New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]

[Woody]

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

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

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

[Bob Howland]

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

[traveller]

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

[AvTvM]

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

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

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

[zim]

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

[traveller]

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

[LukieLauXD]

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

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

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

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

[Dylan777]

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

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

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

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

[Don Haines]

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.....

[unfocused]

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.....

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

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

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

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

[Woody]

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...

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.....

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

[traveller]

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.....

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

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

 

[dadgummit]

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

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

[PhilBarker]

^^ Exactly that

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

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

[jal2099]

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

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

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