Let's face it: Canon has fully botched the EOS-M in every possible way. Even if there were more EF-M lenses NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already.
Canon should have:
- designed the EF-M as FF-sensored camera-system with a new mount with well thought out diameter and flange distance.
Disagree. The EF flange depth for FF is well established. It couldn't possibly be anything else if you want to include EF users and make that a selling point. Which I think Canon had to really.
- offer a starting line-up of 2 models: EOS-M-"Pure"= Basic model, as small as possible, LCD only, as cheap as possible
- and EOS-M-"Advanced", slightly larger, possibly somewhat more controls, full weathersealing, Mg-alloy body and hi-end "retina" EFV
Disagree. I think they got the model right. It's a great size. Great feel. Simple enough for folk buying their first EOS camera, functional enough for experienced EOS users to have as their B or C camera.
They should have held off until dual pixel AF was ready, or even just FW2.0 performance was available from the outset. Even with FW1, folk who knew how AF works could get good results, with FW2 anybody could. The problem is that a large chunk of the Ms target market want a camera that works out the box. The M didn't do that at first.
- plus starting lineup of 3 native, FF pancake primes, sized like the EF 40/2.8 ... e.g. a 18mm/4.0 landscape, 40/2.8 normal view pancake and ultracompact 85/2.8 portrait lens. All with autuofocus capability only. No manula focus ring. To make 'em really small, fully weathersealed, optically as good as the EF 40/2.8 and as cheap as possible.
- plus one kit-zoom ... similar to Sony ... 28-75/3.5-5.6 ... but foldable design to make it really compact, when not in use .. "parking position".
Not asking much. Why not just have decent EF lenses that can be adapted?
- EF-M adapter included in package
Absolutely agree. I think there is mileage in a plastic EF-s only version too, at say £30, or in the box.
- plus roadmap for new EF-M lenses to come ... see Sony! WA lenses first, because those will be smaller and lighter with reduced flange distance compared to EF lenses. No need to rush native tele lenses, since they will not be smaller. Size of front element is determined by focal length and largest f-stop.
Em, forgive me, but as the thread is about the lack of EF-m tele lenses, isn't this kind of what Canon have done? Kit 18-55, 22mm pancake, and 11-22 UWA? You are criticising canon for not doing something they have actually done. Besides, didn't you say earlier...
Even if there were more EF-M lenses NOBODY wants to buy yet another set of APS-C lenses for use on only one camera body, after having purchased EF-S lenses and (possibly) EF lenses already.
Pick a tune and stick to it buddy.
So they goofed and are being punished by us, the customers, who will only buy their sorry EOS-M if it comes almost for free. Right on them! :-)
Yep, well the launch prices were ridiculous. £800 here in the UK.
The paradox being that the folk who have bought the M's in a firesale, actually now decide they quite like them and that canon didn't have their head completely up their harris.