# The rumored tele lens for the M



## axtstern (Sep 21, 2013)

Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.

Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake' or 'please give me another Xmm pancake'

Now to come to the Point:
Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.


----------



## bainsybike (Sep 22, 2013)

Maybe they can make it "collapsible", like the 11-22mm. So that it's relatively compact for storage/carriage, even if it has to expand in use.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

strange tidbit of information....

Diffractive optics are not new.... the history goes back to 1823 and the Fresnel lenses used in lighthouses... They don't make lenses shorter as much as they are made lighter... by using a thin element instead of a thick lens, there is considerable weight savings, and the reduced thickness of the lens element(s) becomes the saving in length. The big problem with them is the trade-off with image quality... they would have to be made with a finer diffraction grating than the camera could resolve to get reasonable image quality, and as the size of a lens element gets smaller, the grating would also have to shrink.... I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly would be a challenge to manufacture.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

axtstern said:


> Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.
> 
> Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake' or 'please give me another Xmm pancake'
> 
> ...



Apart from the issue of size, there is also the issue of duplication. One of the main selling points of the M is the compatability with EF and EF-s lenses.

An EF-m lens fits only on an M.
An EF-s will fit on Rebels, X0Ds and 7D.
An EF will fit on all EOS cameras.

The new EF-s 55-250 looks great for it's class and price, but obviously would need the adaptor..

Maybe canon should instead release a very low cost EF-s adaptor, maybe even plastic body and mounts, but with electronics.. £30 / $50? Strong enough for the EF-s lenses...

But then, would the 'intended' market of the M, powershot upgraders, want the hassle? Would they want the hassle of any interchangable lenses.

You see, here's the rub with the M. Canon made it for beginners or compact users. I think it's actually only the enthusiast and those already in the EOS system that it makes sense for.

They got it entirely wrong, but it's a good wee camera at it's core. I don't think I'll use it with anything other than the pancake tbh, it's just such a well sorted package, but to my mind the EF-m 18-55 makes little sense, bigger EF-m lenses even less so.

Cheap plastic adaptor is the way forward, the gateway to the decent enough EF-s lenses. Keep the metal version in the line up too, for folk with the more substantial EF lenses like the 200 f2.8L or 135 f2.0L.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Sep 23, 2013)

I would love to see an EF-M 55-200, even a 70-200 with variable aperture would be fine. I use my M mainly when I don't want to carry the bulk of my 6D and want to be less obtrusive. In such cases I don't mind the lower image quality and the fact that it doesn't fit my pocket.

I got my EF/EF-M adapter off e-bay for around 35 bucks. It's a Meike/Fotga with a (sturdy) plastic body and metal mounts. It works great.

Ray


----------



## lw (Oct 9, 2013)

The problem is that any P&S shooter 'upgrading' to a EOS M is going to looking at the competition too.
M43, Nex, etc, all have a range of small lenses to match their small bodies that includes at least one telephoto and at least one large zoom range (e.g. 10x) lens.

It is of less advantage to say that new EOS M users can use EF lenses if they don't have them already, as their size negates the advantages of the EOS M and don't compare well against the smaller sized competition.

Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already? Why not simply produce an EOS M sized body with the EF mount? (slightly bigger than EOS M, but still probably smaller and lighter than a EOS M + EF adaptor.

No. To be successful in the CSC market the EOS M has to have a range of native lenses that at least allows it to be competitive against the other CSC systems it will be compared against.

At a minimum it needs
- a telephoto like a 55-250mm STM
- another prime at 50mm or longer. Perhaps with Macro. EF-M version of 60mm Macro.
- a large zoom range in the 18-200mm category - for P&S shooters who see value in a larger sensor, but don't want the hassle of changing lenses all the time.

Then, the EF adaptor provides the icing on the cake by providing access to all of Canon's lenses.

But IMO only with a decent range of native EF-M lenses will it be a system in its own right that is capable enough of competing with other CSC systems.


----------



## DRR (Oct 9, 2013)

axtstern said:


> Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.
> 
> Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake' or 'please give me another Xmm pancake'



I agree, and I think those people should have bought a powershot instead. Look at the competitors, the Sony 55-210 for example, mounted on a NEX camera. It's relatively large mounted on the camera. There's not really a way around it, past a certain point it's physics. Higher zoom ranges require longer lenses, especially if you want to preserve optical quality. You can't have it all.



> Now to come to the Point:
> Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.



That is a good thought. If they could put DO into a 55-200+ lens, it would at least cut down on the length, even if you fatten it up, it's not going to be much fatter than the camera. That would be a positive tradeoff.

The only problem I see is cost. Using the 70-300 as an example, the DO is twice as expensive ($1300) than the functional equivalent non-DO lens ($650). I'm sure it's a more difficult manufacturing process, and I'm also sure Canon is trying to recoup some R&D investment into DO.

So, just guessing here, but if a "normal" 55-250 would cost about $350-400 (that is the cost of the Sony equivalent) then you'd figure a Canon DO EF-M mount 55-250 IS would cost maybe $700+?

And at that price point you're talking squarely to dedicated hobbyists and amateurs, which is not really the market for the EOS-M. It's a tough sell.


----------



## lw (Oct 9, 2013)

DRR said:


> Look at the competitors, the Sony 55-210 for example, mounted on a NEX camera. It's relatively large mounted on the camera. There's not really a way around it, past a certain point it's physics. Higher zoom ranges require longer lenses, especially if you want to preserve optical quality. You can't have it all.



But it still smaller than a Canon EF-S 55-250mm, especially when the EF adaptor is taken into account.
Sony = 345g, 108mm long
Canon=500g, 136mm long


----------



## BJDrew (Oct 13, 2013)

I dunno. It makes sense to have a tele lens for any system, but having used a 70-300L (via adapter) quite a bit on the little M, it is really disorienting and shaky to frame a subject using the rear screen. Not a terribly pleasant experience.

If prayers are answered and an M with viewfinder comes along, makes complete sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure it is a necessary and priority piece of gear from canon.

Show me a 30-35mm f/2 first.


----------



## bainsybike (Oct 13, 2013)

BJDrew said:


> Show me a 30-35mm f/2 first.


+1


----------



## caruser (Oct 13, 2013)

lw said:


> Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?


One factor is the fact that the smaller flange distance allows smaller lenses only for wider angle lenses. (This is the "in a nutshell" of a very long explanation; for an example look at the 35L and a 35mm f/1.4 for Leica M-Mount; the difference in size is due to the 35L having to "compensate" for the larger flange distance of the EOS mount; I'm no expert on the field but I remember reading something about having to complicate wide-angle lens design once the focal length goes below the sensor diagonal (or some value that is a linear function of the sensor size)).


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 14, 2013)

Retrofocusing adds a bunch of lens elements and therefore generally reduces image quality.

If you can get away without, the lens should be better, though apparently Sony was having trouble with chromatic aberrations on their full frame NEX design due to lenses being too close to the sensor.
My best thought is that the flange distance should be as short as it can be without compromising the integrity of the mount or unnecessarily exposing the sensor, and then whether or not the to use retrofocusing could be decided on a lens by lens basis. Then you could sell something like a 24mm pancake alongside a potentially higher quality, but bigger and heavier traditional design.


----------



## e17paul (Oct 14, 2013)

axtstern said:


> Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.
> 
> Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake' or 'please give me another Xmm pancake'
> 
> ...



+1

I tried a 2nd hand 70-300 DO when I spotted one in a camera shop a while back. I don't like it for full frame because the weight seemed unnatural for the short length. There was zoom creep exacerbated by the heavy glass, and it was difficult to zoom into the high level details of surrounding buildings. That was disappointing because the idea had appealed to me - I find the Fresnel technology intriguing. I would expect it to be more appropriate for an EF-M lens because of the smaller geometry and hence lower weight. As well as the sensor being 1.6x smaller, the flange distance will help (as others have said). An EF-M 55-250mm IS DO STM could be really compact and make a good package with the Eos M

What puts me off the Eos M is the absence of an EVF, which means that the camera has to be held at a distance. That is especially important for a lens with a long effective focal length. Once Canon see sense and include a built in EVF, the M will become attractive in comparison with the 100D.


----------



## PureAmateur (Oct 14, 2013)

lw said:


> The problem is that any P&S shooter 'upgrading' to a EOS M is going to looking at the competition too.
> M43, Nex, etc, all have a range of small lenses to match their small bodies that includes at least one telephoto and at least one large zoom range (e.g. 10x) lens.
> 
> It is of less advantage to say that new EOS M users can use EF lenses if they don't have them already, as their size negates the advantages of the EOS M and don't compare well against the smaller sized competition.
> ...



I absolutely agree with lw. In fact, I had moved to m43 system from EOS M due to the comprehensive choice of lenses of the m43 system. I still keep my 5D Mk III. I am not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist but there should be a lot of people like me that are willing to own at least two systems – one for IQ and one for convenience. Canon need to catch up otherwise they will lose the CSC (MILC) market.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 14, 2013)

Nikon DX 50-200mm/f4-5.6G ED seems to be the smallest 55-200 consumer telezoom for APS-C, but without IS (VR) at *79*mm (length) x *68*mm (barrel diameter), *255 grams*, 52mm filter-thread

Diffractive optics (DO) would probably not bring a worthwile improvement in terms of size and weight. 

But a combination of 
1. it may not be much, but for a slow 50-200 consumer-telezoom the shorter flange-back of mirrorless cameras [like EOS-M] compared to DSLRs might still allow to shave a few mm in barrel length
2. folding design could make the lens quite a bit more compact in "parking position" 
3. AF-only, no manual focusing ring/gear might also allow to shave a few more mm 

Canon might be able to build a EF-M 50-200/4.0-5.6 IS STM lens with "reasonable image quality", weighing less than 300 grams and barrel length only around 50mm in "parking position". 

I would certainly consider such a lens for an EOS-M [but am not interested in an EOS-M as long as it comes without viewfinder].


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 15, 2013)

i'm more interested in either
a 15-85 EF-M
a 18-135 EF-M
or an 
18-200 EF-M

all in STM of course

i'd like a reasonable range zoom on this little guy


----------



## bholliman (Oct 15, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm more interested in either
> a 15-85 EF-M
> a 18-135 EF-M
> or an
> ...



If Canon could duplicate the IQ of the EF-S 15-85 on a M format lens, I'd be the first in line to buy one. Hopefully, they could keep it relatively small as well.

I'm not a big fan of super zooms (18-135 or 18-200) as IQ gets compromised too much in order to deliver the huge zoom range. Convenient, yes, but I'll take IQ over convenience 95% of the time.

18mm (29mm FF equivilent) on an APS-C lens just isn't wide enough for my taste, so I'd like to see a normal zoom that goes down to 15mm.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 15, 2013)

bholliman said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i'm more interested in either
> ...



Remember that retrofocusing is part of the problem with super zoom lenses as well. An 18-135 zoom lens in EF-M is going to be an entirely telephoto design, it should be smaller, lighter, and probably sharper than the equivalent lens in EF or EF-S.
On the point of flange distance limitations, that was really only a problem on SLR bodies because of the mirror getting in the way, on EF-M they could protrude the lens as far back into the body as they want. Really there's no reason that any lens on EF-M will ever need to be retrofocusing, and they should be able to make any (short) focal length in pancake form.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 12, 2013)

I wouldn't mind a smaller EOS-M telephoto. The new 55-250 STM does look to be of decent quality and has STM so it might be "good" enough via adapter and relatively still a lot smaller than the usual big teles (70-200 up).

A green ring lens would be nice but I agree probably just not worth it costwise.
A collapsible 55-250 or 70-300 would be great ...

I still regard the 100-400 as a big example of a collapsible lens, even though I know it really isn't as it's just the zoom functionality. Still, more significant over the EF-M 11-22.


----------



## lw (Nov 14, 2013)

I succumbed and bought the EF-S 55-250mm STM version as Amazon UK recently dropped the price significantly.
Personally, I think it is just about the limit of handle-ability on the EOS. 






Wouldn't want to use something much heavier or bigger hand-held.
But with the tripod collar on the EF adaptor it balances really well, and is light enough to stand alone even on my Video monopod





IQ seems good. Though I can't say it is a huge improvement on my original non-STM one I had but sold on to make way for this. But operationally it is significantly quieter (AF and IS wise) which is what I was keen on as I took several videos with my non-STM version and you could hear it furiously working away.

Will the EF-M version be much smaller? Well it can lose the weight and size of the adaptor of course, and they can perhaps shave a little of the body. But given my comment above about balance I am not sure that is necessarily a good thing if you lose the forward position of the tripod collar. It wouldn't balance on my monopod any more. (not that this will be an issue for a lot of folk)

I am working on a review for my site.


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 14, 2013)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'd give up some reach in a native M mount telephoto zoom to get a smaller lens. A 50-150 (3x zoom) or 75-150 (2x zoom) would be great and further reach than a 70-200 on FF (200 vs 240). In fact, I'd give up a little max aperture too. Rather than a 3.5 maximum aperture, I'd take 4.5 - especially if it didn't VERY QUICKLY narrow after zooming from the wide end like most zooms do).

I don't know the physics behind lens design but my guess would be that a smaller zoom range and smaller maximum aperture would decrease the size and weight thereby making this an ideal telezoom for MOST people (people in this forum are NOT in that group more often than not) when using the M.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 14, 2013)

Thanks for the demo pics!
I dunno about my idea anymore. I know it will be much smaller than a 70-200 (obviously) but that still looks pretty big. I don't mind the size difference between the body and lens itself, I expect that with a tele, but especially with the adapter it's still overall bit chunkier to carry around than I thought.

Luckily (at least in Aus) the price is still kinda high for this one, for a future kit lens you'd think, so I'll hold off. Maybe I'll draw the deadline as being the release of M2. If they were going announce a tele, it would be then surely!


----------



## lw (Nov 15, 2013)

What I am beginning to suspect is that the IS is less effective when used on the M because your grip is so less stable holding the whole thing out at arms length compared to a DSLR.

Images at 250mm at something like 1/40th are fine on the 600D but are less sharp on the M. As they both have effectively the same 18mp sensor, I can only put it down to the additional shake and the IS unable to work miracles.

I would be worried an EF-M version will have the same problem.


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 15, 2013)

lw said:


> I would be worried an EF-M version will have the same problem.



Yet another reason to go with a shorter telephoto zoom (50-150 or 75-150). Shorter focal length means you're not pushing the limits of normal technique and the equipment should be smaller and balance easier.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

I'd rather canon concentrated on brilliant pancake primes.

The beauty of M is the 22mm pancake.

If you want anything bigger then BANG there went the M's whole reason for being.

The EF-m adaptor is the way to go. Let canon concentrate on budget EF pancakes that benefit all users. M has fell flat on its face a little. A shame as I love mine.

Maybe canon should make an EF-s only >EF-m. Such an adaptor could be plastic (as the max weight of any EF-s lens is going to be much less potentially than EF lenses, and yes I know the lens collar rule) and much cheaper.

The folk who want bigger lenses can have them.


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2013)

lw said:


> What I am beginning to suspect is that the IS is less effective when used on the M because your grip is so less stable holding the whole thing out at arms length compared to a DSLR.
> 
> Images at 250mm at something like 1/40th are fine on the 600D but are less sharp on the M. As they both have effectively the same 18mp sensor, I can only put it down to the additional shake and the IS unable to work miracles.
> 
> I would be worried an EF-M version will have the same problem.



I hold mine close to the chest with elbows tucked in, similar to holding a DSLR but without bringing it up to the eye. It also helps to lean on something like a tree or lamppost. Although I do agree that I find myself shaking a lot more than if I was holding something solid like a 7D! 

I haven't tried an IS lens on the M yet but I'd certainly want it for anything over 50mm. 

I'd love to see an EOS M tele prime with IS. Something like an 85 f/2 IS could be relatively small and useful (giving a nice 135 look).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

The 18-55 IS works well, especially for video. And I am the one person I never thought would try that or endorse it. But hey.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> If you want anything bigger then BANG there went the M's whole reason for being.





> The EF-m adaptor is the way to go. Let canon concentrate on budget EF pancakes that benefit all users...


uh those are pretty contradictory statements? Well kind of anyway. Adapter more than already kills the portability with nothing attached over a Rebel.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

dufflover said:


> uh those are pretty contradictory statements? Well kind of anyway. Adapter more than already kills the portability with nothing attached over a Rebel.



Uh, yeah I know. Such is the paradox of putting bigger lenses on any mirrorless camera.

I think anything other than the pancake 22mm destroys the form advantage of the M.

However, I personally don't want to buy any new lenses that I can't use on my other bodies. EF-m lenses are exclusive to the M. Yeah they might be 30% smaller but it ain't small enough.

And more exclusive lenses are going to backfire, the Ms great selling point to canon eos users is the ability to use your own lenses. A 55-250 is never going to be compact, so lets not kid on otherwise.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I think anything other than the pancake 22mm destroys the form advantage of the M.
> 
> However, I personally don't want to buy any new lenses that I can't use on my other bodies. EF-m lenses are exclusive to the M. Yeah they might be 30% smaller but it ain't small enough.
> 
> And more exclusive lenses are going to backfire, the Ms great selling point to canon eos users is the ability to use your own lenses. A 55-250 is never going to be compact, so lets not kid on otherwise.



Let's face it: Canon has fully botched the EOS-M in every possible way. Even if there were more EF-M lenses NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already. 

Canon should have:

designed the EF-M as FF-sensored camera-system with a new mount with well thought out diameter and flange distance.
offer a starting line-up of 2 models: EOS-M-"Pure"= Basic model, as small as possible, LCD only, as cheap as possible 
and EOS-M-"Advanced", slightly larger, possibly somewhat more controls, full weathersealing, Mg-alloy body and hi-end "retina" EFV 
 plus starting lineup of 3 native, FF pancake primes, sized like the EF 40/2.8 ... e.g. a 18mm/4.0 landscape, 40/2.8 normal view pancake and ultracompact 85/2.8 portrait lens. All with autuofocus capability only. No manula focus ring. To make 'em really small, fully weathersealed, optically as good as the EF 40/2.8 and as cheap as possible.
 plus one kit-zoom ... similar to Sony ... 28-75/3.5-5.6 ... but foldable design to make it really compact, when not in use .. "parking position".
 EF-M adapter included in package
 plus roadmap for new EF-M lenses to come ... see Sony! WA lenses first, because those will be smaller and lighter with reduced flange distance compared to EF lenses. No need to rush native tele lenses, since they will not be smaller. Size of front element is determined by focal length and largest f-stop.

Now THAT would have been a brilliant for a full-fledged Canon EOS-M system, which would gradually but quickly replace most DSLRs, except possibly a 1D type "fast action +long lenses" DSLR and maybe one Retro-DSLR for all those Retro-buyers who want a "chunky, beefy DSLR with proper mirror slap, OVF and lots of dials and buttons all over" [a.k.a. "Nikon Df"]. 

But no, ultra-conservative Canon geriatric management ward would never do such an innovative thing. So they goofed and are being punished by us, the customers, who will only buy their sorry EOS-M if it comes almost for free. Right on them!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Let's face it: Canon has fully botched the EOS-M in every possible way. Even if there were more EF-M lenses NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already.



Agree.



AvTvM said:


> Canon should have:
> 
> designed the EF-M as FF-sensored camera-system with a new mount with well thought out diameter and flange distance.



Disagree. The EF flange depth for FF is well established. It couldn't possibly be anything else if you want to include EF users and make that a selling point. Which I think Canon had to really.



AvTvM said:


> offer a starting line-up of 2 models: EOS-M-"Pure"= Basic model, as small as possible, LCD only, as cheap as possible
> and EOS-M-"Advanced", slightly larger, possibly somewhat more controls, full weathersealing, Mg-alloy body and hi-end "retina" EFV



Disagree. I think they got the model right. It's a great size. Great feel. Simple enough for folk buying their first EOS camera, functional enough for experienced EOS users to have as their B or C camera.

They should have held off until dual pixel AF was ready, or even just FW2.0 performance was available from the outset. Even with FW1, folk who knew how AF works could get good results, with FW2 anybody could. The problem is that a large chunk of the Ms target market want a camera that works out the box. The M didn't do that at first.




AvTvM said:


> plus starting lineup of 3 native, FF pancake primes, sized like the EF 40/2.8 ... e.g. a 18mm/4.0 landscape, 40/2.8 normal view pancake and ultracompact 85/2.8 portrait lens. All with autuofocus capability only. No manula focus ring. To make 'em really small, fully weathersealed, optically as good as the EF 40/2.8 and as cheap as possible.
> plus one kit-zoom ... similar to Sony ... 28-75/3.5-5.6 ... but foldable design to make it really compact, when not in use .. "parking position".



Not asking much. Why not just have decent EF lenses that can be adapted?




AvTvM said:


> EF-M adapter included in package



Absolutely agree. I think there is mileage in a plastic EF-s only version too, at say £30, or in the box.




AvTvM said:


> plus roadmap for new EF-M lenses to come ... see Sony! WA lenses first, because those will be smaller and lighter with reduced flange distance compared to EF lenses. No need to rush native tele lenses, since they will not be smaller. Size of front element is determined by focal length and largest f-stop.



Em, forgive me, but as the thread is about the lack of EF-m tele lenses, isn't this kind of what Canon have done? Kit 18-55, 22mm pancake, and 11-22 UWA? You are criticising canon for not doing something they have actually done. Besides, didn't you say earlier...




AvTvM said:


> Even if there were more EF-M lenses NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already.



Pick a tune and stick to it buddy.




AvTvM said:


> So they goofed and are being punished by us, the customers, who will only buy their sorry EOS-M if it comes almost for free. Right on them!



Yep, well the launch prices were ridiculous. £800 here in the UK.
The paradox being that the folk who have bought the M's in a firesale, actually now decide they quite like them and that canon didn't have their head completely up their harris.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

I would be willing to buy a 3 pack of small new-Canon-mount pancakes (18mm/40mm/85mm or so) ... but NOT for an APS-C sensor. Only for FF. 

New mount will come anyways with transition to MILCs. And it will be no disaster this time. FD to EF did not work, but this time due to reducted flange-distance, only a cheap little extension tube adaptor without optic elements is needed to keep any and all existing EF lenses 100% compatible and functional. 

Actually, I would have liked to see a multi-function ring around the lens mount on a FF EOS-mirrorless. To be used as "aperture ring" or for any other user-assigned function. Just like on the Powershot S models. Would really make sense. 

The basic mistake Canon made, was to put an APS-C sensor into the EOS-M, rather than a FF one. With fast one-sensor PD-AF of course. Base model could then have been priced at about 1500 and advanced model with EVF at about 2500. Next model to follow a bit later would then have been a high resolution version ... 36 MP, priced at 3500.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I would be willing to buy a 3 pack of small new-Canon-mount pancakes (18mm/40mm/85mm or so) ... but NOT for an APS-C sensor. Only for FF.



Yes, I would buy that too, and being EF it is entirely non-exclusive / backwards compatable. Pentax could give a few lessons here.



AvTvM said:


> New mount will come anyways with transition to MILCs. And it will be no disaster this time. FD to EF did not work, but this time due to reducted flange-distance, only a cheap little extension tube adaptor without optic elements is needed to keep any and all existing EF lenses 100% compatible and functional.



The cheap little adaptor is the key. In the box, or cheap aftermarket. I really don't think FF is the way, the A7 for example isn't the most compact out there. If the M is about compact, then let it be compact. The M isn't (so far) about replacing a DSLR. It's complimentary. The M doesn't need to be a 1DX beater.




AvTvM said:


> Actually, I would have liked to see a multi-function ring around the lens mount on a FF EOS-mirrorless. To be used as "aperture ring" or for any other user-assigned function. Just like on the Powershot S models. Would really make sense.



So on top of the full size EF mount you are now adding an extra ring? This compact camera is getting bigger and bigger.

I like the idea though. Kipon have built in manual iris rings for some of their EF adaptors, although I gather this is an extra iris in the convertor rather than controlling the lens iris, which has to screw with the performance.. but a nub of an idea none the less.




AvTvM said:


> The basic mistake Canon made, was to put an APS-C sensor into the EOS-M, rather than a FF one. With fast one-sensor PD-AF of course.



The basic mistakes were price and AF performance. Had these been right from the start nobody would be having this conversation. The M would have been taken as what it was. A competitor to existing NEX and PENS. The obsession with FF gets ridiculous sometimes.




AvTvM said:


> Base model could then have been priced at about 1500 and advanced model with EVF at about 2500. Next model to follow a bit later would then have been a high resolution version ... 36 MP, priced at 3500.



Now I know you are pulling my leg. EOS M should have been on a par costwise and feature wise with the entry level EOS camera, say the SL1. 

That would have given folks sensible expectations, and the target users / market a choice.

I maintain that the M is an entry level camera, and has never been marketed as anything else. Folk who want 135/leica/minature format, folk who want the best possible AF already have a choice.

No camera is all things to all people.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 22, 2013)

And pretty sure sales would 1% of what they are if they went down that route. Good camera sure, but (going off the trend) probably still lagging the other mirrorless competitors (FF or otherwise) and ofcourse they'd never flog those for $300 or doubtful even $1000.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 2, 2013)

axtstern said:


> Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.
> 
> Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake' or 'please give me another Xmm pancake'
> 
> ...


you can also use Magic Lantern with the crop mode turned on for HD videos. So a 200mm lens now becomes a 600mm with no quality loss in the images. It sis not a digital zoom, it is a crop mode on the sensor, thus the high quality. And no aliasing and moire when using crop mode since there is no line skipping.


----------

