EDIT: A smaller DSLR "replacement" camera? Mirco 4/3erds or different option.

[verysimplejason]

I didn't bother with the lens roadmap because I'm already looking at the EF and EFS lens lineup which is extensive enough. It will be advantageous if instead of looking at native lenses, one looks at the advantage of looking at EF and EF-S lenses instead so that in the future, if you want to go to the next level, it will be an easy transition, not to say having a perfect backup camera at your disposal. For those upgraders from p&S, I think this "roadmap" is a better one unless you're planning to stay at that level, then I recommend other better alternatives since you're not invested in lenses. I mean, why invest in something you cannot use later if you want to go to the next level (DSLR APS-C/FF)?

For Canon users, EOS-M is the best mirrorless camera around. Aperture and AF is perfectly working with EOS-M. Even if you use larger lenses like EF-S and EF they will still perfectly work. If you are invested in Canon, just opt for an EOS-M. This way you'll have a perfect backup camera as well as your large pocketable (you might need a small belt bag instead) camera.

Having EF and EF-S lenses work with autofocus is a pretty compelling advantage -- which the EOS-M has and micro 4/3 does not.

But then, so is having a good system of native lenses. Where are the native wide angle, portrait, tele and macro lenses for EOS-M ? Perhaps it is forgivable that there aren't such lenses yet, but there is no road map either -- so noone knows whether EOS-M will become a complete system or whether it will be just a "super point-and-shoot", an also-ran in what has become a very crowded field (a field hat Canon appears to be dead last to enter).

It's also nice to know that the manufacturer is committed to the system. There are two manufacturers committed to micro 4/3. THere are 1 or 0 manufacturers committed to EOS-M (no lens road map, only two lenses available).

Canon are clearly one of the leaders in SLRs (only Nikon is close) but perhaps because of their dominant position in the SLR world, both Canon and Nikon's entires in the mirrorless market were too little, too late. The best they can hope for is to piggy back on their SLRs, because neither of these products can stand on their own merits. Both the Nikon 1 and the EOS-M are dwarfed by competition from Olympus/Panasonic (micro 4/3) Fuji (X-Pro series), Sony (NEX) and Samsung.

 

[elflord]

I didn't bother with the lens roadmap because I'm already looking at the EF and EFS lens lineup which is extensive enough. It will be advantageous if instead of looking at native lenses, one looks at the advantage of looking at EF and EF-S lenses instead

[EDIT] it does seem to me like we're saying the same thing, we just phrase it differently. The EOS-M really is just piggy-backing on top of Canon's EOS system. It isn't a system camera in its own right. If you want to buy a mirrorless as a way to extend your Canon DSLR system, then I agree that it makes sense.

My critique is really directed at how it stands up to the competition in its own right. To me, it's pretty clear that it's close to dead last (only the duds from Nikon and Pentax are in the same territory)

First, if you want to buy a camera to use the EOS system of lenses (which I agree is a very strong system), your best choice is a DSLR. Assuming you don't own a DSLR and want to use EF glass, there's not much point in my opinion getting the EOS-M. You could get the latest Rebel for the same price.

EF (and EF-S) lenses blow the compactness advantage you otherwise get from a mirrorless camera because of the longer flange distances. So there's not much point in the Canon mirrorless unless the native lenses are adequate.

I mean, why invest in something you cannot use later if you want to go to the next level (DSLR APS-C/FF)?

Because that thing might be more suitable. Because it makes more sense to buy glass for the camera you have now, not for the one you might buy later. For example, that's why APS-C users buy EF-S lenses for wide angle -- full frame lenses aren't wide enough.