Here's a few of mine
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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.
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.
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 S___? 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.....
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.
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 fully expect the lowest possible consumer-crappy mirrorless camera from Canon.
It will be a G1X with a lens mount and possibly a sorry little EVF instead of the G1X's sorry little OVF.
The lenses will be three sorry crappy kit lenses, a 28-90 equivalent f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom, a slow 40mm pancake of some sort and a slow tele zoom.
Autofocus will be dead slow like on the G1X. It will not have the hybrid FPPD-AF + CD-AF of the 650D.
fps and operational speed will be dead slow. The thing will suck in every possible way and still cost as much as a 60D.
I really hate them for it already in advance.
Instead of pouring your hate into every thread why not have a more objective approach backed up with some real experience/evidence instead of just malicious rumour and gueswork?