December 03, 2016, 10:57:40 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS M Specs  (Read 50078 times)

peederj

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2012, 02:10:41 AM »
It's more expensive to get one of these (with the 22mm pancake and the EF adapter...$1000) than the superior Rebel T4i (with its kit) at $930 if you want EF lens support.

What does this buy you over the Rebel, sizewise? Nothing. The Rebel has an articulated screen, a viewfinder for sunny days, 9 cross-type AF points, better balance weight and grip for bigger EF lenses, no need for a lens mount adpater, and not much harder to place in a camera bag (as the EOS M will need since it does not fit into a pocket).

I think this is Canon simply responding to trends, some not very bright people want an even smaller Rebel just for the sake of it, it doesn't change the game in terms of pocketability or quality. If they sell these, it's to not particularly perceptive individuals, who deserve to be separated from their money.

One hopes the premium Canon collects will go into the improvements the knowledgable all want.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2012, 02:10:41 AM »

Woody

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 829
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2012, 02:29:23 AM »
It's more expensive to get one of these (with the 22mm pancake and the EF adapter...$1000) than the superior Rebel T4i (with its kit) at $930 if you want EF lens support.

What does this buy you over the Rebel, sizewise? Nothing. The Rebel has an articulated screen, a viewfinder for sunny days, 9 cross-type AF points, better balance weight and grip for bigger EF lenses, no need for a lens mount adpater, and not much harder to place in a camera bag (as the EOS M will need since it does not fit into a pocket).

I think this is Canon simply responding to trends, some not very bright people want an even smaller Rebel just for the sake of it, it doesn't change the game in terms of pocketability or quality. If they sell these, it's to not particularly perceptive individuals, who deserve to be separated from their money.

One hopes the premium Canon collects will go into the improvements the knowledgable all want.

Interesting viewpoint. I like it. :)

caruser

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 134
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2012, 02:30:13 AM »
Anybody going to get one to try out?  It's fairly cheap, $799.

You forgot the $199 for the EF adapter that most people on this forum would probably want to include!

ssrdd

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #123 on: July 23, 2012, 03:10:20 AM »
same tech specs since 2009.
another canon flop show.

mb66energy

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
    • My Homepage
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #124 on: July 23, 2012, 03:16:52 AM »
It's more expensive to get one of these (with the 22mm pancake and the EF adapter...$1000) than the superior Rebel T4i (with its kit) at $930 if you want EF lens support.

What does this buy you over the Rebel, sizewise? Nothing. The Rebel has an articulated screen, a viewfinder for sunny days, 9 cross-type AF points, better balance weight and grip for bigger EF lenses, no need for a lens mount adpater, and not much harder to place in a camera bag (as the EOS M will need since it does not fit into a pocket).[...]

Good point - I wanted to have a compact mirrorless which is compatible with my EF(-S) lenses including the shorty 40. The most important dimension to stow away a camera is camera THICKNESS - so the 22mm lens is essential. The most important reason to buy a mirrorless is to have a 2nd or 3rd camera attached to my EF(-S) lenses. So I have to buy the bulky adaptor with tripod mount. That's the 1000$/EUR - a T4i costs 750-800EUR in germany and is available.

Thickness of the EOS M + Adaptor  + shorty forty: roughly 80mm
Thickness of the 650D (or EOS40D) + shorty forty: roughly 85mm

After viewing a video about the use of the EOS M via the touch screen:
Direct controls are really really more ergonomic than fumbling with
symbols on a screen which should also act as viewfinder.

Conclusion:
 - EOS M is not substantially flatter with EF lenses than a 650D (or 40D, or 5Dxyz)
 - direct controls are preferred
 - built in flash in 650D is a welcome feature if it is used as all-day-with-me camera
 - flexible screen is welcome for video - the main reason for me to ad a new camera to my
   two 40Ds

Hopefully the next mirrorless has an EF mount and a cube shaped design like the rolleiflex
cameras with two displays (on top and on the back) which can be swapped to act
as finder and control panel ... that would be a clean solution and make it compact enough
to stow it in a lens bag :) ... the camera shurely with FF sensor  ;)

« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 03:18:30 AM by mb66energy »
Most used tools: 2 x EOS 5D i + 2.8 40 + 2.8 100 M + 4.0 70-200 + 5.6 400

mb66energy

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
    • My Homepage
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #125 on: July 23, 2012, 03:21:55 AM »
same tech specs since 2009.
another canon flop show.

Not exactly - the dimensions of a camera are part of the tech specs. And in terms
of compactness (if used with the 22mm lens) and the sensor size it is an advance
for those who just want to use that package. I think there is some progress
and if it's a flop - the buyers will decide.

As stated in my post above I am more interested in the 650D to acquire the
option of video with EF(-S) lenses - this camera (the EOS M) isn't the right upgrade
for ME because it is to limited and for that it's to expensive.
Most used tools: 2 x EOS 5D i + 2.8 40 + 2.8 100 M + 4.0 70-200 + 5.6 400

rafaelsynths

  • Guest
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #126 on: July 23, 2012, 03:57:13 AM »
Anybody going to get one to try out?  It's fairly cheap, $799.

Ordered!

I have a Canon T4i.  This is a perfect second camera, especially for video.

I am in the process of paring my 14+ Canon lenses down to 5 or 6. 

I am going to go with the 22 2.0, 40 2.8, and 85 1.8 for primes.  (From: 24 2.8, 45 TS-E, 50 1.8, 85 1.2, 90 TS-E, Contax 28 mm)

For zooms, I am going with the 18-135 STM for video, along with the 24-70 2.8 II (for absolute highest quality on zoom, I use that lens 80% of teh time), and the 70-200 4.0  (sold the 70-200 2.8 II because it is so heavy.)

I am very happy with the T4i. It has basically the same image that my $8,000 Canon 1DsII had in 2004.

Yes, the Exmor has a bit more DR at lower ISO's.  But if you are posting in sRGB mode you are never going to see it. Even with prints you are compressing the DR beyond what the Canon captures, much less the Sony.

I am perfectly happy with the Canon sensors.  I have been a pro photog for 30+ years, retired now so downsizing to prosumer level.

Great tools we have today! Now we just need a few video firmware tweaks this fall, either from Canon, or Magic Lantern.

Have fun!
Michael

I really don't understand why anyone in the right mind would pay $800 for a crappy camera like this or why on earth you would even buy the T4i.  Very Pro of you. *sarcasm*

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #126 on: July 23, 2012, 03:57:13 AM »

funkboy

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #127 on: July 23, 2012, 04:37:57 AM »
A few things occurred to me when musing about the lack of built-in flash.



A built-in flash would have a pretty bad lens shadowing problem with just about anything except the 22mm pancake.  It just can't get high enough like a built-in on a DSLR body can (Panasonic has been pretty good at solving this problem though).  Even in a reasonably-sized adapted setup like this one:



the lens shadow would be pretty big.

Also, a large part of the reason for this camera's existence is video, which doesn't need built-in flash (& probably doesn't justify some kind of built-in video light in this class of camera).

I think it's an interesting prospect for existing EOS users as a tiny second body that shoots good video.

caruser

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 134
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #128 on: July 23, 2012, 04:45:16 AM »
Good point about the flash!

I think it's an interesting prospect for existing EOS users as a tiny second body that shoots good video.

The price is a bit high though, in particular the 200 for a mechanical adapter. With such a camera I would also like to get an FD adapter and go raiding local camera shops for cheap lenses ;-)

funkboy

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 453
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #129 on: July 23, 2012, 05:02:31 AM »
With such a camera I would also like to get an FD adapter and go raiding local camera shops for cheap lenses ;-)

Absolutely.  I certainly won't get one of these cameras until I can natively mount all my Contax glass on it.  Focus peaking would help; hopefully Canon will read the reviews & add it in future firmware...

marekjoz

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 927
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #130 on: July 23, 2012, 05:05:15 AM »
A few things occurred to me when musing about the lack of built-in flash.

A built-in flash would have a pretty bad lens shadowing problem with just about anything except the 22mm pancake.  It just can't get high enough like a built-in on a DSLR body can (Panasonic has been pretty good at solving this problem though).  Even in a reasonably-sized adapted setup like this one:

the lens shadow would be pretty big.

Also, a large part of the reason for this camera's existence is video, which doesn't need built-in flash (& probably doesn't justify some kind of built-in video light in this class of camera).

I think it's an interesting prospect for existing EOS users as a tiny second body that shoots good video.

It could be such a popup like this and lens would not cast such a shadow (sorry for quality - 5mins in gimp)

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE HOW IT COULD BE. DON'T THINK THERE IS SUCH A VERSION OF EOS-M!
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 05:08:12 AM by marekjoz »
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

Woody

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 829
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #131 on: July 23, 2012, 05:41:07 AM »

Thickness of the EOS M + Adaptor  + shorty forty: roughly 80mm
Thickness of the 650D (or EOS40D) + shorty forty: roughly 85mm

Thanks for that info. I looked into the weight difference:

Weight of 650D + battery = 575 g
Weight of EOS M + battery + card + adapter = 348 g

Approximately 200 g savings in weight with the EOS M + adapter.

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #132 on: July 23, 2012, 06:35:22 AM »
I'd been trying to figure it an explanation to mirrorless and this does it. Kinda.  I haven't seen mirrorless cameras that offer picture quality or size-savings that would justify the price difference.

Take a look at the Panasonic GF series, for example. They are pretty closely matched in size to a point and shoot (especially if you're comparing with larger models like a G12), and the earlier models are relatively cheap now.

Lower end bodies tend to fall off in price very quickly, so if you don't have to have the newest shiniest toy, they are pretty cheap.

BTW, I've always felt the G series  started to show its age once  similar sized cameras with much larger sensors started appearing on the market -- it's what pushed Canon to up the ante and build a fixed lens replacement with a larger sensor.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #132 on: July 23, 2012, 06:35:22 AM »

swrightgfx

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #133 on: July 23, 2012, 07:27:51 AM »
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE HOW IT COULD BE. DON'T THINK THERE IS SUCH A VERSION OF EOS-M!

Um, if they were to release an EVF, I'm not sure a pop-up in that position would work. They could have a side-mounted one, though. Preferably one that swivels so that you can bounce it or some white card or a reflector at close range.

marekjoz

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 927
    • marekjoz @flickr
Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #134 on: July 23, 2012, 07:48:22 AM »
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE HOW IT COULD BE. DON'T THINK THERE IS SUCH A VERSION OF EOS-M!

Um, if they were to release an EVF, I'm not sure a pop-up in that position would work. They could have a side-mounted one, though. Preferably one that swivels so that you can bounce it or some white card or a reflector at close range.

Sure, I've spent just 5 minutes to show, that it could be a high popping up buil-in flash to avoid a shadow casting by lens. Sure you're right, but this camera has no VF and no flash yet. I hope in next one we'll see a VF.
flickr | youtube | 5D2, 50 F/1.4, 24-105 F/4 L IS, 300 F/4 L IS, x1.4 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS M Specs
« Reply #134 on: July 23, 2012, 07:48:22 AM »