# New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 17, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12702"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12702">Tweet</a></div>
<b>More EOS-M Lenses Soon</b></p>
<p>We’re told 3 new EOS-M lenses will be announced in the coming months. A 55-300 style lens will appear along with a “fast prime” first, followed by a super zoom with a new EOS-M body.</p>
<p>We’ve had a lot of unconfirmed announcement dates over the last few months, so I’m not going to post any dates until I get full confirmation. For now, expect these announcements before April.</p>
<p>No word on the specs for the new EOS-M body, we only know it will have some kind of a viewfinder.</p>
<p>cr</p>
```


----------



## LukieLauXD (Jan 17, 2013)

WUT WUT. I just got my M though. T_T If it's like a M-pro, I'm going to cry.


----------



## ddashti (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm looking forward to new regular EOS lenses, although news about EOS-M is always something interesting to "observe."


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 17, 2013)

LukieLauXD said:


> WUT WUT. I just got my M though. T_T If it's like a M-pro, I'm going to cry.



I think it will be... so cry now.  You'll cry even more because it will have a swivel screen + EVF + a little bit more buttons.


----------



## dolina (Jan 17, 2013)

How about a fast prime that is lower than f/1.0  Like say f/0.95 or f/0.7.


----------



## Bigmaxy (Jan 17, 2013)

Had previously heard the rumors of an M2 so it's not so much of a shock. I can accept that my EOS-M doesn't have a built in flash or EVF since it is what I bought.

What I have a problem accepting is the crap AF speed and the lack of a firmware update to address it. If it turns out to be a hardware problem and something that requires a new model to fix I'll be very very very annoyed with Canon. (Unless they do me some kind of unheard of deal to upgrade)


----------



## Ricku (Jan 17, 2013)

Such an uninteresting camera.

The EOS M is a failure compared to other well established mirrorless cameras on the market. Fujii, Olympus, Sony (and of course Leica) simply kicks it into oblivion.

Canon came late to the game, and they should have gone with a full frame sensor. A FF mirrorless from Canon could have shaken things up, but instead they just made more of the same.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 17, 2013)

Bigmaxy said:


> Had previously heard the rumors of an M2 so it's not so much of a shock. I can accept that my EOS-M doesn't have a built in flash or EVF since it is what I bought.
> 
> What I have a problem accepting is the crap AF speed and the lack of a firmware update to address it. If it turns out to be a hardware problem and something that requires a new model to fix I'll be very very very annoyed with Canon. (Unless they do me some kind of unheard of deal to upgrade)



You may want to use the screen to touch-focus. I find that it a lot faster.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 17, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Such an uninteresting camera.
> 
> The EOS M is a failure compared to other well established mirrorless cameras on the market. Fujii, Olympus, Sony (and of course Leica) simply kicks it into oblivion.
> 
> Canon came late to the game, and they should have gone with a full frame sensor. A FF mirrorless from Canon could have shaken things up, but instead they just made more of the same.


Again, nobody is surprised to see you bashing Canon's products. As usual you don't prove your point to why say it's a failure. It's like you didn't get the idea of this product. It's a consumer camera providing high margins for Canon. A great platform for them to start developing a whole new series of lenses for. I would say it was smart of them to start by launching the expected high volume model ahead of any higher end product. They get the word out, they get to sell a lot of lenses going with it and finance further development for this platform. 

Canon being the dominant player in the camera market will have resources to bring to market a number of interesting products should they see this segment grow further.


----------



## Bigmaxy (Jan 17, 2013)

This is probably not the right place to defend the current model since we are talking about new stuff. But I still love the concept and am pleased with my purchase (except for the focusing speed). Obviously it is no replacement for my 7D but I can use my extensive collection of lenses and effectively carry 2 DSLR bodies with suitable L series lenses.
Thumbs up from me. 
Hope the new model has wifi/gps/built in flash.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Jan 17, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Canon came late to the game, and they should have gone with a full frame sensor. A FF mirrorless from Canon could have shaken things up.


Agreed !!


----------



## Woody (Jan 17, 2013)

Canon may have been late to the game, but they could have sold many EOS-M units if only they AF as fast as the Oly/Panny MILCs.

Anyway, a new EOS-M with super fast AF (as good as Oly/Panny/Sony/current Fujifilm) and some decent OVF/EVF decent may entice me to sell my Oly OM-D and Panny lens setup. The reason? I can use lenses like the 35 f/2 IS interchangeably between the 6D and EOS-M cameras.


----------



## Wild (Jan 17, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Again, nobody is surprised to see you bashing Canon's products. As usual you don't prove your point to why say it's a failure. It's like you didn't get the idea of this product. It's a consumer camera providing high margins for Canon. A great platform for them to start developing a whole new series of lenses for. I would say it was smart of them to start by launching the expected high volume model ahead of any higher end product. They get the word out, they get to sell a lot of lenses going with it and finance further development for this platform.
> 
> Canon being the dominant player in the camera market will have resources to bring to market a number of interesting products should they see this segment grow further.



I think I'm going to have to side with Ricku on this one. Canon went the aps-c route, which is better than another company that I won't mention, but it's still something that's been around for a while. So now we're stuck with something that has specific lenses that won't be of any use to a full-frame sensored mirrorless if they choose to go down that route in the future.

Part of being the best camera manufacturer in the world, is using your dominance in the industry to bring innovation and new ideas to the table that your competitors simply can't afford to compete with. Canon could have easily churned out a mirrorless with a 5d mark ii-like sensor in it with a similar body style to the EOS-M, and kept it priced competitively. Sure it isn't necessarily the epitome of innovation since Leica has been doing it for years, but at least it would be light years ahead of Canon's competitors. And don't tell me the glass would be way more expensive - there are plenty of good cheap Canon full-frame lenses, they could easily make new ones for a mirrorless.

It's not like the EOS-M is a bad camera, it's the what-if that's disappointing.


----------



## PhilBarker (Jan 17, 2013)

I have to say I've owned my EOS-M for a month now and it's border-line unusable

I've been waiting endlessly for a firmware update and it doesn't seem like ones going to come. The AF is so slow I constantly miss shots.

Compared to the fuji line up it really is poor. I think if a firmware update doesn't come by end of this month that sadly my EOS-M will be going on ebay and i'll be buying a fuji CSC instead


----------



## CanNotYet (Jan 17, 2013)

Here's hoping they just slap the mirrorless into a Rebel body, plus touchscreen, EF-M mount, and EVF instead of OVF. They are churning those out at an astounding rate anyway, so it could be priced competitively. Canon could probably brute-force into the EVIL/MILC market with a setup like that.

It would also "train" customers into thinking mirrorless is not only for small/unergonomical/"useless with good/heavy lenses" form factor. (not that most people here are already screaming for it...)


----------



## Woody (Jan 17, 2013)

Wild said:


> Canon could have easily churned out a mirrorless with a 5d mark ii-like sensor in it with a similar body style to the EOS-M, and kept it priced competitively.



Pricing a camera with a FF sensor competitively is pretty hard. Just look at the fixed lens Sony RX1 as a guide.  Want a cheaper FF camera? You've already got the D600 and 6D.

Canon is in the business of money making. I'm sure their marketing staff must have done their homework and concluded APS-C is the way of the future. The sensors are cheaper to produce and the accompanying lenses are also smaller. Until manufacturers find a cheaper means to produce FF sensors, they'll always be reserved for a niche market.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 17, 2013)

Hopefully Canon and/or Metabones will introduce a Speed Booster Adapter ( See http://www.metabones.com/info/105-info/154-speed-booster ) for Canon FF lenses on the M body. That might actually convince me to buy an M body, although not the current one.


----------



## traveller (Jan 17, 2013)

So, one potentially interesting lens and two that will be pretty oversized for the '-M' bodies. I can see why they need a 55-300 and a superzoom, as these lenses are _de rigeur_ amongst the 'point-and-shoot-upgrader' crowd that Canon seems to be targeting. If the new body is to be released with the superzoom, it would suggest that it won't be the 'prosumer' level camera that everyone around here wants. Perhaps Canon has realised that it can't win over the serious system camera buyers until the have... well, a _system_!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 17, 2013)

I could not care less. I will NOT buy an APS-C EOS-M and I will not buy APS-C lenses for it.

I want Canon to make a FF mirrorless camera 
* as small as the Sony RX-1 
* with a FF sensor as good as the Sony RX-1
* with a hybrid AF at least as good as the 5D 3 AF
* with an excellent EVF viewfinder 
* with wireless Canon EX-RT master built in [skip the hotshoe] 
* with WiFi built in
* with a lens mount for a line of new, ultra-compact short flangeback FF-lenses with AF
* with a fully functional adapter for EF lenses 
* and less expensive than a 5D 3 ... let's say USD 2500 

THEN I will be interested. Until then ... I will not buy their mirrorless crap.


----------



## zim (Jan 17, 2013)

A viewfinder and FAST Af would be much more appealing, it's the price that will be interesting, that body with those improvements and a lens no more than an entry level DSLR price would be as much as I'd be willing to pay. The market may feel otherwise of course


----------



## traveller (Jan 17, 2013)

I very much doubt that Canon will be the first to produce a full frame mirrorless system camera, but they may try imitating the RX1 (if the sales figure attract them!). Both Canon and Nikon seem very reluctant to cannibalise sales of their own premium DSLR models with mirrorless. Whilst it may be the wrong decision, I don't think that Canon and Nikon will produce 'pro' / 'prosumer' level mirrorless cameras until mirrorless becomes the default, by overcoming its current (albeit decreasing) disadvantages compared to DSLRs.


----------



## LukieLauXD (Jan 17, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> LukieLauXD said:
> 
> 
> > WUT WUT. I just got my M though. T_T If it's like a M-pro, I'm going to cry.
> ...



Not a fan of the swivel screen I see on my friend's cameras.

BUT DAMMIT I LOVE BUTTONS. T_T And I really need the viewfinder because I've been smashing my face onto the screen of my M thinking there's a viewfinder.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 17, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I could not care less. I will NOT buy an APS-C EOS-M and I will not buy APS-C lenses for it.
> 
> I want Canon to make a FF mirrorless camera
> * as small as the Sony RX-1
> ...



+1.......I thought I was the only one


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 17, 2013)

That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....

Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.

Let's all sing the praises of the FF sensor. They are better than APS-C... that's a fact and not debateable... but why not continue this discussion on to it's logical conclusion and skip past medium format sensors and go straight to large format sensors.... a large format sensor could be made that would anahilate the specs of any FF sensor. Ok, the camera and lens(s) would be insanely large, heavy, and expensive, and only the photo elite could use it or afford it, but the pictures would be better.... I used to carry around a 8x10 with glass plates....did that mean that every other film camera was a piece of shit???? of course not! Same logic holds with sensor sizes.

The reason for APS-C (and smaller) sensors is to make cameras of a size and cost that will appeal to the masses. It is a cost and ergonomics thing at the expense of image quality. A lens that covers an APS-C circle is smaller, lighter, and less expensive to manufacture than a FF lens. The vast bulk of people will never understand why you would pay $500 for a lens.... and $5,000 for a lens is unthinkable. these are the same people that buy hundreds of rebels and point/shoots for every "pro" camera sold.... these are the people that are paying for the R/D to keep new inovations coming, these are the people that are paying to keep the lights on at the Canon factory.

Next time you want to start a rant about something, think before you type.....


----------



## unfocused (Jan 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> 
> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.
> 
> ...



Good post with some excellent points. I would go a little further though: film technology was much more mature and improvements much more incremental. Thus, there were much larger differences between image quality in various formats. Digital has narrowed those differences significantly. A properly exposed and processed APS-C image can easily be printed at sizes that would have been unthinkable with 35mm film of the same ISO. 

So, while bigger may always be better, it isn't *that* much better and the differences are often noticeable only when pushing the envelope.

Finally, this "full frame or nothing" mentality reveals a mindset that puts superficial appearance over true quality of the images. There is no more influential and significant photographic work of the past 60-70 years than Robert Frank's "The Americans." Many of the images were grainy and the focus was certainly not razor sharp, yet the images changed the course of photography and continue to inspire and influence photographers nearly sixty years later. 

If your main objective in photography is to produce a picture with no visible noise when enlarged to the size of a billboard, 40 stops of dynamic range and a millimeter of depth of field, you're missing the point of photography.


----------



## Woody (Jan 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> 
> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive...
> 
> ...



It's shocking how very few think before they type. ;D


----------



## traveller (Jan 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> 
> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.
> 
> ...



Stop talking sense, there are plenty of people around here that are trying to have a rant!!! 

Besides, why can't Canon build my hobby-horse camera? It can't cost that much for their marketing department to read my forum posts and build the product that I want to buy (so long as I don't have to pay the stupid prices that Canon are charging at the moment). I'm sure that if I want it, there must be lots of other who will buy the camera as well, because I'm a founder member of the in-crowd and have thousands of "likes" on all the top social media sites. 

:


----------



## dadgummit (Jan 17, 2013)

If canon put decent AF on the EOS-M it would be perfect for me. The point of the mirrorless is that it is so small. When you add things like OVF and full frame the whole system just gets bigger defeating the whole purpose. I have a 5D3 and if I want shots in the dark I will bring it with me. I am perfectly fine composing and shooting using the back LCD, I would like it as small as possible with Canon 1.6x crop IQ. 

The only other would-be-nice change would be to make it look retro like some of the Fuji and Olympus cameras coming out but that is not a deal breaker at all.


----------



## PhilBarker (Jan 17, 2013)

^^ Exactly that

All that's missing from the EOS-M is a decent AF speed

If you want full frame buy a 5D. It's really not the point of a CSC


----------



## jal2099 (Jan 17, 2013)

As an EOS M owner, an EF-M prime or two would be welcome. EF-M primes with proper markings would be the bees knees, but I ain't holding my breath. The 22 kit lens produces a very nice image, albeit, the AF can be problematic, there is no question there. Right now, I mainly to use m39 or m-mount lenses with an adapter for their size and that they're easy to focus...the screen on the EOS M is very, very nice.

Now and then, I lament not going the Fuji route but really, only for the X-Trans sensor (or just going a little nuts and buying the Sigma DP 2 Merrill). I shoot enough video that I wanted complete manual control over it, someting the Fuji does not offer, which is even more of a head-scratcher, for me, than any shortcoming on the EOS M.

The bottom line, for me, is that while it's an easy target, the EOS M is a fun camera with great IQ. Whenever I think of it's shortcomings, I just have to look at the pictures it produces to clear those thoughts.


----------



## botw (Jan 17, 2013)

Of course I just bought an M, so this is sure to drive the price down and make me jealous. I'm ok with the first one... the second one will anger me. 

Once there are more native lenses available, I expect that M sales will pick up. If the AF is improved, they will pick up dramatically.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 17, 2013)

I sure wish Canon could focus on building something useful instead of all these stupid mirrorless and cinema offerings.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 17, 2013)

I'd get one of these if it had competitive AF with other interchangeable lens cameras. I like the 22 f/2 focal length and aperture (and size!) that comes with it, and while others bemoan the lack of a full frame sensor, I appreciate the price range it currently sits in.

I just hope that, when the viewfinder is added, Canon doesn't: 1. give it a worthless one like you find in the G-series cameras, and 2. smack the EOS M with a giant ugly stick like Nikon did to their V2


----------



## gmrza (Jan 17, 2013)

dadgummit said:


> If canon put decent AF on the EOS-M it would be perfect for me. The point of the mirrorless is that it is so small. When you add things like OVF and full frame the whole system just gets bigger defeating the whole purpose. I have a 5D3 and if I want shots in the dark I will bring it with me. I am perfectly fine composing and shooting using the back LCD, I would like it as small as possible with Canon 1.6x crop IQ.
> 
> The only other would-be-nice change would be to make it look retro like some of the Fuji and Olympus cameras coming out but that is not a deal breaker at all.



I think your on the money except for the retro bit - I couldn't really care whether it looks contemporary or retro.

The APS-C sensor makes it possible to reduce the flange distance. With full frame, there is not much scope for doing that, without funky micro-lens arrangements, which to my understanding Leica has patented. Canon already has problems with the oblique angle of incident light from the 85mm f/1.2. Bringing the rear element any closer to a full frame sensor would be a big technical challenge. As a result, I believe it will be difficult to make a full frame mirrorless camera which is much smaller than a DSLR. In addition, once you are using full frame lenses, you need a larger body in order to make for a balanced system which can be held comfortably.
APS-C quality is, to my mind, good enough for a small camera. There are people out there producing absolutely stunning images with APS-C sensors.
I would like a viewfinder - as it gives a better ability to brace the camera. I would also like a wired shutter release. Once those are available, together with a newer APS-C sensor, I may be prepared to buy an EOS-M.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2013)

I really think the first order of business for the eos m system needs to be sort out the AF speed using the shutter button!

a 55-300 with THAT slow AF! with that angle of view and the slow focus the subject will have moved out of frame before the shot gets taken, and that if its standing still


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Here's hoping they just slap the mirrorless into a Rebel body, plus touchscreen, EF-M mount, and EVF instead of OVF. They are churning those out at an astounding rate anyway, so it could be priced competitively. Canon could probably brute-force into the EVIL/MILC market with a setup like that.
> 
> It would also "train" customers into thinking mirrorless is not only for small/unergonomical/"useless with good/heavy lenses" form factor. (not that most people here are already screaming for it...)



what? the EOS-M build quality far exceeds a crappy rebel and that extends to the EF-M lenses too


----------



## Mantanuska (Jan 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.



The Leica M doesn't seem too large .. granted it is a little bigger than the current EOS-M.


----------



## mirekti (Jan 17, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I could not care less. I will NOT buy an APS-C EOS-M and I will not buy APS-C lenses for it.
> 
> I want Canon to make a FF mirrorless camera
> * as small as the Sony RX-1
> ...



+1


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> 
> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.
> 
> ...



Cleaner image at higher ISO. Unless you can pin point current crop sensor models that can match with FF sensor at higher ISO.

Have you ever hand-on Sony RX1?
Canon needs to build P&S size with FF sensor with decent AF speed, plus some special lenses(like pancake) before Nikon & Sony.

Next time, you might want to think with the right head before you type


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 18, 2013)

[/quote]

I think I'm going to have to side with Ricku on this one. Canon went the aps-c route, which is better than another company that I won't mention, but it's still something that's been around for a while. So now we're stuck with something that has specific lenses that won't be of any use to a full-frame sensored mirrorless if they choose to go down that route in the future.

Part of being the best camera manufacturer in the world, is using your dominance in the industry to bring innovation and new ideas to the table that your competitors simply can't afford to compete with. Canon could have easily churned out a mirrorless with a 5d mark ii-like sensor in it with a similar body style to the EOS-M, and kept it priced competitively. Sure it isn't necessarily the epitome of innovation since Leica has been doing it for years, but at least it would be light years ahead of Canon's competitors. And don't tell me the glass would be way more expensive - there are plenty of good cheap Canon full-frame lenses, they could easily make new ones for a mirrorless.

It's not like the EOS-M is a bad camera, it's the what-if that's disappointing.
[/quote]

Of course, this particular product could surely have been 'better', whatever that means. On the other hand so could ALL the other products in the market, so basically it's a meaningless statement. I just turned against the fact that there are people on this forum that never misses a chance to bash Canon for whatever reason. Whenever there is a launch of something they crawl out from their hiding places to complain about whatever features Canon has included in these products, or left out.

I'm not in a position to say what they should or shouldn't have done with the M. From what I understand it takes great pictures but its main shortcoming is the slow AF. It's plain ridiculous to compare it to 5000 dollar products.

I think Canon will address the what ifs in the future releases, maybe not to everybody's liking but building a new platform like they're doing here means that they have to start somewhere and to me it makes most sense to launch the volume product first. It'll be exciting to see what comes next.

I agree with you that Canon would have opportunities like basically no other player in the market to develop innovating products. I would argue that in a way they did that in 2012 though. Let's hope for an even more exciting 2013.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 18, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> ...



You appear to have missed the point.... it's not about image quality, it's about how small and inexpensive cameras appeal to the mass market, and that's what pays the bills. This is what Canon is after with the EOS-M.

Look at Olympus, the 4/3 mount, and then the micro 4/3 mount... that's a good example of the evolution of mirrorless....


----------



## CanNotYet (Jan 18, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > Here's hoping they just slap the mirrorless into a Rebel body, plus touchscreen, EF-M mount, and EVF instead of OVF. They are churning those out at an astounding rate anyway, so it could be priced competitively. Canon could probably brute-force into the EVIL/MILC market with a setup like that.
> ...



Ah, but that is just it. Canon needs to produce a lower-priced mirrorless to strongarm themselves into that market. Lower build quality is one way to lower costs. And Canon is the masters of that. They already DO have the possibility to choose from the lowest Rebel up to 7D and beyond, depending on your need. 

But they desperately need more EOS-M bodies (and lenses ofc, but that is offset somewhat by the adapter) to be able to compete really in the mirrorless market.

So, why not take a body they already have, and modify it for mirrorless? I would buy a mirrorless 1100D/Rebel T3 with EOS-M mount and EVF (I dont need touchscreen, but I think they should add it), if it cost half of the EOS-M. Which it probably could! (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one).

But an MSRP around 499$ would be possible. And then Canon would come in strong in the mirrorless market.


----------



## p666 (Jan 18, 2013)

Well it's a start, but pretty damn slow. Shows the Canon is only half into this mirrorless stuff, and only doing so due to not wanting to be left behind. 

If they were very much keen on capturing the market they would have 10 different lenses on the market already, but maybe they don't have enough faith in their own product just yet.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.



really?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You appear to have missed the point.... it's not about image quality, it's about how small and inexpensive cameras appeal to the mass market, and that's what pays the bills. This is what Canon is after with the EOS-M.
> 
> Look at Olympus, the 4/3 mount, and then the micro 4/3 mount... that's a good example of the evolution of mirrorless....



Do you feel the "Olympus, the 4/3 mount, and then the micro 4/3 mount" are good enough for low light shooting?

If image quality is not important, then why not settle with a $99 P&S. I'm sure some of us don't mind grainy/noisy photos and there are some willing to pay higher dollars to get cleaner images.

If Sony, Nikon Fuji, etc... make similar models to Sony RX1(without fixed lens), I have no problem buying it. I buy the best tool that fit my needs, not the brand.


----------



## skycolt (Jan 18, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You appear to have missed the point.... it's not about image quality, it's about how small and inexpensive cameras appeal to the mass market, and that's what pays the bills. This is what Canon is after with the EOS-M.
> ...



My wife has an em5, I should say the low light capacity is better than 7d, noise control is much better


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You appear to have missed the point.... it's not about image quality, it's about how small and inexpensive cameras appeal to the mass market, and that's what pays the bills. This is what Canon is after with the EOS-M.
> ...



My opinions about micro 4/3 or other compact mirror less cameras is immaterial, I'm not the target market. The target market is the people who want a quality, yet inexpensive camera. They get a mirror less camera and a few lenses for what you or I would pay for a lens... They have a camera that allows them to take much better pictures than a point/shoot, and if they want to they can shoot raw and manual and grow their photography skills. They either don't understand why, or don't need/want , the reasons why those who love the controls of a "pro" camera decided to go that route. Whatever their reasons, they still end up with a great camera that takes great pictures for a great price.... Yes there are much better cameras out there, but the mass market is happy with good enough.

However, I am willing to carry around Lglass and a FF body. I will pay the price for that gear. I will take the time to experiment with the camera and learn more that how to set it into auto mode or how to select a scene mode..... The masses will not. In my canoe club, out of 350 members, There are two of us carrying around "pro or semi-pro" cameras, a couple with rebels or the Nikon equivalent, and the masses have point and shoots. On a three day trip last year one of the members was shocked that I would take 400 photos on a trip ( still on the second day) and I found out that every picture she has ever taken on a digital camera was still on a 2G memory card. She could not understand why I had that "huge" pelican case or why I would bring a 400mm lens, but at the same time was amazed that I could get such nice pictures....her picture of the loon showed a bird-like black object, mine showed the tiny black iris in the red eye.... Welcome to the masses.... That's your average photographer and that's the target market.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Do you feel the "Olympus, the 4/3 mount, and then the micro 4/3 mount" are good enough for low light shooting?
> 
> If image quality is not important, then why not settle with a $99 P&S. I'm sure some of us don't mind grainy/noisy photos and there are some willing to pay higher dollars to get cleaner images.
> 
> If Sony, Nikon Fuji, etc... make similar models to Sony RX1(without fixed lens), I have no problem buying it. I buy the best tool that fit my needs, not the brand.



Dylan... personal opinion here.... I definitly feel that the 4/3 mount Olympus cameras are not good enough to use in low light. I had a 620 and would not shoot ISO 800 because of the poor IQ. I tried the E-5 when it came out and ISO800 was barely usable. At that time the Pen cameras had better IQ. I jumped ship to Canon because of the glass and the ergonomics.... plus thier cameras had less noise at ISO6400 than the Olympus had at 800... Time passes and some of the micro 4/3 cameras are getting pretty close to the IQ of the 60D, in fact the E-M5 beats the 7D for high ISO performance, but thats comparing a new camera to a 4 year old camera... i would expect the 7Dm2 to beat the E-M5 when it comes out..... and of course ALL the FF canons beat the E-M5, even the "old" 5Dm2.

Once again, personal opinion here, Image quality is important... I could never settle for a $99 camera... but for me the ergonomics and user interface are just as important and to my mind, that's one of the big reasons to go with a pro or semi-pro camrea.

And lastly, I too go with the tool that suits my needs....I have an "Olympus tough", takes ok pictures and you have pathetic controls, but it works underwater.... I also have a GoPro that I have been experimenting with on a stunt kite...( i seem to have become a master of producing unwatchable video.... but I am learning....), once again... the right tool for the job. One of the work cameras is an Ipod.... when using it as an inspection camera it has to be inserted through a 1 3/4 inch slot, definitly not a job for a DSLR


----------



## Wild (Jan 19, 2013)

Woody said:


> Wild said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could have easily churned out a mirrorless with a 5d mark ii-like sensor in it with a similar body style to the EOS-M, and kept it priced competitively.
> ...



I understand that full-frame isn't cheap. I also realize aps-c is at a really good place price/performance-wise. I just think that Canon could have easily leap-frogged the competition with a cheap-body full frame mirrorless (to help keep costs lower.

When Microsoft's Xbox came out back in 2006 (I think), it was as powerful as some $2000 gaming computers, and they sold it for $400. They knew they were going to sell a lot of them, and the games that went along with it, so they kept the price low enough for it to take off. A full-frame mirrorless, priced aggressively, and banking on lens sales to maintain larger profits, could do exceptionally well for Canon. Seeing as they're probably the only company on this planet that could pull something like that off, it's disappointing to have them play it safe in the market with a smaller sensor, and remove a reason for them to make Full-frame mirrorless lenses.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I just think full-frame should be more readily available to the masses (I know somebody's going to say film is cheap). If somebody told me each aps-c sensor costs 50 bucks to make, but a full-frame sensor costs like $1000, then I'm completely wrong and I take everything back ;D


----------



## Wild (Jan 19, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> That's right.... bash Canon for trying to make an inexpensive compact camera and not using a full frame sensor....
> 
> Do you realize what using a full frame sensor means...... it means that you need full frame sized lenses... remember the silly looking picture of the EOS-M mounted onto the 800/5.6 just after it was released.. that's the direction you head with full frame sensors.... large and expensive.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're directing the rant part at me, but just in case you were, I didn't mean to sound like I was ranting  

Anyways, I disagree about the lens size. Full-frame mirrorless lenses don't have to be large - just look at all the Leica lenses out there. Those are full-frame lenses and plenty of them are puny (and still excellent). Obviously there are some big ones too, so I'm not saying they can't be large. I just saying they don't have to be. Even the RX1's 35mm is decently small, and apparently it's an excellent lens.


----------



## Wild (Jan 19, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Of course, this particular product could surely have been 'better', whatever that means. On the other hand so could ALL the other products in the market, so basically it's a meaningless statement. I just turned against the fact that there are people on this forum that never misses a chance to bash Canon for whatever reason. Whenever there is a launch of something they crawl out from their hiding places to complain about whatever features Canon has included in these products, or left out.
> 
> I'm not in a position to say what they should or shouldn't have done with the M. From what I understand it takes great pictures but its main shortcoming is the slow AF. It's plain ridiculous to compare it to 5000 dollar products.
> 
> ...



I agree that it's in Canon's best interest to release the volume product first. I love the fact Canon finally joined the mirrorless world. I don't even have a problem with the EOS-M (easy to say when you don't own it ) My only gripe is now we're stuck with aps-c lenses. If they made lenses that could cover a full-frame sensor, then eventually they could release a FF mirrorless and not have to restart with another new lens catalog.

Anyways, I'm with you in that they had a better 2012 than most people give them credit for. I think 2013 is going to be exciting too ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2013)

Wild said:


> I don't think you're directing the rant part at me, but just in case you were, I didn't mean to sound like I was ranting
> 
> Anyways, I disagree about the lens size. Full-frame mirrorless lenses don't have to be large - just look at all the Leica lenses out there. Those are full-frame lenses and plenty of them are puny (and still excellent). Obviously there are some big ones too, so I'm not saying they can't be large. I just saying they don't have to be. Even the RX1's 35mm is decently small, and apparently it's an excellent lens.



I agree, they don't have to be large.... but the APS-C sized ones are even smaller, that means cheaper to make, and more likely to hit the mass market... If I were top take long term bets on Canon, I would say that the Rebel line morphs into the EOS-M line, and the APS-C mirrored cameras and APS-C lenses fall out of production.... leaving the FF lines at the top and the mirrorless as the enthusiast market.... but that's just my guess.

The EOS-M cameras are targeted at that enthusiast market. The lack of ability of that mount to cover a FF sensor indicates to me that Canon has no intentions of going FF mirrorless. Personally, I wish they had gone that route because now they are competing with the herd... FF would have allowed them to stand out in the mirrorless race.

As you can probably guess, I am conflicted on the issue. I can understand why they have done and why they have done it. I think it makes sense from a competition point of view, but it fails at taking a leadership role.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 19, 2013)

I just cannot understand why Canon is having SLOW AF on ALL its point and shoot, G series and even the M. Casio has much faster AF even a few years back,. LX-5 is twice as fast as most Canon P & S. The Newer SONY RX100 and The Panasonic LX-7 are even faster, at almost DSLR speed. I have not yet mention The Olympus OM-D or Fuji yet.
What is happening Canon??
Also until Canon can solve the SLOW Af problem, Canon mirrorless will not be a good option. Now some poster wants a FF mirrorless from Canon???


----------



## Wild (Jan 19, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I agree, they don't have to be large.... but the APS-C sized ones are even smaller, that means cheaper to make, and more likely to hit the mass market... If I were top take long term bets on Canon, I would say that the Rebel line morphs into the EOS-M line, and the APS-C mirrored cameras and APS-C lenses fall out of production.... leaving the FF lines at the top and the mirrorless as the enthusiast market.... but that's just my guess.
> 
> The EOS-M cameras are targeted at that enthusiast market. The lack of ability of that mount to cover a FF sensor indicates to me that Canon has no intentions of going FF mirrorless. Personally, I wish they had gone that route because now they are competing with the herd... FF would have allowed them to stand out in the mirrorless race.
> 
> As you can probably guess, I am conflicted on the issue. I can understand why they have done and why they have done it. I think it makes sense from a competition point of view, but it fails at taking a leadership role.




I'm right there with ya. "Conflicted" is a really good way to put it ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 19, 2013)

Wild said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Wild said:
> ...


You're making a faulty assumption here, Microsoft will make the bulk of their money selling games. Maybe 10-20 games per sold console. Canon would not be able to sell lots of lenses to go with these cheap full frame cameras, most ppeople would settle for the kit lens like they probably do with the rebels.


----------

