EOS M Finally Getting Attention from Canon in 2016? [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

My first post

I have a 6D and use an M3 as backup. The M3 has become the travel body of choice. I think it's a great alternative.

Native lenses would be nice but with so many options through the adapter, I don't see myself jumping in head first. Especially if there is a similar EF/EF-S lens already available.

For me to make the move to the next iteration of Canon mirrorless would take at least a FF sensor, EF-M or otherwise.

The EF-M mount cannot support a FF sensor, it is too small, it will never happen. I don't see Canon introducing another lens mount for a FF mirrorless.

Therefore I suspect Canon see the APS-C sensor as the logical 'right size' sensor to put in a system that is supposed to have smaller size as a key element. Lenses for FF mirrorless are not significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper than EF lenses anyway, in some cases they are bigger, heavier and more expensive.

 

[Wizardly]

All I want from the M4 is the Fuji X-Pro 1 style dual viewfinder built-in. If it doesn't have a viewfinder, pass.

 

[dr.rob]

Great news if this comes true in 2016. I would really like to see faster AF (i.e., DPAF like on their 70D/7DMII), as well as at least one or two native macro lenses. I use the original EOS M underwater, and love the small form factor and great IQ. The 11-22 lens is great for underwater wide-angle. For macro, I have been using the EF-S 60 mm macro with the adaptor, but the AF is very slow. A native macro lens would be a very welcome addition.

 

[StudentOfLight]

My first post

I have a 6D and use an M3 as backup. The M3 has become the travel body of choice. I think it's a great alternative.

Native lenses would be nice but with so many options through the adapter, I don't see myself jumping in head first. Especially if there is a similar EF/EF-S lens already available.

For me to make the move to the next iteration of Canon mirrorless would take at least a FF sensor, EF-M or otherwise.

The EF-M mount cannot support a FF sensor, it is too small, it will never happen. I don't see Canon introducing another lens mount for a FF mirrorless.

Therefore I suspect Canon see the APS-C sensor as the logical 'right size' sensor to put in a system that is supposed to have smaller size as a key element. Lenses for FF mirrorless are not significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper than EF lenses anyway, in some cases they are bigger, heavier and more expensive.

So EF-M is not big enough for FF, but what about APS-H? (i.e. 1D-M)

 

[privatebydesign]

My first post

I have a 6D and use an M3 as backup. The M3 has become the travel body of choice. I think it's a great alternative.

Native lenses would be nice but with so many options through the adapter, I don't see myself jumping in head first. Especially if there is a similar EF/EF-S lens already available.

For me to make the move to the next iteration of Canon mirrorless would take at least a FF sensor, EF-M or otherwise.

The EF-M mount cannot support a FF sensor, it is too small, it will never happen. I don't see Canon introducing another lens mount for a FF mirrorless.

Therefore I suspect Canon see the APS-C sensor as the logical 'right size' sensor to put in a system that is supposed to have smaller size as a key element. Lenses for FF mirrorless are not significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper than EF lenses anyway, in some cases they are bigger, heavier and more expensive.

So EF-M is not big enough for FF, but what about APS-H? (i.e. 1D-M)

No APS-H will not fit either, the EF-M mount was built around APS-C, nothing bigger will ever fit it, EF-M is forever locked into the circle that touches a 22.3 mm × 14.9 mm rectangle as max dimensions, or ⌀ 26.8mm.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't see Canon introducing another lens mount for a FF mirrorless.

In one of the interviews with Canon executives, they mention that a new lens mount is being considered. I don't recall if they said what for but it would make sense for a new FF mirrorless mount.

I seem to recall that was you misinterpreting a translated interview. I don't see Canon coming out with a dedicated new lens mount FF mirrorless in the mid to long term future, it makes no sense for them to and it contradicts everything (I believe) they believe is the point of mirrorless, smaller lighter and cheaper.

I believe they are thinking APS-C mirrorless will take over from a large part of the Rebel sector and FF SLR's will remain the domain of pros and keen amateurs where they can make good profits on higher end bodies along with the unignorable quality of their lens stable.

FF mirrorless will always be a tiny niche market, lets not forget actual high end DSLR's are a niche market too, so I believe for a company as conservative as Canon the thought of sidetracking the EF lens stable to make a FF mirrorless just isn't on the cards.

 

[McRphoto]

A mix of M3 and SL1?

What exactly does the M3 bring to the table over the SL1, other than being a hair shorter with the 22/2?

The size
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.424,599.386,448.377,599.348,448.389,599.427,ha,t

 

[Loswr]

No APS-H will not fit either, the EF-M mount was built around APS-C, nothing bigger will ever fit it, EF-M is forever locked into the circle that touches a 22.3 mm × 14.9 mm rectangle as max dimensions, or ⌀ 26.8mm.

How is it that the Sony E-mount (FF-compatible) has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount?

 

[AvTvM]

Canon like any other large imaging gear company will have to ditch mirrorslappers.
Just like with mirrorslappers there will be cheaper, somewhat lesss capable APS-C sensored MILCs (EOS-M with very wisely chosen EF-M mount) and there will be more capable Canon FF sensor MILCs with a new native, shorter flange-back lens mount. First EF-S lenses and then EF lenses will become obsolete, but unlike the last transition (FD -> EF), EF glass will remaim fully useable via simple adapter ... until all those new and better new-mount FF lenses are available. Then Canon will change firmware in bodies and lens mount protocol, so customers are forced to buy the new-mount FF lenses for mirrorless.

EOS M4 Pro needs to be vlearly bette, more capable and cheaper than a 7D II. "Rebel class" EOS-M will simply not cut it against next gen Sony, Fuji and Samsung APS-C Milcs appearing in 2016.

 

[privatebydesign]

No APS-H will not fit either, the EF-M mount was built around APS-C, nothing bigger will ever fit it, EF-M is forever locked into the circle that touches a 22.3 mm × 14.9 mm rectangle as max dimensions, or ⌀ 26.8mm.

How is it that the Sony E-mount (FF-compatible) has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount?

Now that is a superb point, and maybe I am wrong. But I don't think so, only time will tell.......

http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,579

 

[LonelyBoy]

The size
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.424,599.386,448.377,599.348,448.389,599.427,ha,t

Forgive me for not finding being an inch shorter impressive for a combination that still won't be pocketable. I'd rather just take the SL1, with PDAF and native EF/EF-S compatibility. The M is a great little package with the 22/2. With the EF-M zooms, it leaves much to be desired.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm working on an M3 review right now (too many other irons in the fire!), but it is really a mixed bag. In many ways it is a very impressive camera, with the finest image quality I have EVER seen from a Canon crop sensor of any kind. The AF with native lenses is speedy enough for most all applications. It has at least SOME MF aids that I'm very thankful for, and the tilting screen is a nice step further (though I would love to see a full articulating screen). The EV-F works nicely when you need it. The handling is a big step forward.

But while Canon gave with one hand, they took away with the other. The firmware is not like any other Canon DSLR I've seen, with some weird omissions. For one thing, AEB defaults to a single shot, 1 frame per second shutter speed (unlike the M), which makes handheld exposure bracketing tough (and this is the way I mostly use AEB). Canon's response is that the camera has an HDR mode - true, except it automatically blends JPEGs with absolutely no manual controls available - not for serious photographers. The menu also has no AdobeRGB mode (I've never seen this before!).

Another weird omission is that the camera will not AF when zoomed in using 5x or 10x magnification (for more precise focus). Even if you are zoomed in it will go back out to native resolution before attempting to AF.

These are some weird omissions that are actually regressions from earlier M bodies. If they could fix these through firmware updates it would really enhance the usefulness of the body.

P.S. The improved AF speed with native lenses makes using lenses through the EF adapter more painful because the focus speed is so noticeably poorer.

 

[privatebydesign]

.......The menu also has no AdobeRGB mode (I've never seen this before!).

Not questioning your reasoning but if you are shooting RAW (which you imply you mostly do and I am sure most people here do too) then the colourspace is just a tag anyway and changing it in post has no IQ impact, indeed if you are editing RAW files in LR you are viewing and working in a much bigger colourspace than AdobeRGB anyway.

I'm still plodding away with my M MkI and am quite happy for it for the uses I put it to. I'd be interested in a much more capable camera as a true DSLR backup too though. One thing I did find is the AF is set up badly out of the box, change some of the details and it gets much better, but taking the time to explore the myriad of options is time consuming and meticulous work, I applaud your efforts Dustin, your reviews have become an important and high quality aspect of this site. Thanks.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

.......The menu also has no AdobeRGB mode (I've never seen this before!).

Not questioning your reasoning but if you are shooting RAW (which you imply you mostly do and I am sure most people here do too) then the colourspace is just a tag anyway and changing it in post has no IQ impact, indeed if you are editing RAW files in LR you are viewing and working in a much bigger colourspace than AdobeRGB anyway.

I'm still plodding away with my M MkI and am quite happy for it for the uses I put it to. I'd be interested in a much more capable camera as a true DSLR backup too though. One thing I did find is the AF is set up badly out of the box, change some of the details and it gets much better, but taking the time to explore the myriad of options is time consuming and meticulous work, I applaud your efforts Dustin, your reviews have become an important and high quality aspect of this site. Thanks.

That's true, but when I use it as a compact event camera for the many events I shoot, I often shoot JPEGS because of the sheer volume of shots and the need to get them quickly to clients. Not including the AdobeRGB option is just, well, weird. I remember having the option in my T1i quite a few years ago.

Thanks for the nice feedback, though.

 

[privatebydesign]

.......The menu also has no AdobeRGB mode (I've never seen this before!).

Not questioning your reasoning but if you are shooting RAW (which you imply you mostly do and I am sure most people here do too) then the colourspace is just a tag anyway and changing it in post has no IQ impact, indeed if you are editing RAW files in LR you are viewing and working in a much bigger colourspace than AdobeRGB anyway.

I'm still plodding away with my M MkI and am quite happy for it for the uses I put it to. I'd be interested in a much more capable camera as a true DSLR backup too though. One thing I did find is the AF is set up badly out of the box, change some of the details and it gets much better, but taking the time to explore the myriad of options is time consuming and meticulous work, I applaud your efforts Dustin, your reviews have become an important and high quality aspect of this site. Thanks.

That's true, but when I use it as a compact event camera for the many events I shoot, I often shoot JPEGS because of the sheer volume of shots and the need to get them quickly to clients. Not including the AdobeRGB option is just, well, weird. I remember having the option in my T1i quite a few years ago.

Thanks for the nice feedback, though.

Again, not trying to be awkward, I suppose my point was given the near universal adoption of sRGB and the fact that most RAW editors use their own larger space, has AdobeRGB become obsolete?

I gave up trying to give customers AdobeRGB spaced files and instructions on how to use them and where they would and wouldn't work long ago. 90% of them end up going on the web direct anyway.

 

[moreorless]

The EF-M mount cannot support a FF sensor, it is too small, it will never happen. I don't see Canon introducing another lens mount for a FF mirrorless.

Therefore I suspect Canon see the APS-C sensor as the logical 'right size' sensor to put in a system that is supposed to have smaller size as a key element. Lenses for FF mirrorless are not significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper than EF lenses anyway, in some cases they are bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Yep I think APSC and smaller seems to be where the biggest benefits of a smaller flange distance are. For one thing APSC DSLR's are still using FF legacy flange distances, for another as you mention theres the potential for much smaller overall packages with smaller lenses that don't have to cope with the same light angle issues at FF.

People get so hung up on flange distance though that I think they fail to see that with FF perhaps not the biggest size saving issue. As mentioned most lens options for a FF mirrorless won't give you a shallow overall package as the lens sizes are larger and often a small flange distance is a trade off for a longer lens. I would say a bigger issue that allows something like the Sony A7's to be smaller than DSLR's is less the flange distance and more being able to remove the prism, AF sensor and mirror. The larger the sensor size afterall the larger these things become and where the Sony A7 really scores on small size is more height that anything else. These advantages could be put to use on an EF FF mirrorless without having to introduce a new lens mount.

In the very long term if we reached a situation were the market had gone mostly mirrorless Canon could just introduce EF lenses where the rear element recessed into the body to gain any size saving advantage that was to be had.

I'v always suspected that part of Canon's tactics with the EOS M's low pricing was looking to devalue the market that its competitors depended on much more heavily and I think you could do the same with a FF EF mount mirrorless and indeed an EOS M4 aimed a bit higher. The Sony A7's started off fairly cheap to build a userbase but that hasn't lasted and there now being priced above many FF DSLR's. Canon could introduce a FF EF mirrorless and price it a good deal lower plus have the benefit of a much larger lens line up with many more cheaper options and keep FF DSLR's as the premium product.

 

[dufflover]

I wonder if people were inadvertently putting the JPEGs into Adobe RGB mode thinking they were better (after all cos I'm sure the internet said so ) and given the "type" of camera it's marketed as they thought they'd idiot proof it a little bit? (ok I'm stretching it, just thinking of a possibility as to why lol)

 

[StudentOfLight]

Here is an EOS M with sensor sizes overlaid. (And with Sony FF)

While it will be a tight squeeze given the position of the pins and the internal plastic throat I think APS-H can fit. Perhaps EF-M could accommodate APS-C and APS-H, and a newer mount will accommodate FF and Medium format.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

.......The menu also has no AdobeRGB mode (I've never seen this before!).

Not questioning your reasoning but if you are shooting RAW (which you imply you mostly do and I am sure most people here do too) then the colourspace is just a tag anyway and changing it in post has no IQ impact, indeed if you are editing RAW files in LR you are viewing and working in a much bigger colourspace than AdobeRGB anyway.

I'm still plodding away with my M MkI and am quite happy for it for the uses I put it to. I'd be interested in a much more capable camera as a true DSLR backup too though. One thing I did find is the AF is set up badly out of the box, change some of the details and it gets much better, but taking the time to explore the myriad of options is time consuming and meticulous work, I applaud your efforts Dustin, your reviews have become an important and high quality aspect of this site. Thanks.

That's true, but when I use it as a compact event camera for the many events I shoot, I often shoot JPEGS because of the sheer volume of shots and the need to get them quickly to clients. Not including the AdobeRGB option is just, well, weird. I remember having the option in my T1i quite a few years ago.

Thanks for the nice feedback, though.

Again, not trying to be awkward, I suppose my point was given the near universal adoption of sRGB and the fact that most RAW editors use their own larger space, has AdobeRGB become obsolete?

I gave up trying to give customers AdobeRGB spaced files and instructions on how to use them and where they would and wouldn't work long ago. 90% of them end up going on the web direct anyway.

You may be right, but my personal preference is always to edit with the larger color space (I use ProRGB in my workflow) and then output to sRGB when necessary. The difference on a calibrated monitor is noticeable, and in some applications I make my own large format prints for clients and stay away from sRGB altogether.

But yes, for 90% of the applications it makes no difference. Still, it seems like an odd thing to cut out when all Canon DSLRs for many years have included that option regardless of price. The odd thing is that in some ways (probably because of the sensor performance) the M3 feels more upscale than my 70D.

 

[LDS]

4K monitors and TVs are quickly spreading devices capable of displaying color spaces larger than sRGB, and OS/browsers support for color spaces is far better than a few years ago. Sure, most displays are not calibrated, but IMHO in the next years sRGB risks to become far more obsolete than AdobeRGB.