New EOS-M Lenses Soon [CR2]

[skycolt]

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.

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

[Don Haines]

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.

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

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

[Don Haines]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wild]

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.

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

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

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

[Wild]

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.....

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

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

[Wild]

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.

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

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

[Don Haines]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rocky]

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

[Wild]

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

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

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

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

[Hobby Shooter]

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.

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

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

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

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