- Status
Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER?
It will be rather a 5-10 years lasting transition. They will not stand up and say: "ok, here you have the FF mirrorless from Canon. Oh, and BTW, there are no more DSLRs planned in the future". The Iphone generation will kill 'em all, so I think DSLRs are dead in such a form we know them today no earlier than in a few years. But when will/did it start?
unfocused said:
It will be rather a 5-10 years lasting transition. They will not stand up and say: "ok, here you have the FF mirrorless from Canon. Oh, and BTW, there are no more DSLRs planned in the future". The Iphone generation will kill 'em all, so I think DSLRs are dead in such a form we know them today no earlier than in a few years. But when will/did it start?
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER?
No disagreement here. Of course it won't happen overnight. My point is simply that those who dream of a full frame Canon version of a Leica are delusional. We won't get a full frame Canon mirrorless until the DSLR form factor is on its deathbed. Whether it takes five, 10 or 20 years for that to happen, who knows?
marekjoz said:unfocused said:
It will be rather a 5-10 years lasting transition. They will not stand up and say: "ok, here you have the FF mirrorless from Canon. Oh, and BTW, there are no more DSLRs planned in the future". The Iphone generation will kill 'em all, so I think DSLRs are dead in such a form we know them today no earlier than in a few years. But when will/did it start?
No disagreement here. Of course it won't happen overnight. My point is simply that those who dream of a full frame Canon version of a Leica are delusional. We won't get a full frame Canon mirrorless until the DSLR form factor is on its deathbed. Whether it takes five, 10 or 20 years for that to happen, who knows?
Upvote
0
D
dvsDave
Guest
funkboy said:
This is the same reasons that Nikon made their 1 series the way they did. The smaller sensor means that the lens can be porportional to the size of the body, unlike the Sony NEX series, which are just HUGE lenses hanging off tiny bodies. I was very pleased to see the size of the EOS M. Still not sure about the touch-screen..
Upvote
0
Canon-F1 said:it´s a 35mm f2 on the leica and a 35mm f1.4 on the 5d mk2.
no longish zoom.
a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city.
The 35/2 is much smaller than the 35/1.4
Upvote
0
It can. However, the point of a mirrorless camera is "SMALL" A EF lens has a long focus distance to the sensor in order to clear the mirror as it swings up.vuilang said:
Lockup the mirror on your FF DSLR using liveview and you have a mirrorless FF camera with no viewfinder. The size could be reduced somewhat, but not to a small factor as long as EF lenses are used.
Yet another series of lenses would be needed if a small FF mirrorless body were to be produced, and they would still have a fairly large adapter.
Of course, a FF point and shoot could also be made. Just take a look at any of the old 35mm film P&S bodies. A FF P&S is very possible, but the cost might scare buyers away.
I tend to concur, Canon should have made it FF if they wanted to sell to enthusiasts, but its very obvious that this is a bridge camera between P&S and a Rebel DSLR.
It might be that many will never see the need to move to a DSLR, once you invest in a few lenses, you tend to be locked in. Thats why a G1X is attractive to existing DSLR users, no need to buy a bunch of duplicate lenses.
Upvote
0
C
Chicorob
Guest
I am not entirely sure why so many are complaining about a $800 camera that is APS-C. While I certainly think there is a market for $3000 FF Mirrorless camera, this is a great first start for Canon to test the waters. I think the lack of a EVF is probably a bigger issue than the lack of FF. Other than that, this entry is about 1000 times better than the Nikon V1. While I think a FF mirrorless would be great as a secondary or travel camera, most (note...I said most, not all) pros will continue to buy DSLR only because of the ergonomics and quick setting changes allowed by that form factor.
If I were to go back to Canon with a semi-pro version I would ask for these items:
-An integrated EVF
-Lose some resolution for increases in ISO performance (12MP would be fine with me if I could get clean ISO 3200-6400 images). I am sure this cameras performance is good, but avoiding a large flash for a small camera like this seems more valuable that high MP. If I could get consistent low noise ISO 6400 images like I can with my 5DIII, I would gladly lose 6MP.
-Direct aperture/shutter speed control knobs
-Direct ISO adjust button
The simple changes above would allow me to comfortably leave the 5DIII at home when I dont want to lug around the larger camera and not feel like I am missing much (street, travel, dangerous areas where I dont want a professional looking camera around my neck, etc.). Without the features above, I would be more inclined to buy the G1X with a similar form factor and image quality. It adds a few of the features above. In fact, and interchangable lens APS-C G1X with a EVF instead of the optical viewfinder would be almost perfect!
If I were to go back to Canon with a semi-pro version I would ask for these items:
-An integrated EVF
-Lose some resolution for increases in ISO performance (12MP would be fine with me if I could get clean ISO 3200-6400 images). I am sure this cameras performance is good, but avoiding a large flash for a small camera like this seems more valuable that high MP. If I could get consistent low noise ISO 6400 images like I can with my 5DIII, I would gladly lose 6MP.
-Direct aperture/shutter speed control knobs
-Direct ISO adjust button
The simple changes above would allow me to comfortably leave the 5DIII at home when I dont want to lug around the larger camera and not feel like I am missing much (street, travel, dangerous areas where I dont want a professional looking camera around my neck, etc.). Without the features above, I would be more inclined to buy the G1X with a similar form factor and image quality. It adds a few of the features above. In fact, and interchangable lens APS-C G1X with a EVF instead of the optical viewfinder would be almost perfect!
Upvote
0
Chicorob said:
Don't worry. All that will come, and more.
This is just the very first EOS-M camera. The line will grow and continue to expand in both directions, until it has subsumed and replaced the entire PowerShot G line as well as the entire Rebel line.
(Oh -- and the rest of the PowerShot line's days are numbered, too; it won't be all that long before anybody who might buy one already has a cell phone that's "good enough," plus the phone will automatically post the pictures to FaceSpace. EOS-M will have a long life, though, as will the ##D and #D lines, which won't go mirorrless for a very, very, very long time.)
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
TrumpetPower! said:
BTW - I don't see any reason, why next EOS M couln't have a SIM socket and replace an Iphone
Why walking with two devices if this is small as well, has a good LCD touchscreen and enough computing power. Maybe this is the future!It could be somehow inconvenient to hold it with 70-200 at the ear, but you could always have earphones for this. What new possibilities - photos online in a second, live streaming, social media with you....
Upvote
0
TrumpetPower! said:
I'd like to think so too. But given that this type of cameras has evolved a lot over the last couple of years, it was a calculated decision by Canon not to include the things that many would like to have seen - in my case, an electronic viewfinder and in-body IS (oh...and decent camera strap lugs).
I see two possible reasons:
1. They're just not on Canon's radar; or
2. The second version will feature all of this. And because the Mk ii model will correct the problems with Mk i, then Mk i buyers will buy a Mk ii. They will effectively double sales.
Either way, I don't think the new model is so enticing that I'll rush out for one. Instead, I'll wait to see what's next.
Upvote
0
E
Eddie
Guest
APS-C is the sweet spot for a compact system camera
I will say that I do not believe this is a marketing ploy by Canon.
Clearly based on the limits of physical lens size, a mirrorless "full frame" system would use such large lenses that it would largely defeat the benefits of what is supposed to be a "compact" system.
Leica's awesome and expensive form factor - which provides full frame in a smallish body - works only because the lenses are small (because they are not autofocus and because of the short distance between the sensor and the rear element of the lens.) That photo posted earlier in the thread is a perfectly fair apples to apples FF vs FF 35/1.4 comparison.
In theory canon could easily recreate the leica system and of course it would be less expensive. However, they do not see enough demand for a system that, in order to be small and full frame, that would require the use of manual lenses (i suppose they could do something like contax g did with in-body autofocus motors - but that in-body autofocus approach seems to have enough downside that it never has had much traction elsewhere)
So throw out the possibility of leica or contax g type system (in order to keep modern autofocus,) and even cost no object, you then back into determining what is the best sensor to use based on the desired system size (including lens size.)
APS-C seems to offer as high ISO performance as the best 36x24 and medium format systems. So unless you have very specific depth of field requirements, or you are printing something gigantic, even with cost no object again - you would want your compact system camera to use APS-C. You create a new lens mount to provide a size advantage over comparable dslr lenses that require a shorter flange distance.
Comparing APS-C to g1x or nikon cx (1") or m43 - i just don't see those lenses and systems being small enough to justify the performance hit you do take by going smaller sensor. If I am going to start compromising to that degree i am probably willing to have a collapsible lens.
Suddenly, canon's offering makes perfect sense:
1" / micro43 / g1x size high quality compact (although perhaps best represented by the Sony RX100 at the very moment)
ef-m (bring on an optional model with some pro features like an evf, perhaps some external nobs for the people who want that all of course - i'm perfectly happy to omit them and save size and money. Fuji's x pro system is awesome but has some other downsides (for me body cost and autofocus speed) - and of course we canon fans feel security about the ability to attach our ef glass to the system - as for me i plan on having the 22/2 and the 85/1.8 in my eos m bag. ) most importantly, bring on the ef-m glass - a nice fast, prime 35/1.4 like the fuji.
ef-s (i could see this system dying off some day as the cost of full frame dslr continues to move downward - while a ef-s is a nice, compact size people will gravitate to the ef-m if the small size is the important factor and torward the ef if body cost becomes less a factor.)
ef (eventually all of their dslrs will be full frame - certainly their lens offering reflects this As the younger generation of non-viewfinder users grows - i could see a mirrorless ef for the benefit of primarily cost and perhaps some size and weight benefit. )
Perhaps a niche mount which is full frame and completely ef compatible would be created someday for landscape photographers?
I will say that I do not believe this is a marketing ploy by Canon.
Clearly based on the limits of physical lens size, a mirrorless "full frame" system would use such large lenses that it would largely defeat the benefits of what is supposed to be a "compact" system.
Leica's awesome and expensive form factor - which provides full frame in a smallish body - works only because the lenses are small (because they are not autofocus and because of the short distance between the sensor and the rear element of the lens.) That photo posted earlier in the thread is a perfectly fair apples to apples FF vs FF 35/1.4 comparison.
In theory canon could easily recreate the leica system and of course it would be less expensive. However, they do not see enough demand for a system that, in order to be small and full frame, that would require the use of manual lenses (i suppose they could do something like contax g did with in-body autofocus motors - but that in-body autofocus approach seems to have enough downside that it never has had much traction elsewhere)
So throw out the possibility of leica or contax g type system (in order to keep modern autofocus,) and even cost no object, you then back into determining what is the best sensor to use based on the desired system size (including lens size.)
APS-C seems to offer as high ISO performance as the best 36x24 and medium format systems. So unless you have very specific depth of field requirements, or you are printing something gigantic, even with cost no object again - you would want your compact system camera to use APS-C. You create a new lens mount to provide a size advantage over comparable dslr lenses that require a shorter flange distance.
Comparing APS-C to g1x or nikon cx (1") or m43 - i just don't see those lenses and systems being small enough to justify the performance hit you do take by going smaller sensor. If I am going to start compromising to that degree i am probably willing to have a collapsible lens.
Suddenly, canon's offering makes perfect sense:
1" / micro43 / g1x size high quality compact (although perhaps best represented by the Sony RX100 at the very moment)
ef-m (bring on an optional model with some pro features like an evf, perhaps some external nobs for the people who want that all of course - i'm perfectly happy to omit them and save size and money. Fuji's x pro system is awesome but has some other downsides (for me body cost and autofocus speed) - and of course we canon fans feel security about the ability to attach our ef glass to the system - as for me i plan on having the 22/2 and the 85/1.8 in my eos m bag. ) most importantly, bring on the ef-m glass - a nice fast, prime 35/1.4 like the fuji.
ef-s (i could see this system dying off some day as the cost of full frame dslr continues to move downward - while a ef-s is a nice, compact size people will gravitate to the ef-m if the small size is the important factor and torward the ef if body cost becomes less a factor.)
ef (eventually all of their dslrs will be full frame - certainly their lens offering reflects this As the younger generation of non-viewfinder users grows - i could see a mirrorless ef for the benefit of primarily cost and perhaps some size and weight benefit. )
Perhaps a niche mount which is full frame and completely ef compatible would be created someday for landscape photographers?
Upvote
0
Hillsilly said:
The problem I see with a proposition like that is that Canon's logistics, marketing and supply chain is geared around volumes. I would suspect that Canon would have difficulty trying on Leica's business model - the organisational change would be too much. I don't think Canon would be able to make a profit on small production runs, even if it is for an ultra-premium product. The issues probably run through their entire business, not least of which is their brand, which does not have the same cachet as Leica.
Upvote
0
- Status
