New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]

[botw]

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

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

[Lee Jay]

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

[kubelik]

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

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

[gmrza]

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

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

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

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

[wickidwombat]

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

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

[wickidwombat]

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

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

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

[Mantanuska]

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

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

[mirekti]

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

[Dylan777]

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.....

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

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

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

[Hobby Shooter]

[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Haines]

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.....

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

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

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

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

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

[CanNotYet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[p666]

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

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

[AvTvM]

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

really?

[Dylan777]

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

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

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

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

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