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

[DRR]

I was a pre-firesale owner of the original M. It was a nice little camera and I liked it a lot, however two major deficiencies made me jump from the platform.

First, lack of an integrated EVF. The back LCD is unusable in direct sunlight. Without an EVF, you have no option aside from spray and pray.

Second, I found the ergonomics to be seriously lacking. It's heavy enough to warrant a proper grip but it never fit my hand right. I would have gladly accepted a slightly larger camera that was easier to hold and use. Further there's no dial to easily adjust settings, aside from the rear dial. The rear dial was cumbersome to use for this function because it also acts as 4 buttons and it's too easy to accidentally do a button press when you're trying to adjust aperture or shutter speed. And there was no button to map the video record button to back button focus.

It took excellent pictures and I found all the EF-M lenses to be excellent, but the body was just lacking for me. The M3 comes pretty close, if it had an EVF I probably would have bought one. For now, I am putting together a Sony E-mount kit for my small/travel kit. If an M4 appears that checks all the boxes then I'll probably move back to the system.

Not sure I understand this. I am a firesale owner as well, and it has replaced my G12 as my go to camera. I have never encountered a situation where i couldn't use the lcd in sunlight. When checking the lcd with the sun behind you, one can simply use a hand to cover to shade the screen for better visibility. But with that said, the situation is rare, it still has never been unusable. And I carry this thing around every day. Since the screen does not flip however, I have learned to put my hand under the body so that it kills the reflection from look down at the screen well off angle.

I'm glad it works for you - trying to shade the LCD with a hand to check it, is not a good enough work around for me, when a simple solution (adding an EVF) would have circumvented the problem altogether.

Spray and play is one thing I could never do with this body though, as the AF is just too slow.

These are situations where zone focusing techniques come in handy. I have a good idea of what will be in focus at a certain aperture and subject distance, so I set ahead of time. Normally, on a DSLR, I would then use the OVF to compose the frames, but since the M lacked an OVF/EVF, and I found the screen to be unusable, I'd just point, and hope it was composed similarly to what I have in my head, and then, start the praying. Not an exacting technique but if I got one keeper out of a burst of 6-10, I was doing well.

I played with the m3+11-22 in tokyo and i would LOVE to have the flexible screen (need it, actually), though it seemed like the interface speed took a hit from the m1/2. Af was FAST, no worries there. The body is mell done, great grip, and overall i would just love to have this machine. I asked a salesguy at BH if they heard anything about a return to the US market, and they said nay.

Even with the original M that I owned, image quality and lens quality (and value) were superb. From what I can tell (I've never handled an M3) the grip and feature set look great - I personally just would prefer a VF, and I do not think I'll jump back to the system without one.

 

[Loswr]

...trying to shade the LCD with a hand to check it, is not a good enough work around for me, when a simple solution (adding an EVF) would have circumvented the problem altogether.

LOL. I think you have your 'simple' and complex solutions a bit mixed up...

 

[deleteme]

So... let's say Canon really does come out with a "serious" update to the EOS-M system. Why would I be compelled to return? Please tell me, Mr. Canon.

A truly kick-ass canon "EOS M4 Pro" would be fairly easy to do. Put in EVF, improve sensor by another little step, put DPAF into it, stick LP-E6N battery knto it, and keep form factor like M3, not bigger. And the EF-M lens line-up with "only" 4 good, nicely-priced lenses already covers almost everything needed and delivers optical performance superior to the entire bloated lineup of Sony E-mount lenses - including those with Zeiss badge on them (talking about APS-C lenses, not FF).

Add some unique advantages like a built in canon RT radio flash controller and eye control AF v2.0 on the built-in EVF and canon could literally sell millions of it - if they manage for once to put a realistic sticker price on it ... 949 body, 999 kit w/18-55. problem solved, as far as APS-C mirrorless is concerned.

FF mirrorless will take a much bigger effort.

Yes, but by then Sony will have moved past the already excellent A6000. Canon will be competing in a field that sees rapid model upgrades and falling prices. The business does not seem appealing to me.

 

[deleteme]

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

I think Leica M mount is even smaller.

 

[boogaloo]

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.

Totally agree with this post. I've got a firesale M1 that I've adapted to use as a nightlapse camera that can shoot for 24 hours non stop. It's tiny, reasonably inexpensive but it's an amazing little camera for its size and cost.

I have an M3 for my 'pocket' camera and I've been utterly delighted with it. I've saved up for a while and have some lenses for my 6d that I really love - the 135L, sigma 35mm 1.4, 70-300L for example. The EF-M 22mm prime and the EF-M 11-22 cost buttons compared to them, but the IQ is just amazing. People comparing the M3 to the SL1 are utterly missing the fact that not only is the body much bigger, but the lenses are far bigger too.

The EOS-M's problem is that, currently, for the enthusiast or serious photographer it will NEVER be a primary camera. My 6D will always be my go-to for my best shots all things being equal. But it is a a cracking secondary camera for someone invested in the Canon system. The Sony and some of the Fujis will be, but the EOS-M is a fraction of the price.

I actually think Canon are in a fairly good place. Inexpensive camera bodies, and a small number of really amazing lenses. An enthusiastic 'second camera' base from those invested in the Canon system. No, Canon have not yet 'really targeted' this mirrorless sector. They've certainly not missed the boat either, though.

 

[Hillsilly]

I just wish this was Canon's strategy three year's ago. I enjoy a lot of the benefits of mirrorless cameras but have opted for a Fuji alternative. In theory, I can see the benefits of a Canon mirrorless camera being able to use EF lenses. But in reality, the more Fuji lenses I buy, the less likely I am to come back to Canon for a mirrorless option. (Plus, Canon's track record in recent years doesn't inspire me with confidence that they'll produce the lenses that I want to use, and while I can see the benefits of using EF lenses, well, you may as well just use an SLR).

 

[zim]

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

The main difference (apart from size of sensor) in that comparison to me is that the Canon sensor looks like it is behind of the lens electrical connectors where as the Sony connectors are behind the sensor, is that correct?
If so how does the Sony bayonet work?

Regards

 

[josephandrews222]

...own an M1 and an M2 but think I will pass on the M3 and check out the M4--and I will look for Dustin Abbott's M3 review.

I have been 'doing' Disney World and Florida's Atlantic Coast with my family for nearly three decades; the M2 as well as the M1 are my go to devices for family and vacation photography/videography--especially when paired with the 11-22 M lens.

Returned from FL three days ago and recorded video to the tune of 100GB.

No one except family members are interested in these videos...but especially years from now these will be priceless to us.

I know this because I have recently digitized Video 8 and Hi8 video tapes that were recorded nearly 30 years ago; Disney World has changed in that time, and so has my family.

I read the posters comments here on the M and Canon's mirrorless efforts with amusement--and no disrespect.

I brought my 5DMarkIII on this trip--it never left my bag. I could write dozens of paragraphs about the utility (and lack thereof) of the M. For me, size is of paramount import. The M3 looks a bit bigger...

I was very very pleasantly surprised to find out that my M2 + 11-22 lens, while bulky, does fit in the pocket of my Nike-brand cargo shorts with ease (I use what amounts to a Nintendo Wii wireless controller strap with a lug lifted from the OEM Canon M strap). So I was disappointed to see that Canon changed the way that the M3 strap connects to the camera (compared to the M2/M1). The older lug system is really really neat--swapping straps requires ten seconds at most.

 

[Tugela]

We’re told Canon is actively developing EOS M and EF-M products and 2016 will be the year they “get serious about the platform”. Multiple zoom and prime lenses are in the late state of development and announcements should begin in the first part of 2016.</p>
<p>We’re also told that an EOS M4 will be a global product and a departure from what we’ve seen through the first 3 iterations. There was no information on sensor size, but I suspect APS-C will remain part of the system.</p>
<p>It would be a great if Canon put real resources into developing the EOS M system.</p>

A few years ago they said they were "getting serious" about video, and look what happened there.

I strongly suggest no one holds their breath. This is marketing stop-loss drivel.

 

[privatebydesign]

We’re told Canon is actively developing EOS M and EF-M products and 2016 will be the year they “get serious about the platform”. Multiple zoom and prime lenses are in the late state of development and announcements should begin in the first part of 2016.</p>
<p>We’re also told that an EOS M4 will be a global product and a departure from what we’ve seen through the first 3 iterations. There was no information on sensor size, but I suspect APS-C will remain part of the system.</p>
<p>It would be a great if Canon put real resources into developing the EOS M system.</p>

A few years ago they said they were "getting serious" about video, and look what happened there.

I strongly suggest no one holds their breath. This is marketing stop-loss drivel.

So six camera bodies and twelve lenses all available in two mounts wasn't serious?

http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/

 

[wsmith96]

.......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.

Maybe this goes back to the idea that Canon will focus their mirrorless line on the consumer market for now and are removing features that everyday users don't actually use (or even know about/understand). Sometimes fewer buttons and features make for better consumer products. Just a thought.

 

[bf]

The reaction to this rumor tells something!

 

[steyr]

EOS M is my camera of choice now. It's so easy to carry everywhere. Awesome image quality, but poor video quality. I bought a LX100 just for video. If the M4 can record 4K, I'll take that & sell the LX100.

 

[Tugela]

We’re told Canon is actively developing EOS M and EF-M products and 2016 will be the year they “get serious about the platform”. Multiple zoom and prime lenses are in the late state of development and announcements should begin in the first part of 2016.</p>
<p>We’re also told that an EOS M4 will be a global product and a departure from what we’ve seen through the first 3 iterations. There was no information on sensor size, but I suspect APS-C will remain part of the system.</p>
<p>It would be a great if Canon put real resources into developing the EOS M system.</p>

A few years ago they said they were "getting serious" about video, and look what happened there.

I strongly suggest no one holds their breath. This is marketing stop-loss drivel.

So six camera bodies and twelve lenses all available in two mounts wasn't serious?

http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/

They were referring to consumer cameras, not dedicated video cameras for professionals.

 

[Bernard]

They were referring to consumer cameras, not dedicated video cameras for professionals.

Were they? Then they should have said so. Mind you, given the thousands of short movies shot on Canon DSLRs, it's not like they suck at video. People would have noticed.

On the professional side of things, the Canon Cxxx cameras have a huge market share. You will find them in most rental houses, being sent-out on jobs every day.

 

[Loswr]

A few years ago they said they were "getting serious" about video, and look what happened there.

I strongly suggest no one holds their breath. This is marketing stop-loss drivel.

Drivel...yes, there's some of that here.

 

[Tugela]

They were referring to consumer cameras, not dedicated video cameras for professionals.

Were they? Then they should have said so. Mind you, given the thousands of short movies shot on Canon DSLRs, it's not like they suck at video. People would have noticed.

On the professional side of things, the Canon Cxxx cameras have a huge market share. You will find them in most rental houses, being sent-out on jobs every day.

Lol, no one uses a Canon DSLR as their first choice to shoot video now. Maybe years ago when the 5D2 and 5D3 first came out, but nowdays there are far superior options.

They were going to "get serious" about video in DSLRs when the 70D came out. How much progress has been made there? Um.....well.....none. All subsequent DSLRs have been a step back, and they were behind on the current state of the art at that point.

 

[StudentOfLight]

They were referring to consumer cameras, not dedicated video cameras for professionals.

Were they? Then they should have said so. Mind you, given the thousands of short movies shot on Canon DSLRs, it's not like they suck at video. People would have noticed.

On the professional side of things, the Canon Cxxx cameras have a huge market share. You will find them in most rental houses, being sent-out on jobs every day.

Lol, no one uses a Canon DSLR as their first choice to shoot video now. Maybe years ago when the 5D2 and 5D3 first came out, but nowdays there are far superior options.

They were going to "get serious" about video in DSLRs when the 70D came out. How much progress has been made there? Um.....well.....none. All subsequent DSLRs have been a step back, and they were behind on the current state of the art at that point.

I wouldn't say they've been a step back, but Canon has been side-stepping for a while now. :-[

 

[Sportsgal501]

They were referring to consumer cameras, not dedicated video cameras for professionals.

Were they? Then they should have said so. Mind you, given the thousands of short movies shot on Canon DSLRs, it's not like they suck at video. People would have noticed.

On the professional side of things, the Canon Cxxx cameras have a huge market share. You will find them in most rental houses, being sent-out on jobs every day.

Lol, no one uses a Canon DSLR as their first choice to shoot video now. Maybe years ago when the 5D2 and 5D3 first came out, but nowdays there are far superior options.

They were going to "get serious" about video in DSLRs when the 70D came out. How much progress has been made there? Um.....well.....none. All subsequent DSLRs have been a step back, and they were behind on the current state of the art at that point.

I was one of the official photographers for the NYC Triathlon and they were using a Sony for some portions of the video.

 

[rrcphoto]

We’re told Canon is actively developing EOS M and EF-M products and 2016 will be the year they “get serious about the platform”. Multiple zoom and prime lenses are in the late state of development and announcements should begin in the first part of 2016.</p>
<p>We’re also told that an EOS M4 will be a global product and a departure from what we’ve seen through the first 3 iterations. There was no information on sensor size, but I suspect APS-C will remain part of the system.</p>
<p>It would be a great if Canon put real resources into developing the EOS M system.</p>

A few years ago they said they were "getting serious" about video, and look what happened there.

I strongly suggest no one holds their breath. This is marketing stop-loss drivel.

got a quote on that? and i'm talking about an actual quotation from canon, not a rumor from here or CW,etc.