EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature

[neuroanatomist]

Sounds good, might help me cope with those on this forum who are sadly devoid of anything remotely resembling a sense of humor...   

Protip:  I can tell you that "sense of humor" does not translate so well on the Interwebs.  That's why comedy writers on the web are so well-paid (  ).  I have been on both ends of this problem.

Thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom.  I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.

FWIW, calling someone "snarky" translates quite universally as rude, so thanks for that (FYI, that was sarcasm).

[Don Haines]

Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area.  What about production cost?  No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough.  Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!

I was under the impression that "offcut" materials were recycled in plant at many fabrication facilities.... so your "just like cookie dough" comment might be more accurate than one would think...

[neuroanatomist]

Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area.  What about production cost?  No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough.  Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!

I was under the impression that "offcut" materials were recycled in plant at many fabrication facilities.... so your "just like cookie dough" comment might be more accurate than one would think...

Cool - I had no idea. Thanks!

[Lee Jay]

Let's be honest.  All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.

I want one but don't yet have one.  My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked.  I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology.  Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye.

No you can't.  What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?

I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.

That would be with an OVF, not an EVF.  I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh.  The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame."  Good riddance.

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).  The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

[Orangutan]

Thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom.  I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.

FWIW, calling someone "snarky" translates quite universally as rude, so thanks for that (FYI, that was sarcasm).

Well, I didn't intend to be that rude, and maybe we understand the word "snark" differently.  My search yields "snide remark" as the origin.  There are various common usages, many including "sarcastic."  Your reply to  Don Haines struck me as snide and/or sarcastic, and still does.  If you didn't intend to be snide or sarcastic then I apologize.  If you know of a different meaning I'd love to hear it.

I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.

  ....

[Orangutan]

No you can't.  What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?

I concede this.

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs.  Also, what if it's dark?  Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now.  (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).

I guess I'm more optimistic.  Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now?  If so,  it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras. 

The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

How so?

[Don Haines]

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....

Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs.  Also, what if it's dark?  Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now.  (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)

I have an SX-50 with an EVF.... it is terrible in poor light and not high enough resolution for the job... but it is very far from what you see now. I have used the accessory EVF for the Olympus PEN cameras and it is a world of difference... as good as optical in daylight or indoors. I have not tried it at night.

EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).

There are already good enough EVF's out there.... they just cost more... but you can bet that price will drop. They are higher resolution than the eye can see and less than 5 milliseconds delay (that's 1/200th of a second)

[neuroanatomist]

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....

Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive?  If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?

[Woody]

Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive?  If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?

Precisely. There is NO WAY an EVF can show what the human eye sees. As long as the EVF can 'show in the dark' what the naked eye cannot see, that already tells us the EVF processes information that falls on the sensor.

I spent one whole year with the E-M5, trying to convince myself the system is for me. Alas, while the camera has helped me capture some great moments, I came to the full realization that EVFs are not for me. I totally hated my EVF experience. I ended up selling my entire m43 system (cameras, lenses, accessories) and plunged head-log back into the safe embrace of Canon's OVF systems. The EVF seriously impairs my ability to compose because what the EVF/sensor shows is simply not what I see with my naked eyes. On the other hand, an OVF merely 'crops' my view.

Well, to each his own.

[Don Haines]

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....

Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive?  If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?

I don't know.... haven't tried the E-M1's EVF yet, but I would bet it's not as good as the eye in all categories... but every time I try a newer EVF I find it better than what came before.. I'm looking forward to giving it a try.

As to the eye, it can handle bright lights and it can handle dim light.... but not at the same time. It takes time for the eye to adapt from one extreme to the other.... plus low light vision is not in colour... but that being said, once the human eye has adapted to the low light it works far better than any consumer DSLR sensor that I have seen,  yet nowhere near as well as night vision goggles of as far back as 30 years ago or those found in quality surveillance cameras. I don't think there is a clear answer to the question any more.

[9VIII]

You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire

Precisely.  I've posted this before: for pro and prosumer cameras I'd like to make the crop in post, or have manual crop selection on the body.  It would be a choice, like aperture.

This is actually an incredibly good idea.
It would end the need for a battery grip in order to shoot portraits, you would never need to hold your camera sideways ever again. No more L brackets either. And as was being discussed in a video I saw the other day, if you're building a portfolio to sell, customers may want your picture in either orientation, so it's usually best to take one shot in each. Now you would have both at the same time.

[paul13walnut5]

All these mixed messages, the stress is killing me, new M, no new M, new M...

Arrrrrghhhhhhhh!

Just kidding.

But does it say if it'll be full frame and have a viewfinder and 70-200 f2.0 pancake?

Reading the tea leaves, I think it's actually medium format this time around. No viewfinder, but you get a nice black towel  (with a Canon logo and red stripe border!) to drape over your head while taking the photos. Pancake as described. Same 64 point AF as 5D3 and 1Dx. Marquee feature is that the focus confirmation "beep" is now changeable to a ringtone of your choice as well.

Fantastic news, magnesium nitrate flash too with RT & E-TTL from the body?  A bulb release?  I am getting excited already!!!!

[paul13walnut5]

compatible only with RAW images shot with EOS-1D X, EOS-1D C, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 70D, EOS 60D, EOS 50D, EOS REBEL T5i/700D, EOS REBEL SL1/100D, EOS REBEL T4i/650D, EOS REBEL T3i/600D, EOS REBEL T2i/550D, EOS REBEL T1i/500D, EOS REBEL T3/1100D, EOS M2 and EOS M.

This would seem to imply that there will be only be 1 EOS-M camera introduced soon, not two.... Perhaps the source meant a higher end EOS-M camera (the EOS M2) and the continuation of a lower grade EOS-M camera, the current EOS M.

And no sign of a 7D mark II...

[neuroanatomist]

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....

Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive?  If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?

I don't know.... haven't tried the E-M1's EVF yet, but I would bet it's not as good as the eye in all categories... but every time I try a newer EVF I find it better than what came before.. I'm looking forward to giving it a try.

As to the eye, it can handle bright lights and it can handle dim light.... but not at the same time. It takes time for the eye to adapt from one extreme to the other.... plus low light vision is not in colour... but that being said, once the human eye has adapted to the low light it works far better than any consumer DSLR sensor that I have seen,  yet nowhere near as well as night vision goggles of as far back as 30 years ago or those found in quality surveillance cameras. I don't think there is a clear answer to the question any more.

There certainly is a clear answer to the original issue/question.  That question wasn't does an EVF have some advantages, e.g. low light sensitivity and ability to magnify, that in some circumstances outweigh its disadvantages, e.g. display lag, compressed and tone-curved DR (not sure, but I'd bet those little LCDs aren't even 8-bit, but only 6-bit)?  The answer to whether or not an EVF can show the scene as seen by the photographer's eye like an OVF is a definitive "no."

[Lee Jay]

I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.

Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs.  Also, what if it's dark?  Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now.  (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)

Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient.  What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye.  Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.

The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).

I guess I'm more optimistic.  Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now?  If so,  it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras. 

Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink.  Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.

The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.

How so?

The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.