# Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?



## gshocked (Feb 14, 2014)

Hi all,

Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
However, with Canon releasing a new G1 camera and only releasing the Eos-M 2 in Japan and some parts of Asia, have they abandoned the Eos-m system? Should I wait later this year instead of getting the original Eos-m?

Thanks all,


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2014)

I'll take a stab at this, and I am an EOS-M owner. What difference does it make, if the camera you buy can do the things you want why does it matter if any more are made?

I had a G10 that I wanted to upgrade, I looked at the various options from pretty much everybody, including, obviously, the G1X and the G12/G15. But what won me over to the M was the unique integration with the EOS system I already owned, and that is the M's key feature. If that is a key feature for you then I'd recommend one wholeheartedly, whether they make/import another one or not, if that is not a key feature for you then it is a very competitive market segment and I'd suggest taking some time comparing actual cameras in your hands before committing.

I'd expect the M-III to have the EVF of the G1X MkII, if so I'd really like that, but it doesn't diminish what the current model can do.


----------



## surapon (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
> I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
> ...



Dear Friend, Mr. gshocked.
In my Idea, I do not think so, No way that Canon will abandon EOS-M, because very popular in South East Asia/China/ Japan( that are millions customers). Yes, They sell EOS-M2 in Japan and Thailand now, But very minimum Improve, Just Smaller body and Faster AF--------Yes, I will wait for EOS-M3 with in 4-6 months , that will be much improve for USA/ Europe Markets

http://thenewcamera.com/tag/canon-eos-m2/

Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 15, 2014)

I agree with surapon and privatebydesign.

With an 18-55, 22 and 11-22 what lenses you really need for a portable system? If you want to extend the capabilities, then the adapter lets you use the wide range EF lenses available. I bought it to replace a Canon P&S, and it works well. I got the camera during the firesale, and for that price, it couldn't be beat. I have the 18-55 and 22, and I might get the 11-22 in the future (via Canada). It also backs up my 5D III.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2014)

I think they released the EOS-M before they should have. To me, this seems like the kind of camera dual-pixel technology was designed for... give the EOS-M a kick-ass autofocus system and it should sell well.

A lot of people want something small and light, yet takes better pictures than a p/s or phone. It's hard to beat the EOS-M and it's few lenses for that, plus, if you really want to use it with Lglass, slap on the adaptor and you can.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 15, 2014)

surapon said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



Thank you Mr. Surapon.
I hope your right.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I think they released the EOS-M before they should have. To me, this seems like the kind of camera dual-pixel technology was designed for... give the EOS-M a kick-ass autofocus system and it should sell well.
> 
> A lot of people want something small and light, yet takes better pictures than a p/s or phone. It's hard to beat the EOS-M and it's few lenses for that, plus, if you really want to use it with Lglass, slap on the adaptor and you can.




Does the new EOS M2 utilize dual pixel tech?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I think they released the EOS-M before they should have. To me, this seems like the kind of camera dual-pixel technology was designed for...



Agreed. I just hope they didn't dig themselves into a reputation hole...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Does the new EOS M2 utilize dual pixel tech?



No. The M uses Hybrid CMOS (a few phase AF spots clustered at the center if the frame), same sensor as the T4i/T5i. The M2 uses Hybrid CMOS II (phase AF spots spread over ~80% of the frame), same sensor as the SL1.


----------



## BL (Feb 16, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
> I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
> ...



Get the M for what it is: a small compact camera with a relatively large sensor that is suitable for still subjects.

The M can take your SLR lenses in a pinch which is something the G series cannot. 

The M is small enough to stow away once the action starts and you need AF that can track. It works splendidly as a 2 camera setup for me - SLR for anything that moves, M for everything else.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 16, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
> I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
> ...



Hmmm, well if you consider there aren't many third party lenses available, notably from Sigma - that at least means that outside from Canon there is not too much support for the system. The leader in APS-C mirrorless is Sony, I think.


----------



## smozes (Feb 17, 2014)

I found this PDF from the G1 engineering group an interesting read. Among other things, they make a passing comparison between the G1, a fixed zoom compact and mirrorless:



> *Comparing the G1 X Mark II to an
> SLR or mirrorless camera*
> 
> The PowerShot G1 X Mark II is a compact digital camera with a fixed integrated lens. This means that many aspects of performance can be optimised for this lens. Sharpness, distortion, lens zooming position, sensor can all be optimised for the integrated lens. This kind of optimisation is not found in cameras with interchangeable lenses, especially those with lenses of f/2.0 or larger.



It seems that Canon's view remains that they already have a small camera form factor, and they're out to prove that it's a better system than mirrorless. Elsewhere they also dismiss the recent retro design trend. The overall tone and perspective in the paper is quite conservative, as in Canon knows best where to focus its efforts.


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 17, 2014)

Hard to say what Canon will do. I think many people will not want a camera without possibility of lens change. As stated, the adapter opens the door to all the Canon and third party glass, and the is works on it as well.

I just got back from a trip with my 5DIII with a couple of lenses and the M with zoom. I found the little camera was very capable for most situations. I also tried my 70-200 f4L is and 1.4X extender just to see what it could do. I took pics of a hummingbird sitting on a branch of a tree in shade. It did very well.

It is small, easy to carry and conceal when in sketchy areas, and for the price, a great deal.

My two cents (about 1 cent more than it is worth likely) is that they will come out with a V.3 for the USA. Who knows, it may be full frame too?

sek



smozes said:


> I found this PDF from the G1 engineering group an interesting read. Among other things, they make a passing comparison between the G1, a fixed zoom compact and mirrorless:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lescrane (Feb 17, 2014)

I bought the EOS M in July when it went on sale, added the 18-55 EF M lens and a sunpak flash.

What I got is the exact same IQ as I get in my 18mp SLR's in a much smaller package. It's a "carry around" camera for when I can't carry around the D series or Rebels. Or it's a 2nd body for wide angle shots when I have a long telephoto on the 60 or 70D. Now I can make sure I am ready for a quick landscape w/o carrying around the weight of two SLR's, or resorting to my Samsung Galaxy phone.

I would not buy the adapter because I don't see the point in having a big lens on a tiny body it's past the point where it's light to carry easy to slip into a small case.

maybe a 18-100 or 15-85 ish lens would be useful but i don't know if I'd invest in one as long as I have my other SLRS

What I would like to see is an M III with a pop up flash and an EVF. However, that would increase size and cost.......making it compete with the Rebel SL1, at least in my eyes. 

I considered buying other mirrorless systems but stuck w/Canon to keep life simple..have been using EOS for as long as it existed and am too lazy to learn new controls and menus


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 17, 2014)

smozes said:


> I found this PDF from the G1 engineering group an interesting read. Among other things, they make a passing comparison between the G1, a fixed zoom compact and mirrorless:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Technically the image quality can be made 'better' using in-camera software correction given enough optical sharpness etc, but I still think an interchangeable lens camera allows for more creativity and is more 'fun' as well especially if you consider the ability to use some old and interesting lenses via an adapter. There are a lot of photographers who like the characteristics of these old lenses despite them not being 'perfect' (imperfection often adds character). But of course, carrying an extra set of lenses quickly diminishes the compactness of the whole setup.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 17, 2014)

The M's not dead but... until they improve it to be competitive with the likes of Sony, Fuji, and Olympus, there's little point to having one, IMO... I'd rather use a G1x2 and not have to carry lenses. Now if they don't overprice the G1x2... it'll be a very interesting option.

The G1x2 development story was an interesting read.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it will really perform.
Looks like they've tucked in a sensor that's very close to micro-four-thirds size in order to meet the ambitious lens specs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I actually think they've done a good evaluation of what a high end fixed-lens almost-compact camera should be and built it accordingly.

When the original G1x came out I was really temped to buy one, as carrying it, and also the smaller G11/12, would cover almost every still type shot I would encounter while on the road. Sadly, I found the IQ a bit too lacking in the G1x so decided to skip it. This v2, however, I will be looking at more closely. I've always had a fondness for nice compact cameras. (as I look at my table with 8 PowerShot G-series cameras sitting on it.. anyone have the number for the addictions hotline?  )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2014)

lescrane said:


> I would not buy the adapter because I don't see the point in having a big lens on a tiny body it's past the point where it's light to carry easy to slip into a small case.



The EF adapter allows the M to serve as a backup body when traveling with a bag full of lenses that would otherwise become useless if the primary camera fails. When traveling, I bring the M + 22 along for times when small size is necessary, and the EF adapter 'just in case'.


----------



## photonius (Feb 17, 2014)

What killed the first EOS-M for me was that it couldn't be used in tethered mode. I'm not sure why that was not possible - unless it was done on purpose to not compete with the dSLRs. The EOS-M2 supposedly can do it, but not sold. I think it would make a great camera for remote control (with an external power supply). Ok, it's a niche market perhaps, but each feature one eliminates results in more lost sales.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 17, 2014)

Yes.

But, it isn't any more of a dead end than any other mirrorless interchangeable lens system.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 17, 2014)

unfocused said:


> But, it isn't any more of a dead end than any other mirrorless interchangeable lens system.



EOS-M is currently a much "deader end" than any other interchangeable-lens mirrorless system on the market today, with the notable exception of Nikon 1 and Pentax Q systems. 

* mFT ecosystem
* Fuji X system
* Sony Alpha A7/R plus ZE-lenses 
* Sony NEX/Alpha [APS-C -mount] 
* Samsung NX
for all there are new bodies and new lenses coming onstream ... and sold everywhere - including the US and Europe. 


I actually do hope, the current EOS-M turns out to be a dead end ... BUT ONLY IF ... Canon realizes they made a mistake with it (APS-C sensor, no EVF, no powerful AF-system) and comes up with a truly impressive FF-sensored mirrorless EOS-line ... bodies and lenses, budget and hi-end stuff galore ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 17, 2014)

There is a interesting interview at DPR with Nikon executives after CP+. 

They are very clear about poor acceptance of mirrorless in the USA and Europe, its poor. In Asia, its much better. Nikon claims that people in the USA feel that a large DSLR provides better images due to its size. 

Another thing to consider is the size of hands. My hands are very large, and on a tiny camera, I find it difficult to push just one button at a time. I think this is part of the story.

I'd like to see a FF mirrorless Canon camera that was full sized and used EF lenses. The issue is AF in low light, but the dual pixel AF system seems to be fairly good in low light, so maybe its coming.

Right now, sales of all cameras is slow, and companies are not spending a lot to tool and market completely new technologies, but instead stick to the well developed and cheaper to implement technologies.

I do think that the EOS M system will be developed into a big selling US product, but not soon.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 17, 2014)

I don't think so, at least not the mount as such. I don't know of course, but seeing the volumes they seem to sell in Asia I'd guess it's a profitable product line and rarely do companies scrap those. I think PBD has a good point about its integration with the EOS-line also. Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package. I will buy an m as a second camera to my 5dMkIII. I am just not sure how long to wait, if I should wait for the m3. Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> lescrane said:
> 
> 
> > I would not buy the adapter because I don't see the point in having a big lens on a tiny body it's past the point where it's light to carry easy to slip into a small case.
> ...


 
+1 on using it as a backup body. I keep one with adapter and the 50mm 1.8 for low light along with both eos-m lenses in a box type thinktank bag that is not much bigger than what I carry a flash in. In fact I'm glad I've bought several eos-m bodies so I have plenty of backup to the backup. I never want to go to a smaller sensor size when this one is so perfect. What a great camera for teaching students of photography at the $350 price including raw shooting and processing. For the next generation, a swivel screen could be useful without adding much (if any) to the size factor. The eos-m with the 85mm 1.8 is quite a combination for candid's. I love this camera -- just not for my main camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 17, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package.


 
Sorry, but you can not mount a EF lens on the EOS-M. I think you know this, but not everyone will, so its misleading newbies.

You must use a expensive Adapter. If you buy a EOS M because of its size, adding a adapter to a already large EF lens is not going to make for a small system.


----------



## noncho (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm going to buy 11-22 soon, it's still the best ultra wide small lens for the price.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 17, 2014)

It is very much dead, at least until Canon brings it to the same level as other mirrorless systems from Sony, Fuji, e.t.c

Canon is of course terrified of making a serious mirrorless camera like the A7R. They don't want to hurt the sales of their DSLR's.


----------



## DRR (Feb 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd like to see a FF mirrorless Canon camera that was full sized and used EF lenses. The issue is AF in low light, but the dual pixel AF system seems to be fairly good in low light, so maybe its coming.



This is what I'd like to see as well. If Canon came out with a Sony A7, and it took EF lenses, I would seriously consider buying it. Or as an alternative, something smaller like a NEX-5 that had an APS-C sensor and took EF/EFS lenses.


----------



## LDS (Feb 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They are very clear about poor acceptance of mirrorless in the USA and Europe, its poor. In Asia, its much better. Nikon claims that people in the USA feel that a large DSLR provides better images due to its size.


IMHO their marketing depts. are unable to understand what is the prospect customer of such kind of cameras. "Mirrorless" cameras with interchangeable lenses are the digital counterpart of rangefinder cameras - and they became a niche market for a given type of photographer, the one looking for a smaller, yet powerful camera with lenses allowing for more versatility than a fixed lens zoom. Often, one already owning an SLR, but looking for something lighter and smaller to complement it. In Europe, and probably in the USA also, it's not the camera you can sell to the P&S user looking for something "cooler". Because or their happy with their P&S (or even their phone, today), or they will look for an SLR for the "cool" factor - maybe never removing the kit lens to mount a different one. Interchangeable lenses are appealing to a very different kind of customer.
I believe the actual M cameras are products looking for a customer. I would buy a "digital rangefinder" to complement my 5D, especially if I can mount my EF lenses on it, but it needs to be a camera able to be a smaller, lighter alternative to the 5D - not a PowerShot with interchangeable lenses. It means some kind of good viewfinder - sorry - I can't stand taking pictures looking at a screen with the camera fifteen centimetres from my nose - and "professional" control for settings. But I see that instead of moving up the M line, Canon decided to "dumb down" the GX line.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 17, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.



You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarter and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance. 

Dead end. only fire-sellable at usd 299 including kit lens and useless external flash.


----------



## smozes (Feb 17, 2014)

There was a DPReview interview with a Fuji SVP of marketing:



> *Is there more profit to be made in the high-end market?*
> 
> Yes. For two reasons. The bodies themselves, we can sell at a higher price but also we sell more lenses with higher-end cameras, so overall it’s more profitable. Our research shows that the attachment rate for a high-end camera like the X-Pro 1 is around 3.8, whereas cameras like the X-A1 it’s more like 1.2. *With low-end cameras people often just stick with the kit lens.*



So this is interesting: entry level mirrorless don't really make sense if buyers only stick with the kit lens. 

It's also common for reviewers of high end mirrorless to conclude that once mounted with large lenses, the small bodies don't make much sense. 

Taking all these together, I think Canon sees DSLRs as the right answer for high end needs anyway, and entry level or small form factor better served with large sensor, fixed lens compact and all the optimization benefits.

I'm the kind of buyer who wanted APS-C quality in a small camera, but didn't want to spend $2000 for a top end mirrorless with a collection of lenses. The price and size of the M did it for me. Not exactly an entry level buyer, but also not committed to a full collection. But I'm probably not a typical buyer.


----------



## spturtle (Feb 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only.



Can you explain why this is not possible? The flange distance is 18mm for both Sony E-mount and EF-M mount and they have approximately the same diameter.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can ühysically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance.



Sony was smarter?? They now have to support both the E-mount and Alpha-mount in both APS-C and FF versions and they don't seem to be providing clear guidance about which mounts and configurations will be emphasized, thereby creating confusion among potential buyers. Fuji and the micro-4/3 manufacturers are doing a much better job of creating workable systems.

FF is the Holy Grail only because it is the same size as a standard slide or negative, resulting in an enormous body of legacy lenses. In a similar fashion, in a similar fashion, Super-35 is a video standard because of the dominance of that image size for movies and the resulting development of now-highly prized and extremely expensive PL mount lenses for that image size.

There's no technical reason why Canon couldn't release an EOS FF mirrorless system by simply shortening the distance between sensor and lens flange to 18mm, introducing an adapter allowing use of DSLR lenses on the mirrorless bodies and taking their time introducing FF mirrorless lenses. About the only thing that Canon has done right with EOS-M is restrict it to APS-C-sized sensors. Canon has publicly stated that the emphasis of the EOS-M system would be small size. It's too bad that their implementation sucks.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 17, 2014)

spturtle said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only.
> ...



It was discussed here and elsewhere many times over. Just scroll down on the dpreview article:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

While the ef-m mount has a huge 58mm outrr diamezer it has a freakin narrow throat. So small, that neither canon is ashamed to provide the specs. It must be a couple mm less than the sony e-mount which has a clearance of 46.1mm. Ef-m is definitely not ff-capable. 

A HUGE mistake by canon. They did not believe, sony cokld come up with a small bodied, hi-spec FF-sensored a7/R. And got burned.


----------



## spturtle (Feb 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> spturtle said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I suppose you're right but no, I cannot find any definitive numbers to back up your statement. Has nobody with an EOS M actually measured the inner mount diameter (taking into account the bayonet wings) and posted the results? This hardware is available, there is no need for Canon to post specs. You claim the difference between the outer and inner diameter is 12mm or more, so 6mm at the edge. For the EF mount I get 6.5mm from a quick measurement. That would translate to a 13mm smaller inner diameter (45mm) so about 1mm smaller than the Sony E mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> A HUGE mistake by canon. They did not believe, sony cokld come up with a small bodied, hi-spec FF-sensored a7/R. And got burned.



As Bob Howland pointed out, small size figured prominently in Canon's design goals for the EOS M, but you think they should have just made the camera and lenses bigger. I don't suppose it occurred to you that Canon might have thought they'd profit more if people could buy dedicated EF-M lenses now, and replace them with EF-FFM (or whatever) later - it's ok, though, since I'm sure it occurred to them. 

But you must be right. I mean, the EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year, Canon really screwed up. :



spturtle said:


> Has nobody with an EOS M actually measured the inner mount diameter (taking into account the bayonet wings) and posted the results?



43mm. For comparison, the inner EF mount diameter measures 51mm.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> FF is the Holy Grail only because it is the same size as a standard slide or negative, resulting in an enormous body of legacy lenses. In a similar fashion, in a similar fashion, Super-35 is a video standard because of the dominance of that image size for movies and the resulting development of now-highly prized and extremely expensive PL mount lenses for that image size.
> 
> There's no technical reason why Canon couldn't release an EOS FF mirrorless system by simply shortening the distance between sensor and lens flange to 18mm, introducing an adapter allowing use of DSLR lenses on the mirrorless bodies and taking their time introducing FF mirrorless lenses. About the only thing that Canon has done right with EOS-M is restrict it to APS-C-sized sensors. Canon has publicly stated that the emphasis of the EOS-M system would be small size. It's too bad that their implementation sucks.



My speculation is that Canon does have plans for a FF mirrorless camera, and that when it comes out, it will the same size as a 6D and will use all the regular EF (and EF-S) lenses... The EOS-M was designed to be small, and that means most of the lenses for it will be slow and short focal length... To make anything long or fast, you end up with lenses the same size as their EF counterparts, so why bother? That's not the market... nobody is going to by a 600F4 to use only on an EOS-M....


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2014)

When you say "dead end system", what exactly do you mean? ... if you are referring to upgrade path with *faster [*u]*and longer reach lenses*[/u], then the entire compact sized mirrorless segment, in its current state, is a "dead end system". With the exception of EF-M 22mm f/2 and a few of the lenses for micro four third mirrorless cameras, currently almost all of the faster lenses are bigger, defeating the size advantage of compact mirrorless cameras, the same goes for longer reach lenses. I was at the local Sony store yesterday to see if they had the 10-18mm lens, and happen to check out the Sony 18-200mm lenses for the APS-C mirrorless cameras ... the lens is not that much smaller then the Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Tamron equivalents. For me the compact mirrorless cameras/lenses make perfect sense for focal lengths upto 70mm (or possibly even up to 100mm), because they take up a lot less space in my hand luggage when I travel without sacrificing too much on image IQ ... also, I don't need to carry a heavier tripod, I am now able to carry just my Gorillapod, which also seems to be acceptable to cops, in the cities I've traveled so far (these were the same places where they do not allow tripods).
For those who do not care much about AF speed and those who generally shoot between 18-85mm equivalent FOV and prefer light weight/compact camera gear, the EOS-M and its 3 lenses make for a great compact option ... are there better options? absolutely ... but if you want to stick with Canon, that's all that you've got and despite EOS-M's limitations, Canon are generally not known for abandoning product lines or show middle finger, with utter disregard, to their customers, like Nikon and Sony. So, depending on what kind of a photographer you are, EOS-M is not a "dead end system".


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package.
> ...


I know you need an adapter for that, just didn't point it out.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.
> ...


I didn't know that. Sorry, wrong assumption. I'm still getting one though.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2014)

Look at the eos-m and the ef-m mount: a whopping outer diameter of 58mm and clearance only 43mm. Had they made the throat just 2mm wider, the system would have been fully ff-capable. Neither the eos-m itself nor the ef-m lenses for aps-c would have been any larger in size. But canon would have had a mirrorless ff option ready to go. So much for "Canon being oh so smart and plans ahead in every detail".  

They are ... plain stupid. That's why only japanese schoolgirls buy their pink snapshot cameras. That's why they had to sell the eos m at firesale price in the us and abandon the market with EOS-M. That's why Fujifilm is coming back with a vengeance, turning into an additional and very real competitor. Because Fuji created a hi-end interchangeable lens mirrorless ecosystem. Yes, it's also APS-C only for the moment [don't have the details at hand re. their lens mount, maybe it is FF-capable], but they got some very decent mirrorless cameras with evf (or hybrid) viewfinder built right in and a decent range of very decent lenses. 

Canon? Decides to bring an ultrastupid g1x without viewfinder and with bolted-on lens instead. EOS-m in red and white. EOS-M2 with Wifi in Asia only. Meanwhile Sony takes a very respectable first stab at ultracompact, hi-end ff-sensored milcs. Nobody thought it was possible this small. As soon as the next, slightly better generation of these ff-milcs arrives, ***DSLR-Armaggedon*** will really set in full scale ... for Canon and Nikon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> So much for "Canon being oh so smart and plans ahead in every detail".
> 
> They are ... plain stupid. That's why



...they sell more dSLRs and lenses than anyone else, and have done so for the past 10 years. 

...their first MILC was the second best-selling MILC in their home country (where MILCs are popular), beating out many of the established vendors in that space. 

...they are consistently ranked as one of the world's most innovative companies and have more US patents issued each year than any other Japanese company, and have been in the top 5 for US patents issued for many, many years. 

As I stated above, there's a logical and easily understood reason for Canon to have chosen to make EF-M lenses incompatible with any future FF bodies. The vast majority of lenses sold by Canon over the past few years are EF-S lenses kitted with Rebel/xxxD bodies, and those aren't compatible with FF bodies (despite having the same mount size). Canon profits from those lens sales, then if a user upgrades to FF, Canon profits again when they buy new EF lenses to replace their EF-S lenses. 

But because you either don't agree with that business decision (and note that they have a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, not for their customers), or you simply don't understand it, Canon is 'plain stupid'. :



AvTvM said:


> As soon as the next, slightly better generation of these ff-milcs arrives, ***DSLR-Armaggedon*** will really set in full scale ... for Canon and Nikon.



LOL. Ummm, ok, sure, whatever. The demise of the dSLR was scheduled for two years ago, I guess we all missed it. The a7/a7R haven't killed the dSLR, but a 'slightly better' version will. File that idea under 'pretty stupid…'. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> As soon as the next, slightly better generation of these ff-milcs arrives, ***DSLR-Armaggedon*** will really set in full scale ... for Canon and Nikon.


BTW, which mirrorless camera do you use? I have the Canon EOS-M & the Sony a7 but neither of them can ever replace the 5D MK III and the EF lenses I have for them. I am currently using a ZEISS FE 24-70 constant f/4 aperture lens with my Sony a7 and I can tell you confidently that even the 9 years old EF 24-105 f/4 on my 2 year old 5D MK III, beats the image quality of this brand new ZEISS lens which costs 40% more than the EF 24-105 f/4. So I am not sure on what basis you are making your claim that "slightly better generation of these ff-milcs" will bring around the "DSLR Armaggedon". Personally I do not see any FF or APS-C compact mirrorless camera ("slightly better" or even a lot better) being able to take on an a 200mm f/2 or 300mm f/2.8 etc lenses without being awkward and silly. I am sure you already know that the slightly better FF mirrorless camera (albeit huge by mirrorless standards) already exists i.e. Sony a99, but it has been facing "Armaggedon" ever since it was released while the Canon 5D MK III, Canon 6D, Nikon D800 & D610 are still out selling the "slightly better" FF mirrorless a99.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Feb 18, 2014)

gshocked said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly let me just say - I don't mean to offend any Eos-m users by putting this post.
> I am still keen is getting a smaller unit as an alternative to my 5dmk3 and I believe this is the Eos-m system.
> ...



I have both the M with 22 f2 and 5DIII.

If you want the M to be an alternate system to grow, then yes IMO it's a dead end system, at least (or especially) in North America. 

If you want an M to be a small, lightweight, pretty high IQ occasional alternative to a big heavy DSLR, then you'll probably be very happy with it. I am


----------



## unfocused (Feb 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > But, it isn't any more of a dead end than any other mirrorless interchangeable lens system.
> ...



You are talking about specific models and brands. I was referring to the entire branch of mirrorless interchangeable lens systems, which I believe may well turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end. 

Only time will tell, but this quote from Nikon is instructive.

[quote author=dpreview]
In Japan and Asia mirrorless is still growing, but in Europe and the Americas, including North America we've determined that the market for mirrorless is shrinking. [/quote]

Are the Japanese and Asian markets on the leading edge with Europe and the Americas slow to catch up. Or are European and the Americas markets on the leading edge and Japan and Asia just catching up with the advantages of DSLRs? 

As I said, only time will tell. But, I wouldn't be betting against the DSLR format just yet.


----------



## Cinto (Feb 18, 2014)

photonius said:


> What killed the first EOS-M for me was that it couldn't be used in tethered mode. I'm not sure why that was not possible - unless it was done on purpose to not compete with the dSLRs. The EOS-M2 supposedly can do it, but not sold. I think it would make a great camera for remote control (with an external power supply). Ok, it's a niche market perhaps, but each feature one eliminates results in more lost sales.


 +1, unfortunately I bought one before I figured this out. Waiting to see if Magic Lantern can maybe come up with something, although their support for the m is pretty low.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Are the Japanese and Asian markets on the leading edge with Europe and the Americas slow to catch up. Or are European and the Americas markets on the leading edge and Japan and Asia just catching up with the advantages of DSLRs?


This is just a theory maybe right, maybe wrong ... most Asians generally are smaller built with smaller hands, while you generally find a lot of big guys with big hands in the Western world, so maybe that has something to do with choosing smaller/bigger cameras ... also from what I see on youtube, many of the Pros who switched from DSLR's to compact mirrorless cameras are smaller built people e.g. Gary Fong, Gordon Laing (and a few others whose name I forget, but I'll post their names later on) ... ofcourse there are some big dudes who are Pro photographers that made the switch from DLSR to compact mirrorless, but they seem to be a minority in comparison to the smaller sized pros ... this is just an observation (more like a theory) from what've I've seen on youtube.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 18, 2014)

rpiotr01 said:


> If you want an M to be a small, lightweight, pretty high IQ occasional alternative to a big heavy DSLR, then you'll probably be very happy with it. I am



+1 I always use my DSLR when size and weight isn't an issue. My EOS-M with adapter is my emergency back-up in case my 6D were to fail. The M is my camera of choice when carrying a DSLR would be inappropriate, not allowed, or the weight would be excessive for the situation. After some initial experimentation, I almost never use it with any of my EF lenses, but its nice to know that I can. I keep the EF-M 22 f/2 mounted 80% of the time and use the EF-M 18-55 for when I need more or less reach. I'm very happy with this inexpensive little kit for these purposes.

I hope Canon continues to develop the EOS-M line as several years from now I might consider an upgrade. But, even if the M line is dead, I still have a very capable little camera that I can use today that is fully compatible with all of our EF lenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm keep hearing people say: "I bought EOS-M as a backup camera". 

Let be honest here guys, many of us(including myself) bought the M due to half price reduction.

If this EOS-m still selling @ $700-$800, I wonder how many of us would consider the M as backup camera?

From 5D III owner POV, it doesn't make any senses to have EOS-M as a backup - from slow AF, unbalance, IQ. 

Let say you go out and shoot BIF or action event. Your 5D III or 1D X is not working, would you rather have rebel, 60d, 40d etc as a backup? 

My 2cents: current EOS-M is death and Canon has no interest bringing this system up to date in US market yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Let say you go out and shoot BIF or action event. Your 5D III or 1D X dies. What next? Are you going to pull your EOS-M and start shoot with 300mm, 400mm, 500mm or 600mm?



No, after traveling however far I traveled, I'd just pack everything up and drive/fly home, without even trying to take another picture... :

Of course I'd keep shooting! Imagine if there was a camera that had no autofocus, a really slow burst rate of 1 fplp (frames per lever pull), and a really tiny memory card (only enough space for 36 images). Once upon a time, I used a fairy tale camera sort of like that to shoot sports, and guess what? I got more than a few 'keepers'...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Let say you go out and shoot BIF or action event. Your 5D III or 1D X is not working, would you rather have rebel, 60d, 40d etc as a backup?



No problem, I'll use my 7DII 

I have had cameras die on a trip, and ended up shooting with a waterproof p/s.... I was not a happy camper  I would much rather have had an EOS-M as my backup.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> If this EOS-m [was] still selling @ $700-$800, I wonder how many of us would consider the M as backup camera?



Probably not many, especially considering that an SL1 body costs less than $500. Given the competition, including the competition in Canon's own lineup, a reasonable price for an M or M2 body is $300-$400, no more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm keep hearing people say: "I bought EOS-M as a backup camera".
> 
> Let be honest here guys, many of us(including myself) bought the M due to half price reduction.
> 
> ...



I was going to, then it got reduced. I bought it for $300 for exactly the same reason I'd have bought it for $700, it has unique integration with my current system, for me that is worth $300 or $700, I appreciate for most it isn't, but for me it is. It comes as my "backup" camera and does a bit of video too, I have the 20mm and the EOS adapter and won't get anything else for it (I was given the 90EX and it is worth that much but no more). I would be very interested in an M III with the G1XII viewfinder, Canon will be crazy if they don't use the same one across the board, imagine the updates newer ones will get, you could choose to update your camera or your viewfinder, sweet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:
 

> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Let say you go out and shoot BIF or action event. Your 5D III or 1D X dies. What next? Are you going to pull your EOS-M and start shoot with 300mm, 400mm, 500mm or 600mm?
> ...



am sure you will find the way


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm keep hearing people say: "I bought EOS-M as a backup camera".
> ...



That doesn't make sense for me - why spend $700 on a Canon body that require an adapter to work with EF lenses. Not to mention, you getting high speed turtle-AF.

I bought it because of $299 deal through BH. I have to be honest, this is the best $300 P&S camera ever


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm keep hearing people say: "I bought EOS-M as a backup camera".
> 
> Let be honest here guys, many of us(including myself) bought the M due to half price reduction.
> 
> ...



I got the EF/EF-S adapter and have used it only twice because my 5D III has not failed. Price was a key factor for me buying into the M system, but if it was worthless then I wouldn't have bought into it. It took the role of a small portable camera that the S90/HS230 had, and delivers better IQ. Cheaper than a rebel too. My wife uses it because she prefers the small form factor compared to a DSLR, so it serves multiple purposes. Would I prefer having a A7R and an adapter instead? Yes, but I'm not willing to spend 2k+ for something that will not be used as much as the 5D III.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 19, 2014)

Who cares- its a great lil camera.

Better focus than the 6d, thats for sure

(seriously though)


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



That is why I said " for most it isn't"! But as you point out, it is the best $300 camera ever, so if we agree $700 was generally too much, and $300 too little, $500 seems about realistic, and I think for $500 it is a very good camera with unique features for Canon owners, I'd very happily pay that for a III with an EVF as an extra $150.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 19, 2014)

I think systems like Fuji's X-mount and Olympus' OMD series and well spec'd items like Sony's a6000 are going to be very DISRUPTIVE in the entry-level DSLR market once people catch on.

Real SLRs will remain a strong market for various virtues, real and imagined, including better handling with large lenses. But once you get to really large lenses it matters less as you support the lens more than the camera anyway. Performance becomes more of a factor and, at least until now, SLRs have held the lead.

But some new cameras, like the 'EM1 and the new XT1, have not only good performance and IQ but also have ergonomics that's well suited to handling larger lenses PLUS they share a mount with much smaller bodies and lenses. This larger ecosystem is already in place for such models and is only a bit of marketing education away from storming low end and enthusiast DSLR sales.
Performance and IQ of these new ML cameras is not appreciably lagging any crop-body SLR!

Perhaps it was Canon's strategy to produce a lacklustre MILC to taint the concept and create marketing roadblocks for their competitors? 

I really like small DSLRs like Rebels, Nikon's 5000 and 3000 series and such, but the fit and feel of the EM1 and other ML bodies is similarly good and may be a natural alternative for those who don't want dinky little shapes like the M to work with. But if you DO, and if you bought an EM1, you have Pen series alternatives. Got and XT1 but want something smaller?... xe2, xm1, xa1.

So Canon's decisions may certainly be making them money, while the likes of Fuji's attitudes towards their customers is earning plenty of respect and the utility and performance of the EM1 is making similar inroads into positive customer mindshare. Don't underestimate the underdog market appeal.

There's a lot of good choices out there, but I think Canon is gambling a bit much with the M's shortcomings for the sake of profits and losing MILC ground to the competition. At least for now.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 19, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> Who cares- its a great lil camera.
> 
> Better focus than the 6d, thats for sure
> 
> (seriously though)



At $299 - you can't ask for any better


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 19, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Perhaps it was Canon's strategy to produce a lacklustre MILC to taint the concept and create marketing roadblocks for their competitors?


+1


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...their first MILC was the second best-selling MILC in their home country (where MILCs are popular), beating out many of the established vendors in that space.


It was the second one - not the first, anyway. Which was the first, and by what margin? That happened in a single country that has a somewhat "special" market compared to the Western one, Japanese buyers have a different mindset. Here the Canon M was a big failure, and to sell had to reduce price greatly. The successor is not even sold.
Is it wise to design a camera for the home market only, and then try to sell it worldwide, and fail? Why design a single model, instead of a couple, a lower-end one and an higher-end one, to fulfill different needs, instead of insisting on a lower-end one only, despite interchangeable lenses could appeal to higher-end users?
Sure, Canon sell a lot of DSLR, but how many of them are thanks to its higher-end models traction? People may dream of a 1D or 5D and then maybe buy a 7D or 60D because they can't afford the formers, but they anyway "feel good" because they know they're entering a "professional system" that can last many years.
But with the M? It's ok to sell more lenses and use a different mount for smaller ones, especially from Canon perspective, but if the user feels that those lenses may be bound to a camera system going nowhere, how many will be interesting in buying them instead of going EF?
The M camera was successul in Japan, OK, how many M lenses were sold to the average Japanese M user? Was the system successful, or most users found the kit lens enough, as it was just a fixed lens camera, just a little "cooler" "hey, see, I could remove the lens if I wish, and it looks a little like an expensive Leica..."


----------



## bholliman (Feb 19, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm keep hearing people say: "I bought EOS-M as a backup camera".
> 
> Let be honest here guys, many of us(including myself) bought the M due to half price reduction.
> 
> ...



I also bought my EOS-M because of the price reduction last summer, I wasn't even considering it before that. But, once I started using it, I realized it could replace my 7D as a seldom used back-up body and my S100 as a compact camera for when I didn't want to carry a large DSLR. I was able to sell my 7D and S100 and have never missed either. So, to me the M is worth more than the $300 I paid for it. If an M3 or M4 is introduced down the road with a nice EVF and DPAF, I would be interested and would be willing to pay maybe up to $600 for it.

I shoot very little action and almost no BIF, so I don't need a high performance AF system. Those who do shoot action and BIF could still "get by" with the M as a backup as Neuro pointed out. Canon DSLR's are very robust, we all know the likelihood of camera failure is unlikely.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 19, 2014)

Something like this:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/thecamerastoretv-a6000-video-review-its-a-fantastic-solid-product/

is what the Canon M2 should have been: 11FPS, 24MP (I'd settle for 18MP), EVF and comparatively small. And, oh yes, it's $650.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 23, 2014)

*How come DP Review never did a review?*

How come DP Review never did a full review of a production model EOS-M? All they ever did was this preview back in July 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/

It was not included in their mirrorless roundup published Nov 30, 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9961962217/entry-level-mirrorless-camera-roundup-2013


I really like the interactive widget that DP Review uses to allow comparison of image quality at various ISOs with various cameras. I would not buy a camera that they hadn't reviewed so that I can compare the IQ to cameras I already have.

Was the IQ of the EOS-M so bad that DP Review decided not to publish a review?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

*Re: How come DP Review never did a review?*



drmikeinpdx said:


> I really like the interactive widget that DP Review uses to allow comparison of image quality at various ISOs with various cameras. I would not buy a camera that they hadn't reviewed so that I can compare the IQ to cameras I already have.
> 
> Was the IQ of the EOS-M so bad that DP Review decided not to publish a review?



The sensor is the same one in the T4i.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 23, 2014)

How much improvement was gained with the new firmware update?


----------



## DRR (Feb 24, 2014)

gshocked said:


> How much improvement was gained with the new firmware update?



Improvement in what?

The most significant improvement was in AF speed and it improved quite a bit. Still not best in class, but acceptable.


----------



## surapon (Feb 24, 2014)

Dear Friends.
I do not care about talking of EOS-M, BUT When I fell in love some one, I just see only a good sides.
Yes, I have 4 DSLRs in my hands since 2001, But 95% regular days , I have EOS-M with EF-M 22 mm F/ 2.0 on my Belt ( Belt Bag) and I am very happy about her result / great recorded Photos for me 99% of her results.
Plus, On the Photographic Assignment, Yes, I use 3 Cameras and 3 Lens, 5D MK II + EF 24-70 F/2.8, 7D + 70-200 F/ 2.8 L IS, 1DS MK I + 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II, And THIS GREAT EOS-M with EF_M 22 mm, F/ 2.0 as the spare Camera, With TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II ( on my belt pack) for Landscape Scenery.
Have a great workweek.
Surapon


----------



## gshocked (Feb 24, 2014)

DRR said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > How much improvement was gained with the new firmware update?
> ...



I've seen a few YouTube vids on AF tests before and after the firmware update and the after looked ok?


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 24, 2014)

gshocked said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...


YouTube Sony a6000...now that look OK :


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Feb 25, 2014)

How many feathers can you paste on a turkey before you think it's an eagle?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

gshocked said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...


After tje firmware update the AF speed was still slow (in comparion to the AF speed of competing mirrorless cameras) but definitely better then before .. so yes, you can say it's "ok" ... but I sold my EF-M with lenses adapter and flash about couple of hours ago ... plan on getting the Sony a6000 )with kit lens+10-18 f/4 OSS UWA.


----------



## gshocked (Feb 25, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends.
> I do not care about talking of EOS-M, BUT When I fell in love some one, I just see only a good sides.
> Yes, I have 4 DSLRs in my hands since 2001, But 95% regular days , I have EOS-M with EF-M 22 mm F/ 2.0 on my Belt ( Belt Bag) and I am very happy about her result / great recorded Photos for me 99% of her results.
> Plus, On the Photographic Assignment, Yes, I use 3 Cameras and 3 Lens, 5D MK II + EF 24-70 F/2.8, 7D + 70-200 F/ 2.8 L IS, 1DS MK I + 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II, And THIS GREAT EOS-M with EF_M 22 mm, F/ 2.0 as the spare Camera, With TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II ( on my belt pack) for Landscape Scenery.
> ...



Hi Mr. Surapon,

I've said this before but your set up is still very intriguing to me.
If the eos-m2 comes to Australia, I'll get it.


----------



## DRR (Feb 26, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > DRR said:
> ...



Yes, it's "ok." For me, good enough, I generally use center point and recompose with my SLR, and I employ a similar shooting style with the EOS M. Center point is going to be fastest, just pick something on the same focal plane that has the most contrast, and recompose. It works fine for me, if you need faster AF then m4/3 has fast AF cameras, but then you go to a smaller sensor. Sony's line is very appealing but I don't want to spend that much for what amounts to a travel camera for me.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 1, 2014)

DRR said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > gshocked said:
> ...


k
I recently used the EOS-M + 18-55 I STM & 22 f/2 lenses for my vacation in Australia and it was a great setup ... very light and easy to carry around without feeling the weight. But after having tried the Sony a7, I started looking into the Sony line of mirrorless cameras and am very impressed with them ... there are at least a couple of Sony mirrorless cameras that are priced similar to the EOS-M and do a far better job of auto focus, please their 16-50mm kit lens is far more compact and wider focal length then the EOS-M kit lens i.e. 24mm (Sony) vs 28mm (EOS-M) ... but if you are used to Canon menu system, you will find the EOS-M a lot more user friendly (especially the touch screen) then the Sony menu system ... personally (despite the better menu system of EOS-M), I prefer the Sony mirrorless cameras, because they have far more native lenses, great in-camera apps, slightly bigger sensor and good tilt screen that come in very handy for mirrorless cameras.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 1, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I recently used the EOS-M + 18-55 I STM & 22 f/2 lenses for my vacation in Australia and it was a great setup ... very light and easy to carry around without feeling the weight. But after having tried the Sony a7, I started looking into the Sony line of mirrorless cameras and am very impressed with them ... there are at least a couple of Sony mirrorless cameras that are priced similar to the EOS-M and do a far better job of auto focus, please their 16-50mm kit lens is far more compact and wider focal length then the EOS-M kit lens i.e. 24mm (Sony) vs 28mm (EOS-M) ... but if you are used to Canon menu system, you will find the EOS-M a lot more user friendly (especially the touch screen) then the Sony menu system ... personally (despite the better menu system of EOS-M), I prefer the Sony mirrorless cameras, because they have far more native lenses, great in-camera apps, slightly bigger sensor and good tilt screen that come in very handy for mirrorless cameras.



It really is a shame, that Canon has not come up with a competitive EOS-M, forcing one to choose either IQ+AF-performance + lens-lineup (Sony, Fuji) or the truly superior and nicely-familiar Canon-interface. 

At least the EOS-M2 should have come with the 70D sensor, plus full-speed AF also with EF-/EF-S lenses mounted via the EF/EF-M adapter and just a few more good EF-M lenses, e.g. a nice 'n sharp 10mm/4.0 "landscape pancake" and a compact, decent 75mm/2.8 light portrait tele ... it would have really kicked ass. 

Plus announcement of a higher-end wheathersealed EOS-M3 with an even better EVF than the Fuji XT-1 ... 

Canon would have been back on track to dominate the APS-C segment [DSLRs -> MILCs] for the next 10 years at least. And it would have put tremendous pressure on Nikon and Sony. But no ... sigh

Who really wants that stream of completely uninspired annual iterations of the next tired "Digital Rebel mirrorslapper" with all their sorry little "mirror-prism"- OVF peepholes and no thumbwheel?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Who really wants that stream of completely uninspired annual iterations of the next tired "Digital Rebel mirrorslapper" with all their sorry little "mirror-prism"- OVF peepholes and no thumbwheel?



Apparently *millions* of people want that... You may not, but you're in the minority.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Who really wants that stream of completely uninspired annual iterations of the next tired "Digital Rebel mirrorslapper" with all their sorry little "mirror-prism"- OVF peepholes and no thumbwheel?
> ...



Millions of people dide not really want it ... but were not offered anything else at prices affordable to regular income earners with photography being one of their hobbies. 

An EOS-M2 sized as is, but with 70D sensor (= with useable AF), priced like an SL-1 and a higher-end EOS-M3 equipped with best-in-class EVF, wheathersealing and RT-speedlite trigger, sized and priced like a Fujifilm XT-1 ... would be the only ticket for Canon to replace sales of all those rebels nobody will want to buy any longer a year or two from now ... maybe not even @ USD 299,- in firesales. 

As observed so often, Canon is again acting very shortsightedly. Re. APS-C MILCs. Not to mention re. FF-MILCs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



How do you know that?? Millions of people *bought* Rebel/xxxD cameras last year. They plunked down their hard-earned money to buy very good and functional cameras that can take excellent pictures. Millions more will do the same thing this year. But you're saying they didn't want to, they had no choice, they were _forced_ to spend several hundred dollars, for a product they didn't want, for a hobby? Get a clue. 

It just baffles me how people can think that _their own personal opinion_ is universally shared by everyone, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Mar 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> How do you know that?? Millions of people *bought* Rebel/xxxD cameras last year. They plunked down their hard-earned money to buy very good and functional cameras that can take excellent pictures. Millions more will do the same thing this year. But you're saying they didn't want to, they had no choice, they were _forced_ to spend several hundred dollars, for a product they didn't want, for a hobby? Get a clue.
> 
> It just baffles me how people can think that _their own personal opinion_ is universally shared by everyone, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



You have your opinions. And I am entitled to mine. Just deal with it. I am sick and tired of your condescending and derogatory tone. Cut it out. 

My opinion is: Canon did give "limited budget" amateurs willing to spend no more than 1 grand for body + kit lens no choice other than Digital Rebels (DSLRs) ... and a very non-compelling, crippled EOS-M. Slow AF, no WiFi, no viewfinder, no built-in flash ... and a 2 or 3 "lens line-up". It only sold once it was dumped at USD 299,- because it is such a limited camera "system". 

As evidenced by APS-C MILC sales of other makers [most notably Sony and Fujifilm; possibly Samsung NX is also selling in Asia], a good number (many millions) of "Rebel-class" buyers would be more than happy to buy a more compact mirrorless Canon EOS, provided it is "fully competitive" - in photographic capabilities and in price. 

It is really ridiculous that Canon does not offer this choice - desirable mirrorless vs. stale Rebel/Kiss DSLRs. 
I consider it a huge mistake on Canon's part that they have no EOS M2 that matches Sony's A6000 or Fujifilm XE-2 all the way [sensor and AF] and no EOS-M3 that fully matches something like a Fujifilm XT-1. 

The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> You have your opinions. And I am entitled to mine.



Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I respect that. But that respect disappears when you make statements such as, "_Millions of people dide not really want it..._," you are assigning that opinion to others – millions of others. Do you honestly believe that the millions of people who bought Rebel/xxxD bodies did so because they had no other option? You've been singing the praises of Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic MILC options all along...why didn't those millions of people choose those, if they're so much better? I don't know why, and neither do you. But the incontrovertible *fact* is that those millions of people chose a Canon dSLR over any MILC. 

You consider Canon's choices for the MILC market a mistake, and that may be true (although with the second best-selling MILC in Japan, a model that outsold both Fuji and Panasonic's top-selling models, they apparently did something right). Time will tell. Meanwhile, last year Canon alone sold close to twice as many dSLRs as all the MILCs sold by all manufacturers combined. Deal with that.


----------



## bauerman (Mar 1, 2014)

We need to have the following t-shirt printed for "AvTvM" - it would simply state the following:

"If If's and But's were candy and nuts - we'd all have a wonderful Christmas!"

I don't know that I have ever seen someone so obsessed with a camera that he does not own and/or has no plans to own in the future. Yet it has obviously become a burr in his saddle to the point where he feels it his mission to taint and tarnish the product endlessly. 

My suggestion? Go take pictures if photography is your hobby and leave us "suckers" to our crippled and useless camera bodies. 

*My opinion of the M carries with it literally no less weight than AvTVM's* - and I think it is a useful camera system and one that when implemented properly can produce fantastic images. 

And I guaran-damn-tee you I an NOT a "limited budget amateur" has he put it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

bauerman said:


> *My opinion of the M carries with it literally no less weight than AvTVM's* - and I think it is a useful camera system and one that when implemented properly can produce fantastic images.
> 
> And I guaran-damn-tee you I an NOT a "limited budget amateur" has he put it.



I happen to share your opinion of the EOS M. 

I suppose you could say I'm a 'limited budget amateur', albeit with a limit that's pretty darn high. For example, I only own _one_ supertelephoto lens...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Millions of people dide not really want it ... but were not offered anything else at prices affordable to regular income earners with photography being one of their hobbies.



You're overlooking the fact that a very high percentage of camera buyers still _like the concept_ of seeing through their camera's lens, optically. This trend may change in the future, but at the present time sales figures support this fact.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 1, 2014)

DRR said:


> gshocked said:
> 
> 
> > How much improvement was gained with the new firmware update?
> ...



Right. What it didn't speed up is the time lag between taking shots, which I found far more annoying than the focus speed (I hardly ever photograph moving things, so that wasn't much of a problem for me) or, of course, all the other irritating design features.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> An EOS-M2 sized as is, but with 70D sensor (= with useable AF), priced like an SL-1 and a higher-end EOS-M3 equipped with best-in-class EVF, wheathersealing and RT-speedlite trigger, sized and priced like a Fujifilm XT-1 ... would be the only ticket for Canon to replace sales of all those rebels nobody will want to buy any longer a year or two from now ... maybe not even @ USD 299,- in firesales.



Excellent mirrorless cameras have existed for a while, but outside the far East it's *them* that "nobody wants to buy", in part, perhaps, because they're not cheap compared to APS-C dslrs. The XT-1 is $1300, the OM-D E-M1 is c. $1400, the newest Panasonic will cost even more, and the next tier down from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic are c. $1000 (most of them without weather sealing) - and that's body-only. What's more, unless you spend a bit more and buy an Sony A7 (and are willing to work around the limited native lens selection), the image quality is no better than an APS-C dslr provides. So unless small body size really matters, it's unclear exactly why anyone *should* prefer these alternatives. I happen to like them a lot - Olympus OM-D and Sony A7/7r, at any rate - but for now it's pretty clear that I'm in a minority in this part of the world (apparently Fuji have yet to sell a million worldwide of all their X-series cameras put together).


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 1, 2014)

sdsr said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > An EOS-M2 sized as is, but with 70D sensor (= with useable AF), priced like an SL-1 and a higher-end EOS-M3 equipped with best-in-class EVF, wheathersealing and RT-speedlite trigger, sized and priced like a Fujifilm XT-1 ... would be the only ticket for Canon to replace sales of all those rebels nobody will want to buy any longer a year or two from now ... maybe not even @ USD 299,- in firesales.
> ...



Exactly. It is all about price and performance. Acceptable MILC performance has only come about very recently. And mFT will go under as soon as APS-C and FF_MILCs will start to flow, because the sensor is too smal, no matter what they say or do. 

We are entitled to the digital dividend. A camera like a (fictitious) EOS-M with the 70D sensor and capabilities and a first-rate EVF should still be 300 USD less to produce, because it has fewer parts and is so much easier to assemble, align and quality control without all that mechanical mirroslapping stuff in it and an off-sensor phase-AF system. Yet camera makers believe they can cream off their customers once again. That's why customers other than Japanese girls and 299 firesale-shoppers have not been buying all of those inadequate, overpriced mirrorless offers up to now. 

There is nothing that supports a 799 MSRP for an EOS-M or 1300 for a Fuji XT-1 or 1400 for an Olympus OMD1. They should all be about half of those price points .. around where the Digital Rebel DSLRs are, and well below a 70D/D7200 pricepoint - for the same functional capabilities (except EVF vs. OVF).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> We are entitled to



...choose whether or not to buy the products that are made available, at the prices at which they are offered. Nothing more than that. 

Oh, and we're entitled to complain on the Internet. But we're also entitled to totally disagree with some of those complaints, and with the complainers.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.



WTF?
this shows you dont own the camera let alone have ever used it
I have no problems with the EOS-M using EF lenses via the adapter
i use the 16-35 or the 135L the most and AF is reasonable and accurate with both lenses
:


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 2, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.
> ...



All a matter of expectations I guess. If you are happy with this kind of AF-"performance" 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHhEEu7YuU
... I am not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> All a matter of expectations I guess. If you are happy with this kind of AF-"performance"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHhEEu7YuU
> ... I am not.



That 'demo' was prior to the v2 firmware that more that doubled the AF speed. Given your evident bias, I'm sure that doesn't matter to you. 

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even _more_ imperfect than the EOS M.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even _more_ imperfect than the EOS M.


You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update). 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even _more_ imperfect than the EOS M.
> ...



So, you're saying that the a7R with a Canon lens mounted via an adapter is just as fast as what you describe as 'AF speed that's the most primitive among mirrorless cameras'...and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No!



neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :


Yes! the a7R is a *lot more faster*, with its 4 native FE lenses, as opposed to the the *only 2* native EF-M lenses for EOS-M (available for purchase in your part of the world). Even with a third party adapter, manually focusing with focus peaking, the a7/R is far more faster than the EOS-M with its native lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Well, actually that's exactly what you said. Maybe it wasn't what you meant, though...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


No, what I posted and what you are thinking are two different things


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :



yes it is. And given your level of technical understanding, I am sure you appreciate this, as you are undoubtedly aware of the technical challenges involved to achieve similar AF-speed with FF-lenses/FF-sensors compared to much smaller sensors. 

And ... looking at APS-mirrorless cameras, Sony A6000 and Fujifilm XT-1 show "very decent" AF-performance, including tracking-capability. Canon EOS-M? not at all. EOS-M2? neither. 

And ... only 3 months after launch, 4 native lenses are currently available for Sony A7/7R 

And ... 18 months after launch of the EOS-M? 3 native EF-M lenses ... only 2 for the US 

And ... Sony has a roadmap showing which 15 native lenses will be available until 2015 and up to now they been delivering. Wouldn't it be nice to see such a roadmap for Canon EF-M lenses too? 

And ... until then, the Canon EOS-M/EF-M is a rather "dead end".


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :
> ...


Sony needs to release uwa asap for a7 system. ...otherwise, it could be "dead end" as eos-m.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> No, what I posted and what you are thinking are two different things



What you posted was:



Rienzphotoz said:


> *the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M*



Sorry, but "just as fast," means 'the same speed'...not 'a lot more faster.' Maybe you meant something else, but you stated what you stated. 



AvTvM said:


> And ... looking at APS-mirrorless cameras, Sony A6000 and Fujifilm XT-1 show "very decent" AF-performance, including tracking-capability.



Is the "very decent" tracking capability adequate for fast-moving birds or athletes? If not, it's rather a 'dead end' as far as I'm concerned. For anything still or moving slow, the EOS M does fine. 

Also, fast and accurate tracking is even more critical with the thinner DoF of a FF sensor.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I posted and what you are thinking are two different things
> ...


Your question was:
"and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?"
My answer to your question was *"No"* ... but you are quoting dictionary definitions for something else, which has nothing to do with your question and my answer.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 2, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Sony needs to release uwa asap for a7 system. ...otherwise, it could be "dead end" as eos-m.



FE 16-35/4.0 zeiss/sony is next up for 2014 according to the roadmap. 
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sony-lens-roadmap.jpg


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



Got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree, and you're absolutely right - given how much people malign the EOS M compared to other MILC options, it's definitely *NOT* fine for the a7R with a Canon EF lens via adapter to focus as slowly as the EOS M.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Sony needs to release uwa asap for a7 system. ...otherwise, it could be "dead end" as eos-m.
> ...


Current 24-70 f4 size is kinda big for this system. They need to release compact prime at f4.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D ... believe it or not, using the focus peaking feature, the a7R with a cheap adapter is actually much faster then the autofocus on EOS-M with its native lenses. I've had the EOS-M for almost a year and made over 30000 images with it, and I was very satisfied with it's image quality ... but after having tried some of the competing mirrorless cameras, I sold the EOS-M last week ... now I plan on getting a Panasonic GX7 and a Sony a6000 ... pretty sure of getting the a6000 (when it is released), but I'm still undecided about the GX7 :-\


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 3, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



actually i just leave it in servo now its much faster to focus
and especially with usm lenses you know they have locked focus when they stop vibrating
its fast enough to track and capture people on the street and kids playing 
i am sure it would still have no chance of shooting sports or wildlife but for my uses the af on the revised firmware 
is ok not blazing good but not as bad as it initially was, 

changing af setting on the M can really make a big difference to af performance


----------



## ecka (Mar 3, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Yeah, for an UWA 14mm (or even 20mm) f/4 would be nice, but for 85mm ... wee..ell :-\ I think f/2 is small enough for me ... I could live with that .


----------



## sdsr (Mar 3, 2014)

;D ;D ;D ... believe it or not, using the focus peaking feature, the a7R with a cheap adapter is actually much faster then the autofocus on EOS-M with its native lenses. I've had the EOS-M for almost a year and made over 30000 images with it, and I was very satisfied with it's image quality ... but after having tried some of the competing mirrorless cameras, I sold the EOS-M last week ... now I plan on getting a Panasonic GX7 and a Sony a6000 ... pretty sure of getting the a6000 (when it is released), but I'm still undecided about the GX7 :-\
[/quote]

Did you update the firmware on your M? I thought that made a significant improvement, and certainly faster than what I can achieve (at least with wide apertures) manually on my A7r (not that speed is usually an issue for me); though of course you may be much more adept at mf than I am....

As for the GX7, it certainly has its admirers, but its IBIS isn't nearly as good as that in Olympus bodies (esp. the OM-Ds), and the one I briefly owned never made images that looked as sharp as those I get from my Olympus - but maybe I had a bad copy.

Meanwhile, I suspect this post is closer to the truth than many around here would like:

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/when-is-dslr-not-dslr-when-its-sony-a7r.html


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Meanwhile, I suspect this post is closer to the truth than many around here would like:
> 
> http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/when-is-dslr-not-dslr-when-its-sony-a7r.html



Hehe ... Thats exactly where we stand today! ;D

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ;D ;D ;D ... believe it or not, using the focus peaking feature, the a7R with a cheap adapter is actually much faster then the autofocus on EOS-M with its native lenses. I've had the EOS-M for almost a year and made over 30000 images with it, and I was very satisfied with it's image quality ... but after having tried some of the competing mirrorless cameras, I sold the EOS-M last week ... now I plan on getting a Panasonic GX7 and a Sony a6000 ... pretty sure of getting the a6000 (when it is released), but I'm still undecided about the GX7 :-\
> ...


Yes, I did update the firmware for the EOS-M and yes is it was much better, but still not up to competing mirrorless cameras ... that being said, I never had any problems with not being able to capture good images due to AF.
By the way the url you posted is returning an error ... could you check/re-post

Thanks

EDIT: Never mind, it is working now (might have been a temporary issue). 
Very funny, enjoyed reading it ... to me, it sounded like a story more about a dumb salesman who does not know how to sell cameras and a customer who has no clue about what he wants.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

sdsr said:


> http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/when-is-dslr-not-dslr-when-its-sony-a7r.html


That was funny ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2014)

Should Canon continue with the EOS-M line. Yes. 

If it had been available earlier (like years earlier) I would have bought it, as it is I have Olympus m.4/3rd which is a great walk around / I dont want to lug around large cameras & lenses package today set-up. As good as the images are on the Olympus E-PL1 and OM-D E-M5 they dont match up to the Canon 6d although they come close to the Canon 7d in IQ the Olympus 9-18mm is a peach of a lens.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 11, 2014)

dead end is a generous description. this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door with lousy
AF performance, limited lens selection and insane pricing. When discounted (over 50% to clear the inventory) 
it still lingered on retailers' shelves and is only now becoming hard to find (at the discounted price.) 
In the meantime Canon introduced the SL1 which took further wind out of the M sales and also flooded the
information market about how the G1X was a better solution (it probably was) and released two rapid marginal
"enhancements" to the T3i all within the same MRSP. They announced an interesting new lens - but not in the
largest USA market - and a new model with minimum enhancements for Europe but again not the US. It would
appear that Canon USA knows a turkey when it sees one and wouldn't sign up for any volumes. Now you're in
a "pasting feathers on a turkey" mode and you might be better off kissing it off and starting from scratch.


----------



## canonographer (Mar 11, 2014)

I have both the EOS-M and the 6D. The EOS-M is a great camera for specific tasks. I love having a small pocketable camera that I can take with me when I'm out with my family. I love using the image stabilized 18-55mm lens for shooting video, and I love the idea of having a back-up camera that takes fantastic pictures and can use all my existing lenses with the adapter. If I want to extend the reach of my long lenses, it's cheaper than the 1.4x extender and gives me 1.6x the reach of my FF lenses, and it works with ALL my lenses, unlike the 1.4x extender.

I would make a few improvements, to make it perfect. 1) If I had a collapsible wide angle zoom with IS, it would rarely come off the camera. 2) I would like to be able to have some more settings for minimum shutter speeds, ISO, etc. 3) Of course, faster AF, dual pixel, etc. would be huge. If you could add a nice EVF similar to Sony's, that would be great, but probably not at the expense of size.

My 2 cents.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 11, 2014)

dickgrafixstop
North America (USA & Canada) represents 1/3rd of the global camera market and is falling in % terms. Asia is where the growth has been so its no wonder Canon only launched the EOS-M2 in that market. As for Turkeys all manufacturers have released models in North America and Europe that were Turkeys in those respective markets but were not in Asia and likely visa versa. 

The North American market in global terms is still significant but not as significant as it used to be.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> dead end is a generous description. this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door ... Now you're in
> a "pasting feathers on a turkey" mode and you might be better off kissing it off and starting from scratch.



The EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year. One country's meat is another one's spoiled turkey...


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > dead end is a generous description. this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door ... Now you're in
> ...



I just wonder how many Japanese buyers buy it with only one lens and will never even put another lens on it. Of course, as I recall, the average number of lenses owned by Canon DSLR buyers is less than two.


----------



## ecka (Mar 11, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dickgrafixstop said:
> ...



There are many people who would buy it without any EF-M lenses. They only care about adapters for lenses they already have, like Canon EF. That makes a lot of sense for telephoto, because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ. EF-S 55-250mm IS STM can be considered "near native" lens for EOS-M (via the adapter) - fast AF, nice optics, stabilized, compact (for 88-400mm equivalent  ) and affordable. Many are using old manual lenses and they love it.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 11, 2014)

ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 11, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> ecka
> "because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"
> 
> I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.


The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses


----------



## sdsr (Mar 11, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > ecka
> ...



Well, not the 12mm, but taking that crop factor into account, current primes get you to the equivalent of 150mm (I would add the 45mm Olympus to the list), with very high image quality. As for Micro 4/3 zooms, they tend to compare quite favorably with their dslr equivalents and are, of course, much smaller and lighter.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 11, 2014)

The right comparison is effective focal length.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 11, 2014)

ecka said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That might be true in North America and Europe. (It certainly is part of the reason that Neuro bought his.) But is it true in Japan? I thought a lot of buyers there were young women looking for a fashion accessory.


----------



## canonographer (Mar 11, 2014)

I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.

I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.

it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.


----------



## ecka (Mar 11, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Well, for me, the cheaper m4/3 output is not good enough to choose it over a good P&S camera or two, or three (G1 X, RX100, RX10) and the expensive one just makes no sense.
150mm on FF is a short telephoto, nothing powerful really , just like anything else in 100mm to 200mm range. So, for m4/3 it must be 100mm+.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2014)

canonographer said:


> I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.
> 
> I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.
> 
> it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.



+100 !

Exactly! Japanese managers have little clue about euro and us markets. As evidenced by their recent interviews on dpreview - all of them. Canon, nikon, fuji, sigma.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

ecka said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


+1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 12, 2014)

canonographer said:


> I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.
> 
> I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.
> 
> it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.


yeah right :


----------

