# EOS M3 24 MP Sensor?



## drjlo (Jan 29, 2015)

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/canon-eos-m3-to-be-announced-next-week-friday

EOS M3 may arrive with a 24 MP sensor, and since it may be unlikely that Canon has developed both the 20 MP sensor (7D II) and yet another new sensor at 24 MP, could this be the ubiquitous Sony 24 MP sensor? If so, how do we feel about this?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 29, 2015)

FF mirrorless with pop-up EVF = compact & higher IQ


----------



## Khufu (Jan 29, 2015)

I'm inclined to believe there's a non-DPAF 24mp sensor that the 'III' suffix really belongs to, as in "Hybrid AF III" and not "we've skipped I and II but here's a 24mp DPAF III!"

Wasn't there a spec list for the new Rebel somewhere that mentioned a Hybrid AF III? Looks like someone's stringing along various acronyms and numerals they've seen knocking about and imagined themselves a dodgy new product!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 30, 2015)

Rumors of new T6i say, 24 megapixel sensor Hybrid AF iii.

If this is correct, it will be an improvement of Hybrid AF ii sensor, found in the Rebel SL1, and is different from the Dual Pixel AF technology.

Possibly the new M3 will have the same T6i sensor.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 30, 2015)

.
If so, how do we feel?

All I want to know is when does the M3 fire sale begin!


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 30, 2015)

i think this looks awesome. it is basically what everyone (reasonable, realistic people) wanted. i am glad that the EVF is said to be optional. i think that will keep the price down so more people are able and willing to buy it. I hope it comes out just like the rumor.


----------



## kennephoto (Jan 30, 2015)

I like my eos m a lot and I sure wouldn't mind a new M that improves on the features I like about the camera line. I just want it to be faster af and fps with more video options and I'd be really happy. The size is awesome and I really love using my fd lenses with it!


----------



## TeT (Jan 30, 2015)

Did anyone ever actually see a live M2?


----------



## Zv (Jan 30, 2015)

TeT said:


> Did anyone ever actually see a live M2?



Yes. Why?


----------



## Zv (Jan 30, 2015)

Khufu said:


> I'm inclined to believe there's a non-DPAF 24mp sensor that the 'III' suffix really belongs to, as in "Hybrid AF III" and not "we've skipped I and II but here's a 24mp DPAF III!"
> 
> Wasn't there a spec list for the new Rebel somewhere that mentioned a Hybrid AF III? Looks like someone's stringing along various acronyms and numerals they've seen knocking about and imagined themselves a dodgy new product!



Could be a mix up there between the Dual Pixel and Hybrid but note that the first version of Dual Pixel AF was the 70D and then we saw a similar but slightly modified sensor in the 7DII making it DPAF II and if these rumors are true this 24MP sensor would be the third iteration of Dual Pixel. 

My guess is it will have a hand-me-down sensor from the 70D and about 5fps. Maybe NFC. Optional VF. I can't see them doing a completely new 24MP sensor with 7fps in an EOS M.


----------



## rs (Jan 30, 2015)

The typical crop factor for other manufacturers APS-C cameras is 1.5x. No-one else uses 1.6x, so that suggests it can't be an off-the-shelf Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2015)

IF the Canon EOS M3 indeed comes with
* 24 MP APS-C Sony sensor ... as in A6000 (or even upcoming A7000)
* plus further improved AF system (Mk. III) from Sony A6000 (or A7000) 
* plus EVF (as in Sony A6000 or upcoming A7000)
* at a price not higher than Sony A6000 (or A7000) and available as "body only, w/o kit lens"
I will pre-order on Day 1. 8)

"M3 will be announced shortly, but no info re. specs available yet" - is also contained in the latest rumor re. Canon 5DS and 5DSR -> http://digicame-info.com/2015/01/eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r.html



> それから、EOS M3 が発表されることも確認されました。EOS M3のスペックは今のところ分かりません。





> Then, was also confirmed that the EOS M3 will be announced. Specs of EOS M3 does not know for now.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 30, 2015)

rs said:


> The typical crop factor for other manufacturers APS-C cameras is 1.5x. No-one else uses 1.6x, so that suggests it can't be an off-the-shelf Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor.


However, if you crop 28MP Samsung (1.5x) crop down to Canon (1.6x) crop then you get 24.6MP.


----------



## boogaloo (Jan 30, 2015)

From the stats we've seen do you guys think this will still use the 'old' EOS-M mount?


----------



## brad-man (Jan 30, 2015)

While DPAF tech is quite useful in current DSLRs for live view and video shooting, it will really be most pertinent for mirrorless. I don't buy into the Canon using Sony sensors rumor, so...


----------



## LDS (Jan 30, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> more people are able and willing to buy it. I hope it comes out just like the rumor.



And some more will be kept away as well. The actual design didn't look very successful. For this class of cameras, low price is not really a driver. It's going to be expensive anyway, especially if you need - and buy - lenses. So keeping the spec down only delivers a camera that is maybe only marginally better than fixed lens one - or even worse (i.e. less compact), while external O/EVF are usually far clumsier to use, and won't attract many users who would buy a camera with a built in one, but not a camera + external VF, and not due to the price.


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 30, 2015)

LDS said:


> jefflinde said:
> 
> 
> > more people are able and willing to buy it. I hope it comes out just like the rumor.
> ...



I disagree on a couple points.

The design was not the reason that the camera was not successful. the poor focusing and lack of native lenses was why it was unsuccessful. more buttons and wiz bangs does not make a camera easier to use. I actually find the touch screen easier to manually control the camera than dials and buttons. Furthermore what is successful? in non-US markets the EOS M was fairly successful and it is not like i see a ton of non-canon MILC cameras in the wild anyways. I hear lots of talk about Sony but i see very few of them in regular peoples hands. 

I don't want canon to keep specs down and i actually never said that. what i said was that they should not bake in the EVF. Canon has a target price point and they will fill the camera with features until that price point is hit. Now if the PP is $2000 then you will get great focusing and EVF and all that fun stuff. however, how many $2000 EOS M's do you think that canon will sell. Not many is the answer. So realistically the PP is going to be $7-$800. So, what i said was that i want all the features that i can get for $800 and i dont want EVF to be one of those. I would rather have faster focusing, more FPS, better DR, DPAF, flippy screen ect. Then if i choose to add an EVF i can. 

I dont care if my spec sheet is better than that of a Sony or a Olympus. I want my camera to take great pictures and work with the canon gear i already have. if i was a spec sheet shooter then i would already own a Sony or an Olympus. i think most people know that having the best spec sheet does not mean you take great pics and i really hope that canon knows that too.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2015)

At a price point of USD/€ 799 I do expect a built-in EVF - left top corner on thee backside please [rangefinder style]. 
Just like a Sony A6000 [or upcoming A7000]. Plus fully competitive sensor, fully competitive AF system, WiFi built-in, NFC built in, GPS built in, RT-commander built in. 

799 USD/€ is more than enough dough to finally come up with a freakin' decent mass-market APS-C sensored MILC! Actually, I would like the EVF to be the first 4k resoultion EVF in any camera. Oterwise, I doi not want anything 4k in it. 

The EOS-M failed at first, because greedy Canon wanted 899 for a sub-par, uncompetitive camera without any viewfinder, old sensor and dead-slow AF system (prior to FW update). There is no reason on earth, why a Canon EOS M should be one cent more expensive than a similar Rebel [SL 1] ... we'd actually be looking at 449 € then.


----------



## 1Zach1 (Jan 30, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> At a price point of USD/€ 799 I do expect a built-in EVF - left top corner on thee backside please [rangefinder style].
> Just like a Sony A6000 [or upcoming A7000]. Plus fully competitive sensor, fully competitive AF system, WiFi built-in, NFC built in, GPS built in, RT-commander built in.


I would gladly have GPS and NFC left out if it meant keeping the side down. I would also be okay with an add on EVF for the same reason, though we have seen other manufactures keep their cameras small and still include built in EVFs.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2015)

1Zach1 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > At a price point of USD/€ 799 I do expect a built-in EVF - left top corner on thee backside please [rangefinder style].
> ...



I would be perfectly OK with a size like Sony A6000 including viewfinder. Those radio-chips Wifi, GPS, NFC, Bluetooth, RT ... can be built really really tiny, by the way. All of them together can be fitted on a thumbnail-sized PCB - as in any smartphone. Antennas will fit around the LCD-frame. No size issue whatsoever. But an energy management challenge ... therefore all of these radio-modules should be easily user switchable - plus one touch screen symbol "flight mode" .. as on any smartphone.. Everything is invented already. 

Moving to A6000 size would also allow the EOS M3 to use a regular capacity LP-E6N battery with 12+ Watthours of juice. That should give it around 500 shot capability.

I'd really love to have a chat with the EOS-M engineers/design team and afterwards go to bat with that old fart Canon Imaging Division Head ... Masado Maeda. ;D


----------



## drjlo (Jan 30, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> IF the Canon EOS M3 indeed comes with
> * 24 MP APS-C Sony sensor ... as in A6000 (or even upcoming A7000)
> * plus further improved AF system (Mk. III) from Sony A6000 (or A7000)
> * plus EVF (as in Sony A6000 or upcoming A7000)
> ...



I was thinking along the same lines, but I couldn't resist the lure of mirrorless Frull Frame..

I had previously used the Sony A7r with Zeiss FE55 but returned them due to the high price for mere "portable" or "backup" duty. 

But the recent eBay deal on Zeiss FE55 for $799 forced me to rebuy that beauty (where is the new 50 mm, Canon?), and I will pick up a discounted and/or used Sony A7r after the A7r Mk II is launched. If the A7r Mk II sports 50 MP as rumored and becomes larger with IBIS as A7 II has, then I'd rather have the svelt, 36 MP A7r anyway.. 8)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2015)

With the expected announcements only a week off, we should be seeing photos and specifications for any new cameras. 

I expect lots of information to trickle in over the next few days. CR seems to have some well placed contributors who send in photos and specs when they have them in hand, so I'll wait for them rather than comment on a random rumor.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 31, 2015)

Hopefully it will have at least 24Mpx AA filter-less sensor. So it will troll all these Sony´s and Fuji´s for price/resolution ratio. My 22mm, 11-22mm, 50mm and 100mm lenses are idling and waiting!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2015)

I expect it to have the same 24 MP sensor as the new rebel 750D/760D ... and I would woish it is either
A) a game-changing Canon 24 MP dual pixel sensor with class leading sensor and AF performance 
OR
B) the same 24 MP sensor + AF system as in the Sony A6000 or the upcoming Sony A7000



crashpc said:


> Hopefully it will have at least 24Mpx AA filter-less sensor. So it will troll all these Sony´s and Fuji´s for price/resolution ratio. My 22mm, 11-22mm, 50mm and 100mm lenses are idling and waiting!


----------



## crashpc (Jan 31, 2015)

Keep in mind that Canon has different crop factor. If it has 24Mpx usable, it won´t be THAT AX000 sensor from Sony. Fingers crossed for whatever might come...


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2015)

crashpc said:


> Keep in mind that Canon has different crop factor. If it has 24Mpx usable, it won´t be THAT AX000 sensor from Sony. Fingers crossed for whatever might come...



If a Sony A6000 sensor would be stuck into a Canon EOS M/M2 body and mounted at the correct Canon EOS-M/EF flange distance, it would still deliver every single one of its 24 megapixels. And the EF-M lenses would work perfectly well serving up the incoming photons. ;D


----------



## jrista (Jan 31, 2015)

I really don't see Canon using Sony sensors. It just doesn't fit with their long established business model, nor the pride they take in their top to bottom integrated product lines. It'll be a Canon sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2015)

we shall see. I think, the rumors are not unfounded. Of course it would be a major defeat for Canon having to buy Sony sensors for all their new cameras ... 5DS, 5DS R, D750/D760, EOS-M3 ... but that does not bother me. 
All I want are the best possible cameras to take my EF, EF-S and EF-M lenses natively. 

It is totally irrelevant to me and to my photography, whether Canon is able to produce competitve sensors themselves or not ... as long as they put fully competitrive senors into their cameras. Even if they are sourced from Sony.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 31, 2015)

jrista said:


> I really don't see Canon using Sony sensors. It just doesn't fit with their long established business model, nor the pride they take in their top to bottom integrated product lines. It'll be a Canon sensor.



I agree. A couple completely unsubstantiated rumors and people are going gaga.

And the idea that Canon does not produce competitive sensors is rubbish. Yes, the Sony sensors have better DR at low ISO. If that's your number one priority, then go for those Sonys or Nikons that use the same sensors. By many user accounts, the sensor in the new 7DII is producing excellent results in every other area but low ISO DR. The Canon sensors are slightly better at higher than 800 ISOs - and, in my opinion, produce more pleasing color and contrast - especially skin tone color. 

I think the basic problem with Canon and mirrorless is that those seeking mirrorless have many other choices - and have probably already bought a competitors model. I know I have (Olympus).


----------



## jrista (Jan 31, 2015)

dak723 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't see Canon using Sony sensors. It just doesn't fit with their long established business model, nor the pride they take in their top to bottom integrated product lines. It'll be a Canon sensor.
> ...




It's not that Canon does not produce competitive sensors. Never has been...at least, that's not been my perspective.


The notion is that Canon cameras do not produce as competitive IMAGE QUALITY. There is a difference. Their cameras are great in most respects. Their use of off-die high frequency ADC units decimates the quality that their sensors are capable of. That's the problem. But Canon cameras are plenty good, their action capabilities are often unparalleled, and their lenses are top notch.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It all depends on each photographers definition of IMAGE QUALITY. If your image quality is defined by more DR and less noise, then yes, no doubt about it, Canon sensors are behind Sony. And I know you and others consider those aspects very important. And that is perfectly OK and you should hope Canon improves - or you may need to switch to the company that meets your needs. However, the aspects that I compare when it comes to IMAGE QUALITY are not the same as yours. They may not even be measurable or exactly definable, so the spec sheet readers will scoff at the very idea. But when I compare the photos from various review sites and photographers forums and blogs - and in a few cases from friends who shoot Nikon and have also let me shoot some comparative pics - I prefer the IMAGE QUALITY of Canon. I think the colors are more pleasing and accurate. The contrast is more to my liking. Overall, I like the look of the Canon IMAGE QUALITY better. Yes, it is subtle and I probably would be perfectly happy using a Sony or Nikon. More DR would certainly be handy at times, but in general I prefer more contrast. In 11 years of shooting digital, noise is not something that is even on my radar. I think I have added post-processing noise reduction in one photo over those 11 years. I'm sure I am not the only one who really doesn't care about noise. 

Granted, it may have more to do with their in-camera processing, or the lenses, or their more accurate exposure metering. Some other factors other than the sensor. I understand that people usually respond to these opinions with comments that color, contrast, exposure can all be adjusted with post processing, but not all photographers post process all or even the majority of their pics. I certainly don't have the time to do so. I usually shoot RAW+JPG, but since I only post-process a few of the best keepers (and those that need exposure adjustment), the IMAGE QUALITY of the JPGs is of high importance. 

So long as folks consider image quality to be dependent on high DR and low noise - then, in their opinion, Canon is lagging behind. And they are perfectly right in having that opinion. But it is still just an opinion, just as it is my opinion that Canon's image quality is equal to or better than the competition.


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2015)

Image quality can be _objectively measured_. It's been demonstrated for years that those measurements do have a bearing on IQ. (I'm not talking about DXO scores here, either...I'm talking about measurements.) Not necessarily in every single _image_, but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about the potential to produce quality images...as it is an _image producing device_ under discussion.


Objectively speaking, the device is either more or less limited in it's ability to produce quality, on a RELATIVE SCALE of cameras currently available. Canon's high read noise puts it at the lower end of that scale. 


When it comes to what image quality is dependent upon. Let's list the criteria:


Sensor
Readout System
ISP (Image Signal Processor)
AF System
Metering System
Lenses


The user is a factor, but let's exclude that for the moment. Canon lenses? Awesome. Canon metering system? Excellent. Canon AF system? Excellent. Canon ISP (DIGIC 6)? Highly competitive (NX1 may trounce everything, though. ;P). Readout system? Hmm. Sensor? Hmm. 


Canon excels at everything else that affects image quality except their readout system and sensor. Therefor, it stands to reason that the sensor and readout system would be the area Canon should put their focus, no?


So what's involved in an image sensor and readout system? Electronics and signals. What do electronics and signals have in common? Noise. What can be done to improve the quality of the signal coming off the sensor? Reduce noise. What does reducing noise do? Increases _tttmnbso*_. Oh. Oh. Ooohh! 


There isn't anything else to it. Signals and noise. That's what an image is. In an image, a reduction in image noise increases SNR. In a device, a reduction in read noise increases _tttmnbso _(which is the potential for the camera to produce quality). 


I'm trying to keep things objective here, not subjective. With objectivity, we have a level playing field. It doesn't assume one person's perceptions or opinions are better or worse than anyone else's....it simply relies on the cold, hard, emotionless little facts. It's a device we are talking about, something that has POTENTIAL to create images of quality. That potential can be higher or lower. Sony, Toshiba, Samsung? The potential of their sensors (just sensors, readout systems are included on-die & not all of them actually have cameras) to produce high quality is high to very high _on a relative scale._ Canon? To date, the potential of their sensors and readout system to produce high quality is lower, _on a relative scale._


Emotions and perception doesn't play a role here (or at least, shouldn't play a role.) 


Well, that's all for now, folks!









_* *TTTMNBSO*: The thing that must not be spoken of_


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> Image quality can be _objectively measured_. It's been demonstrated for years that those measurements do have a bearing on IQ. (I'm not talking about DXO scores here, either...I'm talking about measurements.) Not necessarily in every single _image_, but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about the potential to produce quality images...as it is an _image producing device_ under discussion.
> 
> 
> Objectively speaking, the device is either more or less limited in it's ability to produce quality, on a RELATIVE SCALE of cameras currently available. Canon's high read noise puts it at the lower end of that scale.
> ...



You are so fu--ing boring...........................


----------



## bf (Feb 1, 2015)

I do wish the ef-m mount will last.
Moreover, I expect more quality lenses for this mount.

I do believe bad marketing was the primary reason of the m failure. Very few people actually know what is the M. I still get several vows when they see my M with flash and the wide lens and its touchscreen ability.


----------



## crashpc (Feb 1, 2015)

Totally!
People around me have no idea what cam do I own, and that Canon "tried" to go mirrorless...


----------



## boogaloo (Feb 1, 2015)

So are we all going with the assumption they're keeping the EF-M mount for the M3?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2015)

boogaloo said:


> So are we all going with the assumption they're keeping the EF-M mount for the M3?



Er, surely by definition an M has an M mount?

I am pretty sure we will not see yet another Canon lens mount for many years. EF will always be the backbone, EF-s the Rebel sales stronghold, and the EF-M the mirrorless variant. Those wishing for a FF mirrorless need to look to other companies to service that very small niche.


----------



## boogaloo (Feb 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> boogaloo said:
> 
> 
> > So are we all going with the assumption they're keeping the EF-M mount for the M3?
> ...



I'm glad you think so. Have seen many on certain forums suggesting that imminent or future Canon mirrorless lensess may switch to different mounts. Have 3 EF-M lenses myself so I hope not (not least because 2 of them are, I think, pretty damn good glass).


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> boogaloo said:
> 
> 
> > So are we all going with the assumption they're keeping the EF-M mount for the M3?
> ...


They could use the EF mount on a FF mirrorless


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > boogaloo said:
> ...



They could, but then you are making retrofocal lenses that don't need to be retrofocal. Using EF lenses with their 44mm flange distance on a FF mirrorless that could easily use an 18mm flange distance makes no sense, especially as a 'solution'.

Canon gave the clearest indication they could that they do not see ever making a ff mirrorless, certainly not in the foreseeable future, when they made the EF-M diameter so much smaller than the EF diameter.


----------



## drjlo (Feb 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon gave the clearest indication they could that they do not see ever making a ff mirrorless, certainly not in the foreseeable future, when they made the EF-M diameter so much smaller than the EF diameter.



I am forced to agree with this assessment :'( I just picked up the Sony A7r and FE55 f1.8... Again.


----------



## TLau74 (Feb 2, 2015)

I found this...You can use google translate...
http://www.price.com.hk/news.php?id=2891
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CP + 2015 photographic equipment and imaging exhibition will be officially held on February 12! There are rumors that a new generation of lightweight Canon will be released without anti-camera EOS M3. Count the days, the existing EOS M2 launch has been a year, so there is also the birth of a new generation of EOS M system is not surprising. Following on comprehensive income rumor, speculation EOS M3 hardware configuration, the focus should be to spend high-pixel sensor. 

Latest news, EOS M3 will have up to 24.2 million pixel APS-C CMOS sensor, while Canon has reported that this year's APS-C SLR camera or is no reverse, will adopt higher than the 18 million-pixel high-resolution sensors. In addition, EOS M3 will be using Dual Pixel CMOS AF III AF system, providing sensitivity range to ISO 100 12800 continuous shooting speed of 7fps, support NFC transmission functions and external EVF electronic viewfinder. If the information is true, EOS M3 with a high standard of performance, will certainly be lightweight family sought objects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 2, 2015)

If the Canon EOS M3 is as good or better than a Sony a6000, I'll buy a couple. If not I'll buy a7000.

There is no reason that an M3 should cost more than a 70D, and no reason for it to have less performance. Canon has the chops to make a killer mirrorless, the question is do that have the desire ???


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> If the Canon EOS M3 is as good or better than a Sony a6000, I'll buy a couple. If not I'll buy a7000.
> 
> There is no reason that an M3 should cost more than a 70D, and no reason for it to have less performance. Canon has the chops to make a killer mirrorless, the question is do that have the desire ???



+1
Exactly!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 2, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> IF the Canon EOS M3 indeed comes with
> * 24 MP APS-C Sony sensor ... as in A6000 (or even upcoming A7000)
> * plus further improved AF system (Mk. III) from Sony A6000 (or A7000)
> * plus EVF (as in Sony A6000 or upcoming A7000)
> ...


That would be the only way I can sell my Sony a6000 and get a EOS-M3. Please don't forget the lvery imited number of EOS-M native lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> That would be the only way I can sell my Sony a6000 and get a EOS-M3. Please don't forget the lvery imited number of EOS-M native lenses.



I do not care for a lens line-up as large and wide as possible, of which nothing really meets my needs. Especially Sony E does not hold much of interest for me. Sony FE neither - either way too expensive, Zeiss-badged, boring fixed focals (35/2.8 give me a break or 55/1.8 ) or way too large and expensive f/4 zooms. I also do not care at all for the way too expensive and way too-retro-for-me Fuji X lenses. 56/1.2 ... a bad joke!

I finde the 4 EF-M lenses all very compact, optically "more than good enough for me" and extremely price-worthy. I take my M plus 1 lens attached with me on a lot of mountaineering, mountain biking, ski-touring activities - in a small LoewPro Dashpoint 30 case, mounted on the left side Backpack belt - ready for immediate use at any time. A month ago the M plus 18-55 kit fell out into the snow and trying to pick it up I tripped over it on my skis ... steel edge just made a minor scratch on the camera body. Wiped off the snow and cointinued the ascent and shooting. 

Got all 4 EF-M lenses and don't really miss much in further native EF-M lenses. Actually I would buy only 1 more, if Canon will ever make it: 
* EF-M 75/2.4 IS STM ... ultracompact portrait tele 

What I really miss is a kick-ass M3 body with EVF and tracking-capable AF in a not much larger form factor [up to Sony A6000 size; also like the rangefinder style with viewfinder in left top corner on the rear, not in the middle on top]. 

But ... YMMV.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 2, 2015)

brad-man said:


> While DPAF tech is quite useful in current DSLRs for live view and video shooting, it will really be most pertinent for mirrorless. I don't buy into the Canon using Sony sensors rumor, so...


I know. I guess canon just wants the M to fail. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if it had DPAF.


----------



## DRR (Feb 2, 2015)

I think the intention is for EF-M to be the de-facto Canon APS-C mount for the future in most consumer cameras. 7DII level cameras excepted. I think it will eventually be EF-M for all APS-C mirrorless, and eventually the Rebel line will be EF-M mount also. So two APS-C lines, the M line for small, compact, pocketable mirrorless, and the Rebel line for a more full-featured mirrorless line. All while maintaining full EF and EF-S compatibility via adapter.


----------



## Rocky (Feb 2, 2015)

If canon can make the 22mm EF_M shorter, with IS. cut the aperture to be f4 ( instead of F2)in order to shorten it, that will make the M really pocketable.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2015)

Rocky said:


> If canon can make the 22mm EF_M shorter, with IS. cut the aperture to be f4 ( instead of F2)in order to shorten it, that will make the M really pocketable.



no, thanks.  
EOS-M plus 22/2.0 fits nicely in any of my coat and jacket pockets. 8)


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 3, 2015)

I don't really understand peoples objection to Canon using a Sony sensor. If its the best product at a suitable price point why not. 
Apple use thousands of parts made & designed by other companies such as Arm Processors in iPhones, iPads etc.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I don't really understand peoples objection to Canon using a Sony sensor. If its the best product at a suitable price point why not.
> Apple use thousands of parts made & designed by other companies such as Arm Processors in iPhones, iPads etc.




It's not an objection. At least, not from me. It's just not a likelihood. It's not in Canon's M.O. and I don't think they are at a point yet where they would be "forced" to rely on Sony for sensors. I actually think Canon would fight tooth and nail to the bitter end before they actually used another companies sensors in their larger form factor cameras. In multiple interviews Canon has beamed with pride over their fully integrated in-house product model for the high end of their imaging business (DSLRs, Video cameras, Photographic Printers.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 4, 2015)

rs said:


> The typical crop factor for other manufacturers APS-C cameras is 1.5x. No-one else uses 1.6x, so that suggests it can't be an off-the-shelf Sony 24 MP APS-C sensor.



well DUH. good call!


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 4, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > That would be the only way I can sell my Sony a6000 and get a EOS-M3. Please don't forget the lvery imited number of EOS-M native lenses.
> ...



what I miss is tilt lcd, tethering and Zone AF performance. I find one shot AF to be fine on the M especially with the newer EF-M lenses - the 22mm being the worst to AF. I would like to see Canon continually improve AF speed and also shot to shot speed on the M as well and fix some of the ergonomic what were they thinking of? areas - such as the bolted on MF section that fails to use any pinch/zoom swiping to move around the screen for manual focus.

I think most that complain about the M have never held one. it's a solid brick, and also extremely small. as small almost as an RX100 or a powershot P&S. an M with all lenses weighs in around 2lbs.

I'd like to see an EF-M 18-135mm, a 60mm macro and a nice portable mid-tele like you mention. it really doesn't need that much in the way of lenses.

Run those lenses through DLO and the output as good as it gets.

to make it similar to the same size as the A6000 and contain an EVF would require canon to move to a 16:9 format screen as well. No thank you.


----------



## LDS (Feb 4, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> The design was not the reason that the camera was not successful. the poor focusing and lack of native lenses was why it was unsuccessful.



It looks most of its buyers just used the kit lenses, as a lot of entry lever DSLR buyers. 



jefflinde said:


> more buttons and wiz bangs does not make a camera easier to use. I actually find the touch screen easier to manually control the camera than dials and buttons.



Properly placed buttons make anything far easier to use than any touch screen. Especially if you aren't looking at the screen...



jefflinde said:


> Furthermore what is successful? in non-US markets the EOS M was fairly successful and it is not like i see a ton of non-canon MILC cameras in the wild anyways.



It looks it was successful only in the Asian market. Nor in US nor in Europe. Just, US + Europe are about 600M of the wealthier prospective customers (for a while still, at least). Failing in these two markets is not usually a good idea for something that is after all still expensive, not an entry level camera.



jefflinde said:


> of those. I would rather have faster focusing, more FPS, better DR, DPAF, flippy screen ect. Then if i choose to add an EVF i can.



Both faster focusing and more FPS are good for some kind of action photos, which is something I really can't do without keeping the camera to the eye, and not far from my face. I find much more natural to follow a subject this way and keep the camera steady.

The price point is higher than the EOS 100D/SL1 which probably is its main competitor, small enough and able to use EF lenses without adapters. And with a true viewfinder.


----------

