Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site

[BiscottiGelato]

Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.

If size and weight is not a factor, I don't think this discussion would've existed in the first place, as most everyone would've remained on DSLRs, A7 wouldn't be the answer in this case. But if size and weight is a factor, then going down to Fuji and M43rd is necessary.

The other problem with A7 is the lens line-up.....

 

[privatebydesign]

Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.

Er, not really, but whatever. If you want to just ignore equivalence and compare non like with non like why not point out that a Canon 600mm is $14,000? It is just as irrelevant.

If we are comparing like for like, as you have to to have any meaning, and we go across formats, which was the point of your Fuji 56 f1.2 vs Canon 85 f1.2 comparison, then a FF Canon with an 85 f1.8 will give you shallower dof and better iso performance.

Not that I don't think the Fuji is a great camera, it just bugs me when people refuse to compare like for like. For equivalence purposes the Fuji lens is much more expensive than the Canon, that is just a fact, not my opinion.

Why will the 85 1.8 give me better ISO performance? What does a slower glass have anything to do with lower noise? Are you saying that a 1.8 lens has the same light gathering ability per the same sensor area?

I fail to see how a 1.8 lens is equivalent to a 1.2 glass. Last time I check if I want the light gathering ability of a 1.2 aperture on my 7D, I have to go out and buy a 85 1.2, and not the 85 1.8.

The only difference between a photo from a 56 1.2 on crop vs a 85 1.8 on FF is the DOF. Noise is arguable. APS-C of today has lower noise than a 5D Mk1. If 5D Mk1 noise level was the holy grail, why is an APS-C camera of today suddenly unacceptable? How low noise is low enough? If the goal is to get the lowest noise possible, then why isn't everyone on Medium Format?

Go read up on Equivalence. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Once you have you will realise that a ff sensor with an f1.8 lens has an iso advantage of around 1/3rd stop on a crop camera with a 1.2 lens.

Crop applies to everything, focal length, aperture and iso. Noise is no more arguable than dof, it is an empirical fact. Sure "What is good enough?" is a great question, but I was addressing another one of yours, "Why do people think Fuji lenses are expensive?" Because if you compare like for like they are expensive, around 250% with your own example.

 

[Dylan777]

Why stop there? I don't see the point buying crop or 4/3 sensor when A7 series offers better low light shooting with 35mm sensor.

If size and weight is not a factor, I don't think this discussion would've existed in the first place, as most everyone would've remained on DSLRs, A7 wouldn't be the answer in this case. But if size and weight is a factor, then going down to Fuji and M43rd is necessary.

The other problem with A7 is the lens line-up.....

To me, the only missing lens for A7 series is UWA - which Sony/Zeiss should have this released prior FE 70-200. Their FE 35mm & FE 55 are wonderfull.

 

[Loswr]

For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.

It's an answer, not the answer. Or maybe it is the answer, since sometimes the answer is 'no'. Will it work with my radio-triggered flash system? No. Is there a native image stabilized macro lens? No. Etc.

I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities...

It's nice that you don't see it, but my reason for wanting f/1.2 on APS-C was subject isolation. On FF, I often shoot f/1.4-1.8, frequently using a 3-stop ND filter to limit the light gathered so the shutter speed is 1/8000 s or slower.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Well if you compare equivalence, and that is the only fair comparison, you'd need a 56mm f0.8 to make the same images on the Fuji as you can with a Canon 85mm f1.2. If you want a direct comparison to the Fuji 56 f1.2 you need to look at a Canon 85mm f1.9, or the $360 85mm f1.8, which still gets you narrower dof, better noise characteristics etc. Unless they don't matter to you.

So compare this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html to this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html then tell me why you think Fuji lenses are "dirty cheap".

Only true if DOF is your only measure of image quality. I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities, which the Fuji glass have no problem at replicated. Not to mention that Fuji achieves much cleaner images for the same ISO as Canon's APS-C bodies.

Er, not really, but whatever. If you want to just ignore equivalence and compare non like with non like why not point out that a Canon 600mm is $14,000? It is just as irrelevant.

If we are comparing like for like, as you have to to have any meaning, and we go across formats, which was the point of your Fuji 56 f1.2 vs Canon 85 f1.2 comparison, then a FF Canon with an 85 f1.8 will give you shallower dof and better iso performance.

Not that I don't think the Fuji is a great camera, it just bugs me when people refuse to compare like for like. For equivalence purposes the Fuji lens is much more expensive than the Canon, that is just a fact, not my opinion.

Why will the 85 1.8 give me better ISO performance? What does a slower glass have anything to do with lower noise? Are you saying that a 1.8 lens has the same light gathering ability per the same sensor area?

I fail to see how a 1.8 lens is equivalent to a 1.2 glass. Last time I check if I want the light gathering ability of a 1.2 aperture on my 7D, I have to go out and buy a 85 1.2, and not the 85 1.8.

The only difference between a photo from a 56 1.2 on crop vs a 85 1.8 on FF is the DOF. Noise is arguable. APS-C of today has lower noise than a 5D Mk1. If 5D Mk1 noise level was the holy grail, why is an APS-C camera of today suddenly unacceptable? How low noise is low enough? If the goal is to get the lowest noise possible, then why isn't everyone on Medium Format?

Go read up on Equivalence. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Once you have you will realise that a ff sensor with an f1.8 lens has an iso advantage of around 1/3rd stop on a crop camera with a 1.2 lens.

Crop applies to everything, focal length, aperture and iso. Noise is no more arguable than dof, it is an empirical fact. Sure "What is good enough?" is a great question, but I was addressing another one of yours, "Why do people think Fuji lenses are expensive?" Because if you compare like for like they are expensive, around 250% with your own example.

The part of the discussion you are missing is we are talking about Canon's mirrorless and compact body offerings here. I am comparing Fuji's APS-C solutions to Canon's APS-C solutions. I am not comparing with FF. The reason we are looking at something like the EOS-M or APS-C in the first place is because FF is too big, too heavy and too pricey. And when we look at Canon's compact camera offerings, they suck!

And what I am saying is EOS-M, along with EF-S and EF-M sucks. A 85 1.8 will only gather more light on a FF body. On a Canon crop body it will not gather more light than a 56 1.2 on a XT-1. Matter gets worse if you start to shoot wide. Because a 24 1.4L does not gather more light on a Canon crop than a 23 1.4 on a Fuji crop, but the 24 1.4 is twice as heavy and twice as pricey. If one then look at EF-S offerings from Canon for a lighter and cheaper alternative, there's NOTHING. This applies to a 24mm equivalent, 50mm equivalent, 18mm equivalent, etc.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

For those that have waited for years for Canon to produce something smaller, cheaper but yet with excellent optics, the wait is over. Fuji X-mount (along with M4/3 actually) is the answer.

It's an answer, not the answer. Or maybe it is the answer, since sometimes the answer is 'no'. Will it work with my radio-triggered flash system? No. Is there a native image stabilized macro lens? No. Etc.

I don't really see anyone complaining about even shallower DOF at 1.8/1.2 apertures in real world usage scenarios. The real reason for 1.2 is for the light gathering abilities...

It's nice that you don't see it, but my reason for wanting f/1.2 on APS-C was subject isolation. On FF, I often shoot f/1.4-1.8, frequently using a 3-stop ND filter to limit the light gathered so the shutter speed is 1/8000 s or slower.

Sure, you can get subject isolation with FF, if you can live with the weight and size of the FF, why are you on a thread talking about EOS-M? If I am always shooting from the back of a car, and don't mind the high pricing of FF cameras, I'd be shooting 5D3 day-in day out. But heck do I not want a 5D3 in my bag for 12 hours a day when I'm travelling. If you are looking for large aperture on a crop body, then wouldn't Fuji make a lot more sense than any of the Canon crop bodies?

What I am saying is, Fuji (and M43) is an excellent alternative for those that's tired of waiting for Canon's "EF-S/EF-M" offerings. Congratulations if you are happy with your 2lb FF body and 2lb lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

The part of the discussion you are missing is we are talking about Canon's mirrorless and compact body offerings here. I am comparing Fuji's APS-C solutions to Canon's APS-C solutions. I am not comparing with FF.

You said this:-

That's my argument. Even if Canon comes out with a killer M3, it's useless. Because if I want a 35mm lens, I still have to buy this, or this (depends on if it's APS-C or FF).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

I just bought this for $699 for my new Fuji XT-1, half the price, half the weight.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1003764-REG/fujifilm_16405575_xf_23mm_f_1_4_r.html
I just don't understand why Fuji lenses are considered pricey. They are dirty cheap!
Canon 85 1.2, 1025g $2199 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
Fuji 56 1.2, 405g, $999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1021630-REG/fujifilm_xf_56mm_f_1_2_r.html

I replied that is not a valid comparison, why are you comparing a 56mm f1.2 to an 85mm f1.2? If you are saying "depends on if it's APS or FF" as you did, then the correct comparison is the Fuji 56mm f1.2 @ $999 against the Canon 85mm f1.8 @ $360 if you went the FF route as per the implication from your focal length comparison. This clearly demonstrates that Fuji lenses, considering their small image circle and comparative effective speed, are expensive.

You see? I was answering your comment, not missing your point.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't dispute, the fuji XT-1 is a very nice mirrorless APS-C camera. But the price is way too high. And it is almost as big as an SL-1 and delivers about the same functionality as a SL-1. It therefore should be priced like an SL-1. not 2.5x higher, which is more than a 70D or a 7D.

And the Fuji x-kitzoom is f/2.8-4.0 and cannot touch the excellent Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. And yes, it may feel "plasticky" but it has held up extremely well over the past 5 years of constant use on my 7D ... alongside some of the "metallicky" white L (tele) lenses. As of today there is no optically better, constant f/2.8 stabilized APS-C wide-to-standard zoom lens available on the market - irrespective of cost.

Fuji X's problem is the pricing. Same as EOS-M original pricing. Way too high for what it is. I am willing to pay a grand or more for a good lens. But it needs to be capable to light the full FF image circle. 135 format the "holy grail" in photography, no matter whether analog or digital. There simply is no other imaging-area format that allows for better image quality from still extremely compact and portable gear, "built into a human hand". Witness sony A7 (which btw. does not cost more than a Fuji XT-1), A7R and Leica M system (which is of course is also way out of range on pricing).

At the end of the day I want and will get a fully electronic, seriously competent yet still compact and "comparatively cheap" FF mirrorless camera system. I will not invest "real money" into APS-C gear to tide me over until then. Dirt cheap EOS-M + EF-M lenses are an excellent compromise to serve as my pocketable compact camera until Canon or Sony or Fuji finally come up with the FF mirrorless system I want and don't charge an arm and a leg for it.

Why should a FF-sensored mirrorless with sensor like A7R and AF-capability like e.g. A6000 (or XT-1, Oly M1), further improved EVF and battery charge of 500+ shots have to cost more than 2000-2500 UDS/Euro? Somebody is gonna bring it. Along with matching FF lenses to go with it ... compact, light, IQ like the EF-M 11-22 is perfectly fine with me, Zeiss label not needed, "plasticky" instead of "metallicky" also fine with me, at USD 300-600 a pop rather than a 1 to 2 grand a pop.

 

[zlatko]

Canon makes small cameras with quality lenses, just not the ones you want. The 1DX is too big for me, but I have a number of Canons that are smaller & lighter and some good small lenses (24, 28, 35, 85 -- non-L versions).

You're comparing the Fuji XT-1 ($1299) with the SL1 (now $450). Big price difference! Of course the much cheaper camera comes out with less. The XT-1 is the same price as the 7D. While the Rebels don't have autofocus micro adjust, the 70D does have it and is $999.

You're exaggerating Fuji's firmware upgrades. Their older cameras do not match up to the performance of their newest flagship. No company does that.

I do agree that Fuji's lenses (23, 35, 56mm) are attractively priced compared to Canon's comparable lenses. I also agree that that 17-55 EF-S is plasticky. It should have be a better lens for the price.

I am comparing the XT-1 with SL1 because they are the same weight. I am complaining about auto-focus micro-adjust on the SL1 is because it's merely a FW feature. Fuji is updating the XE-2 (almost 1 year old, cheaper model) with a FW that reducing it's EVF lag 10 times, bringing it to the XT-1 level. AF is also improved with the FW upgrade. When's the last time Canon did anything nearly like this?

The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want.

I share your desire for better small products. For example, I would love to see an SL1 with AFMA and other higher-level features. But the typical SL1 user would never use AFMA, would not want to know about it, and would not use lenses that benefit from it. So Canon chose not to clutter the SL1 with too much stuff. Designing a camera for a type of user (e.g., beginner level, casual user) makes good business sense, even if it doesn't please every photographer. Many camera buyers are instantly turned off by too much complexity.

Canon actually issued a major firmware upgrade for the 7D in 2012 (when the camera was nearly 3 years old), so Fuji is not unique in this respect:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/28/Canon-EOS-7D-firmware-v2-major-update
Also, Fuji has been upgrading some sluggish aspects of their cameras, which is great, but Canon does not need to do this.

 

[zlatko]

What I am saying is, Fuji (and M43) is an excellent alternative for those that's tired of waiting for Canon's "EF-S/EF-M" offerings. Congratulations if you are happy with your 2lb FF body and 2lb lenses.

Yep, they are excellent alternatives. It just depends on the photographer's particular needs. I'm currently using Canon FF and APS-C and Olympus M43, each for its strengths. And the Fuji XT1 would fit in nicely too.

 

[lw]

What are you waiting for?

For Fuji to significantly improve their video capability, and to reduce their lens prices to EF-M levels.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the past. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the future.

In the not-to-distant-past Full Frame 35mm cameras where called Miniature Cameras, and most professionals didn't use them. In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!

 

[AvTvM]

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the past. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the future.

In the not-to-distant-past Full Frame 35mm cameras where called Miniature Cameras, and most professionals didn't use them. In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!

But only if
A) smaller sensored cameras and lenses for them are sold at significantly lower prices than today. Gear makers will not get away with making significantly cheaper cameras than aps-c dslrs and at the same time selling them at higher prices. ;-)
B) total victory for smaller than ff sensored cams will only come, if they are able to scale lenses with more than 50mm focal length proportionately to sensor size.
... So still a ways to go.

 

[Etienne]

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the past. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the future.

In the not-to-distant-past Full Frame 35mm cameras where called Miniature Cameras, and most professionals didn't use them. In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!

Why stop there? In the future, owning a camera will be a thing of the past, cameras will be completely automated and ubiquitous: in the air, on every street corner, inside cars, outside cars, in you pen, glasses, drinking cup, toothbrush. Professional photogs will just be resellers, upselling images from other services for a commission. Don't like an image, ... click on glamorize and sportify ... turn it into a movie, for $1.99 extra, add music, script, dialog, and sound effects, $2.49, ... $2.99 to put it at the top of social media.

Better sell everything now!

 

[zlatko]

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the past. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the future.

In the not-to-distant-past Full Frame 35mm cameras where called Miniature Cameras, and most professionals didn't use them. In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!

Why? Such general pronouncements are baffling. How does someone presume to know what all pros in all areas of photography will do in the future?

So do pros no longer use medium format? Of course they do. Yes, of course they do. Even as full frame has gotten better, some still spend much more money to buy medium format. Some absolutely need to. And some use even larger formats. While small formats may become much better and much more popular, large formats will still have their appeal.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

I replied that is not a valid comparison, why are you comparing a 56mm f1.2 to an 85mm f1.2? If you are saying "depends on if it's APS or FF" as you did, then the correct comparison is the Fuji 56mm f1.2 @ $999 against the Canon 85mm f1.8 @ $360 if you went the FF route as per the implication from your focal length comparison. This clearly demonstrates that Fuji lenses, considering their small image circle and comparative effective speed, are expensive.

You see? I was answering your comment, not missing your point.

Sure you answered one of my minor points. As a whole, FF is off the table. Canon only gets even more obscenely more expensive when we do Fuji APS-C vs Canon APS-C at more normal walkaround focal lengths like 24, 35 and 50. Because u'd have to buy Ls for all those unless you can live with tiny apertures or focusing mechanisms from 20 years ago.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

The SL1 is built for a different price level and a different user than the XT-1. There is some overlap, but it's not going to match a much more expensive camera like the XT1. Canon makes more feature-rich cameras in the the $1,300 price range of the XT1, just not in the size factor that you want.

I share your desire for better small products. For example, I would love to see an SL1 with AFMA and other higher-level features. But the typical SL1 user would never use AFMA, would not want to know about it, and would not use lenses that benefit from it. So Canon chose not to clutter the SL1 with too much stuff. Designing a camera for a type of user (e.g., beginner level, casual user) makes good business sense, even if it doesn't please every photographer. Many camera buyers are instantly turned off by too much complexity.

Canon actually issued a major firmware upgrade for the 7D in 2012 (when the camera was nearly 3 years old), so Fuji is not unique in this respect:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/28/Canon-EOS-7D-firmware-v2-major-update
Also, Fuji has been upgrading some sluggish aspects of their cameras, which is great, but Canon does not need to do this.

That's my point. Canon will always treat smaller as cheaper. EF-S and EF-M as beginners. Only big and heavy is good. FF is for some reason the 'holy grail' and magical, when in fact it's an arbitrary size that gained popularity some 50+ years ago, and which Canon is marketing to death as the holy grail because that's where their product line and profit margin is at.

I've no doubt that Canon will always have the margin, volume and revenue. But for those that want a compact high-end system, just forget about Canon. Canon will never deliver.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Full Frame and Optical Viewfinders are the past. APS-C/DX, M4/3 and One Inch cameras with EVF are the future.

In the not-to-distant-past Full Frame 35mm cameras where called Miniature Cameras, and most professionals didn't use them. In the not-to-distant-future only hobbyists will use Full Frame, and pros will have moved-on to smaller formats.

Did I hear someone whining about bokeh?? Bokeh will be handled by the camera, sorta like custom white balance is today -- just dial in how little or how much you want.

Time marches on!

But only if
A) smaller sensored cameras and lenses for them are sold at significantly lower prices than today. Gear makers will not get away with making significantly cheaper cameras than aps-c dslrs and at the same time selling them at higher prices. ;-)
B) total victory for smaller than ff sensored cams will only come, if they are able to scale lenses with more than 50mm focal length proportionately to sensor size.
... So still a ways to go.

There'll always be room for FF and Medium Format and even larger cameras. If those floats your boat, great.

For those looking for smaller cameras, not into the longer focal lengths, can live with the lower bokeh, etc. There are alternatives out there and we don't have to wait and beg Canon and be disappointed time and time again.

 

[BiscottiGelato]

Why stop there? In the future, owning a camera will be a thing of the past, cameras will be completely automated and ubiquitous: in the air, on every street corner, inside cars, outside cars, in you pen, glasses, drinking cup, toothbrush. Professional photogs will just be resellers, upselling images from other services for a commission. Don't like an image, ... click on glamorize and sportify ... turn it into a movie, for $1.99 extra, add music, script, dialog, and sound effects, $2.49, ... $2.99 to put it at the top of social media.

Better sell everything now!

Yes. Except that NOW, is the time where smaller than FF formats are priming to be very attractive alternatives for the mainstream enthusiast. Provided that people can be open minded and try the format and see if it suits themselves. And if smaller than FF format happens to suit your needs, and if you happen to not go over 85mm 99% of the time, instead of waiting for the next EOS-M3, waiting for Canon to expand the EF-M line-up, waiting for a handful of EF-S primes, which Canon will likely botch anyways, Fuji and M4/3 are much better alternatives than Canon.

 

[D.]

BiscottiGelato congratulations on finding a system that meets your needs. Now hopefully you’ll have time to work on your trolling tendencies.