that is the primary criterion for you then I don't think the M is the right system for you.



I think that does actually tough on a significant issue when it comes to "pocketable", as you say a pocket is quite vulnerable and beyond that I would say that a lot of "pocket" use also tends to be quiet casual.

The outcome I would say is that a lot of people who buy pocketable cameras don't want to be carrying anything too expensive. I'v got a GXR with 28 and 50mm units for people/macro and a Sigma DP1M for landscape that cost be £250(used) and £300 respectively and the lower price relative to my FF gear is just as much of an issue as the size.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 14, 2015)

For me the biggest changes I would make to the M3 are:

1) % indication of battery life. The three bars is simply not good enough. 

2) no buttons in immediate bottom right of rear (ie move the 'menu' button) - too easy to trigger by accident.

3) a useful flash or none at all.

4) bring back the rotating neck strap clip as on EOS M 

5) *MOST IMPORTANT* Enable USB tethered shooting


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 16, 2015)

I couldn't agree more regarding compact and pancake lenses. I had a Pentax system for a while, and they have understood the benefit of small, quality lenses. For some reason it hasn't caught on with the mirrorless crowd. I don't get it. Why the long lenses on a tiny body? Why not short lenses on a tiny body? I just don't get it...

There's an interview on imaging resource with head of Canon who says there's an enthusiast M on the way plus lenses. Halley's comet is also on the way. So we'll see.



Tinky said:


> Canon translated the EF 40mm f2.8 to APS-C by means of the EF-s 24mm f2.8. M users get the 22mm which is as near as dammit, but with a stop brighter max aperture, which is also very usable wide open.
> 
> I'm going to go against the grain.
> 
> ...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 17, 2015)

Forgot the most important wish list feature for M4.

Add on a proper on/off switch, one that you can easily tell whether it's on or off by feel. 

On the M3 I've lost count of the number of times I've thought it was off only to find it was sleeping, tried turning it on but it just wakes it up and then turns it off.

Conserving battery on the M series cameras is a critical part of using the camera, so a decent on/off switch is essential.


----------

