Here is the Canon EOS M100 [CR3]

[AvTvM]

DP-AF sensor comes a positive surprise to me (expected re-use of M3 sensor).

LP-E12 battery (875mAh) vs. newer, same form factor LP-E17 (1040 mAh) is a suprising and disappointing choice - no matter how one looks at it. Either a conscious nerf ("marketing differentiation") of M100 vs. M6 and/or Canon is still sitting on a huge stockpole of the older, weaker LP12 type ... difference in manufacturing cost between LP-E12 and LP17 is probably rather minimal.

small battery charge makes M100 quite a bit less interesting to me, despite other specs and small size ... and irrespective of the 4 (well-used) LP-E12 batteries i already own with my original EOS M.

if anything i would have hoped for a new LP-E## type with 1400mAh ... in addition to improved power consumption! 400+ CIPA shots per charge would be a desirable target spec.

 

[rrcphoto]

DP-AF sensor comes a positive surprise to me (expected re-use of M3 sensor).

LP-E12 battery (875mAh) vs. newer, same form factor LP-E17 (1040 mAh) is a suprising and disappointing choice - no matter how one looks at it. Either a conscious nerf ("marketing differentiation") of M100 vs. M6 and/or Canon is still sitting on a huge stockpole of the older, weaker LP12 type ... difference in manufacturing cost between LP-E12 and LP17 is probably rather minimal.

or they were looking at people who already had the LP-E12's.

 

[Talys]

Looks neat, but no flash shoe is a makes it a very casual camera, IMO, unless there's something in it that we don't know about, like built-in RT controls.

The battery issue... I am not really sure this is thought of as a M5/M6 backup. I do hate the zillions of batteries in Canon's consumer lines, though; I wish they'd pick one and stick to it for a couple of generations, at least.

If I were to own two bodies that have the possibility of being used at the same time, using the same battery isn't a deal maker or killer, but it's a big factor, because sometimes it's hard to predict which may be drained or accidentally drained (or uncharged). My normal thing is to have two LPE6 batteries in two bodies, and then two extras in the bag; if I'm using grip, add 1 more. I can easily consume 2-3 batteries in a day, and I don't want to lug a charger (or charge a battery) when I'm out. Those are LPE6 batteries, too. I can only imagine with the mirrorless batteries.

Then again, I often don't use 2 bodies as main + backup. It's more like, primary + secondary that also serves as backup. The second body is usually set up on a tripod, and is used for secondary angle shots and that kind of thing.

 

[Atcanon]

Personally, I am reaeaealllly happy that it's a LPE12, not a 17. And also, not a LPE12x or so.

But... I wonder at all the fuss here. To me, it seems clear that they chose to keep the M100 small (and I like the speccled pattern, which should improve handholding), and thus, retained the LPE12.

Look at the SL2. Nicer, deeper grip. But isn't this also to accommodate the larger battery?

 

[AvTvM]

... To me, it seems clear that they chose to keep the M100 small (and I like the speccled pattern, which should improve handholding), and thus, retained the LPE12.

Look at the SL2. Nicer, deeper grip. But isn't this also to accommodate the larger battery?

Looks like you did not read before posting. As already mentioned in my previous posting, BOTH Canon battery types in question - LP-E12 and LP-E17 - are EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE and same connectors. LP_E17 does NOT require more space in a camera body than LP-E12.

There is one difference, and it is relevant: charge capacity!
* LP-E12 ... 875 mAh x 7.2 Volts = 6.30 Watthours
* LP-E17 ... 1040 mAh x 7.2 Volts = 7.4885 Watthours

Or in other words: LP-E17 has 19% more capacity than LP-E12.

That's why any reasonable user would or should prefer "stronger" LP-E17 batteries with a new camera. Of course, in an ideal world, EOS M100 (and any other EOS M body) would run on both battery types, LP-E12 if we still have some in our possession and newer LP-E17's. I see no valid technical reason, why those 2 battery types should not be "inter-operable" (with a few lines of proper firmware code) - just like Canon LP-E6 and LP-E6N can both be used in many EOS DSLRs.

But ... greedy Canon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon has said before that their new models would have DPAF. I have it in my S2 and 5D IV, and use it more than PDAF. I touch the screen where I want it focused, and use the shutter button to capture the image. I've tried the touch and shoot feature, it has some problems.

I think that 24 MP sensor is going to appear in a lot of cameras, it is a very good sensor, and DPAF is worth upgrading for. No more AFMA needed.

 

[NorbR]

Looks like you did not read before posting. As already mentioned in my previous posting, BOTH Canon battery types in question - LP-E12 and LP-E17 - are EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE and same connectors. LP_E17 does NOT require more space in a camera body than LP-E12.

That is just not true. I have both in front of me, the LP-E17 is thicker than the LP-E12. The difference is small, but it is real.

I don't really understand this whole battery discussion. Yes, more capacity is always good. But Canon kept the same model they used in every camera with a similar form factor (M, M2, M10). That seems like a very reasonable decision. I'd be much more pissed if they decided to introduce a new battery model.

 

[Talys]

Looks like you did not read before posting. As already mentioned in my previous posting, BOTH Canon battery types in question - LP-E12 and LP-E17 - are EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE and same connectors. LP_E17 does NOT require more space in a camera body than LP-E12.

That is just not true. I have both in front of me, the LP-E17 is thicker than the LP-E12. The difference is small, but it is real.

I don't really understand this whole battery discussion. Yes, more capacity is always good. But Canon kept the same model they used in every camera with a similar form factor (M, M2, M10). That seems like a very reasonable decision. I'd be much more pissed if they decided to introduce a new battery model.

Well, like I said, without the shoe, it isn't really a legitimate backup body to m5/m6 anyhow, so you're right in that area least it is a consistent battery used in similar previous bodies. So if you bought extra M10 batteries you could use them here, and frankly, that seems more logical upgrade path than an m5 user saying they need a spare body.

Not that I'm in the market for either.

 

[rrcphoto]

No more AFMA needed.

not quite true.

you still may need AFMA if you have focus shift and the camera body don't use stop down AF focusing.

 

[rrcphoto]

... To me, it seems clear that they chose to keep the M100 small (and I like the speccled pattern, which should improve handholding), and thus, retained the LPE12.

Look at the SL2. Nicer, deeper grip. But isn't this also to accommodate the larger battery?

Looks like you did not read before posting. As already mentioned in my previous posting, BOTH Canon battery types in question - LP-E12 and LP-E17 - are EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE and same connectors. LP_E17 does NOT require more space in a camera body than LP-E12.

There is one difference, and it is relevant: charge capacity!
* LP-E12 ... 875 mAh x 7.2 Volts = 6.30 Watthours
* LP-E17 ... 1040 mAh x 7.2 Volts = 7.4885 Watthours

Or in other words: LP-E17 has 19% more capacity than LP-E12.

That's why any reasonable user would or should prefer "stronger" LP-E17 batteries with a new camera. Of course, in an ideal world, EOS M100 (and any other EOS M body) would run on both battery types, LP-E12 if we still have some in our possession and newer LP-E17's. I see no valid technical reason, why those 2 battery types should not be "inter-operable" (with a few lines of proper firmware code) - just like Canon LP-E6 and LP-E6N can both be used in many EOS DSLRs.

an LP-E17 will not physically fit in an LP-E12 camera. period.

I had both for a while.

 

[AvTvM]

Looks like you did not read before posting. As already mentioned in my previous posting, BOTH Canon battery types in question - LP-E12 and LP-E17 - are EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE and same connectors. LP_E17 does NOT require more space in a camera body than LP-E12.

That is just not true. I have both in front of me, the LP-E17 is thicker than the LP-E12. The difference is small, but it is real.

Thanks for the information and correction!

Personally, I still would still have preferred LP-E17 as the common battery type for all EOS M models from 2016 onwards. Even if it would have resulted in a 1mm thicker body for M100. The old, weak and meek LP-E12 battery should have been retired together with M/M2/M10.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, Gizmodo has spoken:

[quote author=Andrew Liszewski]
Canon's EOS M100 Is Another Apathetic Attempt at a Mirrorless Camera
Interchangeable lens shooters like the Sony A9 are evidence that mirrorless cameras can not only compete at the highest levels of photography, but they’re probably also the eventual successors to DSLRs. So you’d assume that a company like Canon would have made strong inroads into the mirrorless market by now, but with cameras like the new EOS M100, the company is still treating the mirrorless market as an afterthought, not the future.
[/quote]

I guess it has escaped Andy's attention that Canon is #2 in global mirrorless sales. What a douche.

 

[Quirkz]

Well, Gizmodo has spoken:

[quote author=Andrew Liszewski]
Canon's EOS M100 Is Another Apathetic Attempt at a Mirrorless Camera
Interchangeable lens shooters like the Sony A9 are evidence that mirrorless cameras can not only compete at the highest levels of photography, but they’re probably also the eventual successors to DSLRs. So you’d assume that a company like Canon would have made strong inroads into the mirrorless market by now, but with cameras like the new EOS M100, the company is still treating the mirrorless market as an afterthought, not the future.

I guess it has escaped Andy's attention that Canon is #2 in global mirrorless sales. What a douche.
[/quote]

As well as missing the point that the camera is just one of the now very solid m series consisting of the m100, m6 and m5. As well as the fact that the target market of the m100 is the very casual shooter who wants great quality photos.

Can anyone else think of another MILC that targets this market? From my (limited) knowledge, they're all targeted at prosumers or gear heads.

 

[AvTvM]

M100 targets same market segment as Fuji XA3, Sony Alpha 5000 and low end Oly/Pana mFT cameras - and is fully competitive in price and performance/IQ. Canon EF-M lens lineup is spot on: very compact & light with decent to excellent IQ at very reasonable prices. i definitely dont miss superexpensive f/1.4 primes or big f/2.8 zooms. when i really need those, i bring my DSLR + L lenses.

the only additional EF-M lens i am still hoping for is a compact EF-M 85/2.4 IS. ;-)

 

[Talys]

Well, Gizmodo has spoken:

[quote author=Andrew Liszewski]
Canon's EOS M100 Is Another Apathetic Attempt at a Mirrorless Camera
Interchangeable lens shooters like the Sony A9 are evidence that mirrorless cameras can not only compete at the highest levels of photography, but they’re probably also the eventual successors to DSLRs. So you’d assume that a company like Canon would have made strong inroads into the mirrorless market by now, but with cameras like the new EOS M100, the company is still treating the mirrorless market as an afterthought, not the future.

I guess it has escaped Andy's attention that Canon is #2 in global mirrorless sales. What a douche.

As well as missing the point that the camera is just one of the now very solid m series consisting of the m100, m6 and m5. As well as the fact that the target market of the m100 is the very casual shooter who wants great quality photos.

Can anyone else think of another MILC that targets this market? From my (limited) knowledge, they're all targeted at prosumers or gear heads.
[/quote]

OMG, Canon is doomed. They can't build a $600 camera that measures up to a $4,500 Sony! Why would they even mention an A9 in the same sentence as a M100? LOL.

 

[Sporgon]

This is quite intriguing, as is the G1X III. Putting the quite good (imo) new 24mp DPAF sensors in both cameras makes them both much improved from predecessor.

I was actually surprised to see how small the EOS M10 is, it's not that much bigger than the small M43 camera Panasonic GX850.

That being said, so far with the limited specs rumored, the G1X III is almost my dream travel/backup camera. Fixed 24-120 lens with APS-C sensor.

The G1XIII looks like being a good camera for me - travel or otherwise when I don't want the full size gear. There is talk of the lens being 24-70, not 120 by the way, probably due to the physical demands of the aps sensor. As it's a fixed lens camera the lens must be stellar for me to buy one, but I think it will be it it follows the G1X tradition so far. I agree with Neuro that wider is required, but I just stitch. Not always satisfactory I know, but for me it works 95% of the time when I want ultra wide.

So the key is a first class lens. We know it already has the sensor.