Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is a interesting interview at DPR with Nikon executives after CP+.

They are very clear about poor acceptance of mirrorless in the USA and Europe, its poor. In Asia, its much better. Nikon claims that people in the USA feel that a large DSLR provides better images due to its size.

Another thing to consider is the size of hands. My hands are very large, and on a tiny camera, I find it difficult to push just one button at a time. I think this is part of the story.

I'd like to see a FF mirrorless Canon camera that was full sized and used EF lenses. The issue is AF in low light, but the dual pixel AF system seems to be fairly good in low light, so maybe its coming.

Right now, sales of all cameras is slow, and companies are not spending a lot to tool and market completely new technologies, but instead stick to the well developed and cheaper to implement technologies.

I do think that the EOS M system will be developed into a big selling US product, but not soon.

 

[Arctic Photo]

I don't think so, at least not the mount as such. I don't know of course, but seeing the volumes they seem to sell in Asia I'd guess it's a profitable product line and rarely do companies scrap those. I think PBD has a good point about its integration with the EOS-line also. Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package. I will buy an m as a second camera to my 5dMkIII. I am just not sure how long to wait, if I should wait for the m3. Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.

 

[Bruce Photography]

I would not buy the adapter because I don't see the point in having a big lens on a tiny body it's past the point where it's light to carry easy to slip into a small case.

The EF adapter allows the M to serve as a backup body when traveling with a bag full of lenses that would otherwise become useless if the primary camera fails. When traveling, I bring the M + 22 along for times when small size is necessary, and the EF adapter 'just in case'.

+1 on using it as a backup body. I keep one with adapter and the 50mm 1.8 for low light along with both eos-m lenses in a box type thinktank bag that is not much bigger than what I carry a flash in. In fact I'm glad I've bought several eos-m bodies so I have plenty of backup to the backup. I never want to go to a smaller sensor size when this one is so perfect. What a great camera for teaching students of photography at the $350 price including raw shooting and processing. For the next generation, a swivel screen could be useful without adding much (if any) to the size factor. The eos-m with the 85mm 1.8 is quite a combination for candid's. I love this camera -- just not for my main camera.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package.

Sorry, but you can not mount a EF lens on the EOS-M. I think you know this, but not everyone will, so its misleading newbies.

You must use a expensive Adapter. If you buy a EOS M because of its size, adding a adapter to a already large EF lens is not going to make for a small system.

 

[noncho]

I'm going to buy 11-22 soon, it's still the best ultra wide small lens for the price.

 

[Ricku]

It is very much dead, at least until Canon brings it to the same level as other mirrorless systems from Sony, Fuji, e.t.c

Canon is of course terrified of making a serious mirrorless camera like the A7R. They don't want to hurt the sales of their DSLR's.

 

[DRR]

I'd like to see a FF mirrorless Canon camera that was full sized and used EF lenses. The issue is AF in low light, but the dual pixel AF system seems to be fairly good in low light, so maybe its coming.

This is what I'd like to see as well. If Canon came out with a Sony A7, and it took EF lenses, I would seriously consider buying it. Or as an alternative, something smaller like a NEX-5 that had an APS-C sensor and took EF/EFS lenses.

 

[LDS]

They are very clear about poor acceptance of mirrorless in the USA and Europe, its poor. In Asia, its much better. Nikon claims that people in the USA feel that a large DSLR provides better images due to its size.

IMHO their marketing depts. are unable to understand what is the prospect customer of such kind of cameras. "Mirrorless" cameras with interchangeable lenses are the digital counterpart of rangefinder cameras - and they became a niche market for a given type of photographer, the one looking for a smaller, yet powerful camera with lenses allowing for more versatility than a fixed lens zoom. Often, one already owning an SLR, but looking for something lighter and smaller to complement it. In Europe, and probably in the USA also, it's not the camera you can sell to the P&S user looking for something "cooler". Because or their happy with their P&S (or even their phone, today), or they will look for an SLR for the "cool" factor - maybe never removing the kit lens to mount a different one. Interchangeable lenses are appealing to a very different kind of customer.
I believe the actual M cameras are products looking for a customer. I would buy a "digital rangefinder" to complement my 5D, especially if I can mount my EF lenses on it, but it needs to be a camera able to be a smaller, lighter alternative to the 5D - not a PowerShot with interchangeable lenses. It means some kind of good viewfinder - sorry - I can't stand taking pictures looking at a screen with the camera fifteen centimetres from my nose - and "professional" control for settings. But I see that instead of moving up the M line, Canon decided to "dumb down" the GX line.

 

[AvTvM]

Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarter and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance.

Dead end. only fire-sellable at usd 299 including kit lens and useless external flash.

 

[smozes]

There was a DPReview interview with a Fuji SVP of marketing:

Is there more profit to be made in the high-end market?

Yes. For two reasons. The bodies themselves, we can sell at a higher price but also we sell more lenses with higher-end cameras, so overall it’s more profitable. Our research shows that the attachment rate for a high-end camera like the X-Pro 1 is around 3.8, whereas cameras like the X-A1 it’s more like 1.2. With low-end cameras people often just stick with the kit lens.

So this is interesting: entry level mirrorless don't really make sense if buyers only stick with the kit lens.

It's also common for reviewers of high end mirrorless to conclude that once mounted with large lenses, the small bodies don't make much sense.

Taking all these together, I think Canon sees DSLRs as the right answer for high end needs anyway, and entry level or small form factor better served with large sensor, fixed lens compact and all the optimization benefits.

I'm the kind of buyer who wanted APS-C quality in a small camera, but didn't want to spend $2000 for a top end mirrorless with a collection of lenses. The price and size of the M did it for me. Not exactly an entry level buyer, but also not committed to a full collection. But I'm probably not a typical buyer.

 

[spturtle]

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only.

Can you explain why this is not possible? The flange distance is 18mm for both Sony E-mount and EF-M mount and they have approximately the same diameter.

 

[Bob Howland]

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can ühysically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance.

Sony was smarter?? They now have to support both the E-mount and Alpha-mount in both APS-C and FF versions and they don't seem to be providing clear guidance about which mounts and configurations will be emphasized, thereby creating confusion among potential buyers. Fuji and the micro-4/3 manufacturers are doing a much better job of creating workable systems.

FF is the Holy Grail only because it is the same size as a standard slide or negative, resulting in an enormous body of legacy lenses. In a similar fashion, in a similar fashion, Super-35 is a video standard because of the dominance of that image size for movies and the resulting development of now-highly prized and extremely expensive PL mount lenses for that image size.

There's no technical reason why Canon couldn't release an EOS FF mirrorless system by simply shortening the distance between sensor and lens flange to 18mm, introducing an adapter allowing use of DSLR lenses on the mirrorless bodies and taking their time introducing FF mirrorless lenses. About the only thing that Canon has done right with EOS-M is restrict it to APS-C-sized sensors. Canon has publicly stated that the emphasis of the EOS-M system would be small size. It's too bad that their implementation sucks.

 

[AvTvM]

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only.

Can you explain why this is not possible? The flange distance is 18mm for both Sony E-mount and EF-M mount and they have approximately the same diameter.

It was discussed here and elsewhere many times over. Just scroll down on the dpreview article:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

While the ef-m mount has a huge 58mm outrr diamezer it has a freakin narrow throat. So small, that neither canon is ashamed to provide the specs. It must be a couple mm less than the sony e-mount which has a clearance of 46.1mm. Ef-m is definitely not ff-capable.

A HUGE mistake by canon. They did not believe, sony cokld come up with a small bodied, hi-spec FF-sensored a7/R. And got burned.

 

[spturtle]

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarzer and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only.

Can you explain why this is not possible? The flange distance is 18mm for both Sony E-mount and EF-M mount and they have approximately the same diameter.

It was discussed here and elsewhere many times over. Just scroll down on the dpreview article:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

While the ef-m mount has a huge 58mm outrr diamezer it has a freakin narrow throat. So small, that neither canon is ashamed to provide the specs. It must be a couple mm less than the sony e-mount which has a clearance of 46.1mm. Ef-m is definitely not ff-capable.

I suppose you're right but no, I cannot find any definitive numbers to back up your statement. Has nobody with an EOS M actually measured the inner mount diameter (taking into account the bayonet wings) and posted the results? This hardware is available, there is no need for Canon to post specs. You claim the difference between the outer and inner diameter is 12mm or more, so 6mm at the edge. For the EF mount I get 6.5mm from a quick measurement. That would translate to a 13mm smaller inner diameter (45mm) so about 1mm smaller than the Sony E mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A HUGE mistake by canon. They did not believe, sony cokld come up with a small bodied, hi-spec FF-sensored a7/R. And got burned.

As Bob Howland pointed out, small size figured prominently in Canon's design goals for the EOS M, but you think they should have just made the camera and lenses bigger. I don't suppose it occurred to you that Canon might have thought they'd profit more if people could buy dedicated EF-M lenses now, and replace them with EF-FFM (or whatever) later - it's ok, though, since I'm sure it occurred to them.

But you must be right. I mean, the EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year, Canon really screwed up. :

Has nobody with an EOS M actually measured the inner mount diameter (taking into account the bayonet wings) and posted the results?

43mm. For comparison, the inner EF mount diameter measures 51mm.

 

[Don Haines]

FF is the Holy Grail only because it is the same size as a standard slide or negative, resulting in an enormous body of legacy lenses. In a similar fashion, in a similar fashion, Super-35 is a video standard because of the dominance of that image size for movies and the resulting development of now-highly prized and extremely expensive PL mount lenses for that image size.

There's no technical reason why Canon couldn't release an EOS FF mirrorless system by simply shortening the distance between sensor and lens flange to 18mm, introducing an adapter allowing use of DSLR lenses on the mirrorless bodies and taking their time introducing FF mirrorless lenses. About the only thing that Canon has done right with EOS-M is restrict it to APS-C-sized sensors. Canon has publicly stated that the emphasis of the EOS-M system would be small size. It's too bad that their implementation sucks.

My speculation is that Canon does have plans for a FF mirrorless camera, and that when it comes out, it will the same size as a 6D and will use all the regular EF (and EF-S) lenses... The EOS-M was designed to be small, and that means most of the lenses for it will be slow and short focal length... To make anything long or fast, you end up with lenses the same size as their EF counterparts, so why bother? That's not the market... nobody is going to by a 600F4 to use only on an EOS-M....

 

[Rienzphotoz]

When you say "dead end system", what exactly do you mean? ... if you are referring to upgrade path with faster [u]and longer reach lenses[/u], then the entire compact sized mirrorless segment, in its current state, is a "dead end system". With the exception of EF-M 22mm f/2 and a few of the lenses for micro four third mirrorless cameras, currently almost all of the faster lenses are bigger, defeating the size advantage of compact mirrorless cameras, the same goes for longer reach lenses. I was at the local Sony store yesterday to see if they had the 10-18mm lens, and happen to check out the Sony 18-200mm lenses for the APS-C mirrorless cameras ... the lens is not that much smaller then the Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Tamron equivalents. For me the compact mirrorless cameras/lenses make perfect sense for focal lengths upto 70mm (or possibly even up to 100mm), because they take up a lot less space in my hand luggage when I travel without sacrificing too much on image IQ ... also, I don't need to carry a heavier tripod, I am now able to carry just my Gorillapod, which also seems to be acceptable to cops, in the cities I've traveled so far (these were the same places where they do not allow tripods).
For those who do not care much about AF speed and those who generally shoot between 18-85mm equivalent FOV and prefer light weight/compact camera gear, the EOS-M and its 3 lenses make for a great compact option ... are there better options? absolutely ... but if you want to stick with Canon, that's all that you've got and despite EOS-M's limitations, Canon are generally not known for abandoning product lines or show middle finger, with utter disregard, to their customers, like Nikon and Sony. So, depending on what kind of a photographer you are, EOS-M is not a "dead end system".

 

[Arctic Photo]

Using the very nice 22mm on it and then being able to mount also one of your existing EF-lenses on it makes for a good package.

Sorry, but you can not mount a EF lens on the EOS-M. I think you know this, but not everyone will, so its misleading newbies.

You must use a expensive Adapter. If you buy a EOS M because of its size, adding a adapter to a already large EF lens is not going to make for a small system.

I know you need an adapter for that, just didn't point it out.

 

[Arctic Photo]

Someone said it was a mistake to put a crop sensor in it, I don't get why that would be a mistake. It's still a well performing sensor and what is there to say that they can't make an m full frame? The mount as such wouldn't be an obstacle as far as I understand. It would be kind of cool if Canon offered both crop and full frame versions of the m will all the nice lenses.

You are mistaken. The eos-m mount can physically not handle an ff image circle. Sony was smarter and made their e-mount just barely large enough to also handle ff. Canon was stupid, as so often. Aps-c only. Dead-slow AF. Same tired old 18 MP sensor, a dinosaur from 5 years ago. Bad low iso performance. Poor hi-iso performance.

Dead end. only fire-sellable at usd 299 including kit lens and useless external flash.

I didn't know that. Sorry, wrong assumption. I'm still getting one though.

 

[AvTvM]

Look at the eos-m and the ef-m mount: a whopping outer diameter of 58mm and clearance only 43mm. Had they made the throat just 2mm wider, the system would have been fully ff-capable. Neither the eos-m itself nor the ef-m lenses for aps-c would have been any larger in size. But canon would have had a mirrorless ff option ready to go. So much for "Canon being oh so smart and plans ahead in every detail".

They are ... plain stupid. That's why only japanese schoolgirls buy their pink snapshot cameras. That's why they had to sell the eos m at firesale price in the us and abandon the market with EOS-M. That's why Fujifilm is coming back with a vengeance, turning into an additional and very real competitor. Because Fuji created a hi-end interchangeable lens mirrorless ecosystem. Yes, it's also APS-C only for the moment [don't have the details at hand re. their lens mount, maybe it is FF-capable], but they got some very decent mirrorless cameras with evf (or hybrid) viewfinder built right in and a decent range of very decent lenses.

Canon? Decides to bring an ultrastupid g1x without viewfinder and with bolted-on lens instead. EOS-m in red and white. EOS-M2 with Wifi in Asia only. Meanwhile Sony takes a very respectable first stab at ultracompact, hi-end ff-sensored milcs. Nobody thought it was possible this small. As soon as the next, slightly better generation of these ff-milcs arrives, ***DSLR-Armaggedon*** will really set in full scale ... for Canon and Nikon.