first pic of canon mirrorless?

[paul13walnut5]

@msowsun

Are you joking?

If not..... This camera has a Canon EF-M mount, not a Leica M mount. It is a new mount designed specifically for a new mirror-less camera called the "EOS M".

No. Have you read back a few posts to get the context? If not, please do so.

I am in no way whatsoever advocating an M mount for a canon camera, and am fully aware that the photographs of the leaked 'EOS-M' doesn't feature an M mount.

AvTvM seems to be suggesting this as a way forward, I am disagreeing.

I guess Monday will give us all lots of answers.

 

[AvTvM]

If not..... This camera has a Canon EF-M mount, not a Leica M mount. It is a new mount designed specifically for a new mirror-less camera called the "EOS M".

I for one am not joking.

I still would like a hi-end FF mirrorless "with everything": very compact fully weathersealed body, excellent sensor, very fast phase-detect AF on the sensor, and an electrified Leica M-mount which would be both compatible with manual focus M-Mount lenses as well as with new nanocoated AF-lenses build specifically for it. At the price of say a 5D3, rather than a Leica M9 (which I do not want for a number of reasaons, most importantly that itr is a manual-focus only mechanical rangefinder, and the only thing digital being its sensor).

Canon could give me that ... if they only wanted. But, they do not want. Unfortunately.
On the other hand: I do not want consumer-oriented viewfinderless point and shoots like this EF-M. Even if it has an APS-C sensor and not only a puny G1C 4:3 sensor. If Canon won't serve me

I wont buy their crap. As easy as that. Somebody will eventually build the camera I really want.

 

[Otara]

18-55mm has IS ('Image') written on barrel, strongly suggests no in-body IS? And greater chance of EF/EF-S compatibility somehow.

Otara

 

[paul13walnut5]

@AvTvM

In this thread a while back the spectre of a digital Contax G was breifly risen.

How about a digital G?

Not being facetious, but I don't think 'canonians' want such a system, I would want a digital version of the G2, but it would be a different tool for a different job. I don't use canon memory cards. I don't use canon tripods. Hell, I don't always use Canon batteries..

Would it be against the doctrine of the canonians to buy off brand, if somebody else makes what 'canonians' actually want?

 

[zim]

If not..... This camera has a Canon EF-M mount, not a Leica M mount. It is a new mount designed specifically for a new mirror-less camera called the "EOS M".

I for one am not joking.

I still would like a hi-end FF mirrorless "with everything": very compact fully weathersealed body, excellent sensor, very fast phase-detect AF on the sensor, and an electrified Leica M-mount which would be both compatible with manual focus M-Mount lenses as well as with new nanocoated AF-lenses build specifically for it. At the price of say a 5D3, rather than a Leica M9 (which I do not want for a number of reasaons, most importantly that itr is a manual-focus only mechanical rangefinder, and the only thing digital being its sensor).

Canon could give me that ... if they only wanted. But, they do not want. Unfortunately.
On the other hand: I do not want consumer-oriented viewfinderless point and shoots like this EF-M. Even if it has an APS-C sensor and not only a puny G1C 4:3 sensor. If Canon won't serve me

I wont buy their crap. As easy as that. Somebody will eventually build the camera I really want.

simply correct!

 

[gmrza]

I still would like a hi-end FF mirrorless "with everything": very compact fully weathersealed body, excellent sensor, very fast phase-detect AF on the sensor, and an electrified Leica M-mount which would be both compatible with manual focus M-Mount lenses as well as with new nanocoated AF-lenses build specifically for it. At the price of say a 5D3, rather than a Leica M9 (which I do not want for a number of reasaons, most importantly that itr is a manual-focus only mechanical rangefinder, and the only thing digital being its sensor).

Canon could give me that ... if they only wanted. But, they do not want. Unfortunately.
On the other hand: I do not want consumer-oriented viewfinderless point and shoots like this EF-M. Even if it has an APS-C sensor and not only a puny G1C 4:3 sensor. If Canon won't serve me

I wont buy their crap. As easy as that. Somebody will eventually build the camera I really want.

As has been pointed out, it looks like the diameter of the EF-M mount will accomodate a 24x36mm sensor. I don't think the technology is there yet to accomodate all the needs of a user of a full frame mirrorless camera, but I think the balance of probability is that some day we will see it. For now, you are better served with a DSLR. Give it 5 years, and things will look very different, the technology required to deliver in-sensor PDAF and a decent EVF will have evolved. Electronic shutters will probably also develop a lot more in the next few years.

 

[AvTvM]

@AvTvM

In this thread a while back the spectre of a digital Contax G was breifly risen.
How about a digital G?

No. The G2 was still a mechanical rangefinder cam - as outdated as any other rangefinder since the 1960s. Only addition was AF. AT the expense of a very limited lens selection, due to lack of M-mount compatibility (back then, Leica M-mount was still patent protected, today it is no longer).

I do NOT want an old-world rangefinder cam. I want a natively digital, hi-performance cam with TTL-viewfinder. And I want it so good that it could fully replace a 5D3 (not necessarily a 1D X though) and add a number of advantages on top: no noise, no vibration, no more mechanical works.

That means:
* state-of-the-art EVF or a really really clever hybrid EVF/OVF.
* electronic shutter with sync times right to 1/8000s.
* Hi-performance AF-system = in-sensor-phase detect AF ... as introduced in Rebel T4i/650D, but even better
* sizewise I would like it as compact as a Minolta CLE.
* Pricewise like a 5D3

I know, both Canon and Nikon will not announce it today. But maybe in time before my 7D wears out.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@AvTvM

* sizewise I would like it as compact as a Minolta CLE.

As about as compact as the later (and inferior M6 TTL) then? Or did you forget that the CLE was also a rangefinder? A slight digression, but IMHO any Leica film body user who doesn't use a CLE, isn't interested in photographs from their Leicas, just Leicas.

It's one of my favourite all time cameras.

But then...

I'm not rejecting rangefinders. A camera 'like' the Contax G2 but with a sensor and a way of using EF lenses would be my ideal.

I suspect though that the high end EOS-M which will inevitably come later on, will be as good as it will get for me.

I don't have low aspirations. Just I already have great cameras. The Mirrorless EOS is only adding to my party.

The fondu set, party 7 and entertainment centre are already set.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

Useless waste of R&D!

I hate that Canon seems to lack any innovation of late yet they want to charge high premiums for giving us something that the rest of the industry has already provided except with a Canon badge. The entire concept is insulting to us as their loyal fan base. If it weren't for the fact that I love Canon lenses, I would have moved on years ago as there definitely better bodies on the market.

I hate everything about this camera because I imagine what it could have been. There is no reason Canon (or even Nikon) can't give us a Leica M9 killer (a FF mirrorless camera, with a complete lens system) at a decent price. It may cannibalize their low end DSLR market, but their higher end models like the 5D Mark III and 1DX would still sell well. Besides the industry is moving toward mirrorless anyways so lower end DSLRs have a short life span if market indicators are so be believed.

Canon tries so hard to be like Apple (with secrecy etc...), but they are a far cry from it. Apple skates to where the puck is going and waits for the market to catch up (which is why they charge a premium for their products). Canon skates over the lines that other players have already skated in search for the puck, yet they want to charge a premium because they simply stamped a Canon badge on retreaded tech.

This camera is fugly and it looks like the specs and usability won't be anything spectacular either. I could probably get better pictures out of a 60D with a kit lens, so this camera IMO is useless. If Canon wanted to enter the mirrorless market, they should have done in a way that they could have added something to it or reinvent it. That's what Apple would have done. A FF M9 killer would have made sense. This camera is just a useless waste of time and R&D.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

Who is this camera geared towards? Point and shooters that want to feel like they have a small dsrl?

People who do't want to lug around 100lbs of camera gear to take pictures that aren't noisy and lacking in quality.

A 60D and the EF-S 18-200mm IS will accomplish just about the same. There's no need for this camera.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@DarkKnightNine

There is no reason Canon (or even Nikon) can't give us a Leica M9 killer:

Other than it's not their established market segment, and that the folk who would already buy rangefinders already buy leica rangefinders.

They are as different as chalk and cheese.

I want a mirrorless that is as versatile as a DSLR.

Apple skates to where the puck is going and waits for the market to catch up (which is why they charge a premium for their products).

No. they charge a premium for unique exclusive OS and user experience. Quite often they get it wrong. Quite often they dumb down. I'm an FCP user and will never be an FCPX user. So my next NLE is Adobe Premiere. My next platform, unless Apple GROW THE 'PUCK' UP is a PC. If apple don't want to give me a decent FCP, or a mac that can run Production suite decently, then they become the weakest link in my chain.

Adobe are doing great things. Flash is dead. But Apple have smelt smart device gold. Apple will not be relevant in production terms in 5 years. Apple will have went from equipment for creators to equipment for consumers,

Canon skates over the lines that other players have already skated in search for the puck, yet they want to charge a premium because they simply stamped a Canon badge on retreaded tech.

USM lenses. Best AF for last 20 years? First affordable DSLR. First Affordable FF? First affordable 20MP+ camera?

This camera is just a useless waste of time and R&D.

Nah, it will sell to loads of folk who trust canon but who aren't that into the specifics of working a camera.

It might not be what the enthusisast want. But they are a small segment already served well by the EOS range.

The PRo's wont want it. (No grip)

Lets face it. A mirrorless camera that respects legacy users. Olympus PEN (not OM) Nikon 1(Not F) Sony NEX (Not MAF) Samsung (Not K) Pentax Q (not K) if the canon can take a fully functional EF lens, even via an adaptor then it is ahead of everybody else (Sony get close, but no cigar)

 

[paul13walnut5]

@DarkKnightNine

A 60D and the EF-S 18-200mm IS will accomplish just about the same. There's no need for this camera.

Sandra Bullocks.

An EF-s 18-200 IS accomplishes very little except convenience.
And -sorry 60D owners- a 60D doesn't tick that many unique boxes either.

Mediocre paired with mediocre makes no benchmark, especially at the mediocre value each offers individually, let alone combined. A camera trying to be for everyman ending up being for no man.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

If not..... This camera has a Canon EF-M mount, not a Leica M mount. It is a new mount designed specifically for a new mirror-less camera called the "EOS M".

I for one am not joking.

I still would like a hi-end FF mirrorless "with everything": very compact fully weathersealed body, excellent sensor, very fast phase-detect AF on the sensor, and an electrified Leica M-mount which would be both compatible with manual focus M-Mount lenses as well as with new nanocoated AF-lenses build specifically for it. At the price of say a 5D3, rather than a Leica M9 (which I do not want for a number of reasaons, most importantly that itr is a manual-focus only mechanical rangefinder, and the only thing digital being its sensor).

Canon could give me that ... if they only wanted. But, they do not want. Unfortunately.
On the other hand: I do not want consumer-oriented viewfinderless point and shoots like this EF-M. Even if it has an APS-C sensor and not only a puny G1C 4:3 sensor. If Canon won't serve me

I wont buy their crap. As easy as that. Somebody will eventually build the camera I really want.

I'm certainly with you on that. Not so sure about the M mount, but the rest of the specs are dead on to what I would also like to see from a large optical company like Canon. Especially since they had years to evaluate the market and produce something truly fantastic. This camera is just ridiculous as an entry to an already well established market.

 

[AvTvM]

@AvTvM
I don't have low aspirations. Just I already have great cameras. The Mirrorless EOS is only adding to my party.

Somewhat different take here. I am an amateur. I only have a 7D which I like a lot. Plus a Powershot S-95 as "smaller, go everywhere/family cam". Unfortunately I hate the S-95 in almost every aspect, although I know, it is still one of the better compact cams on the market. I do not like to use a LCD-only cam in stretched-out hands.
On the other hand, the 7D (plus lens) is not huge, but still too bulky in many situations. Currently I mostly use the 7D unless size is a real problem, if it is, I take the iPhone ... rather than the S-95. And I never take videos (except occasionally casual 5sec-clips with the iphone) and will never do so. Stills only for me.

So I am keenly interested in a hi-end compact FF-cam that matches or beats a DSLR like the 5D3 in every way [except OVF] and has additional benefits of a mirrorless cam [no noise, no vibration] on top. At a price not higher than a 5D3. I would use it to complement my 7D and possibly even replace it.

Much less desirable to me would be a compact APS-C mirrorless with a max. 7D-ish price tag. If it matches or beats (in terms of IQ and control) my 7D, I might buy it as second body or even as replacement. It still needs to have a TTL viewfinder.

I am totally uninterested in a consumer-mirrorless and/or in a sensor smaller than APS-C and/or with 4:3 or 16:9 native sensor format and/or with insufficient responsiveness/controls/ergonomics.



* sizewise: I know, the Minolta CLE was a rangefinder cam. But at 124.5 x 77.5 x 32 mm it is significantly smaller than a Leica M9 [139 x 80 x 37 mm]. And a lot lighter at 380g (CLE) vs. 600g (M9P). And still a FF camera. And compatible with most M-mount lenses from any maker. That's why I keep using it as a reference point. Because some people mistakenly believe, a FF mirrorless would have to be "bigger / too big".

 

[paul13walnut5]

So I am keenly interested in a hi-end compact FF-cam that matches or beats a DSLR like the 5D3 in every way [except OVF] and has additional benefits of a mirrorless cam [no noise, no vibration] on top. At a price not higher than a 5D3. I would use it to complement my 7D and possibly even replace it.

Why then haven't you got a 5D3? You want full frame? You want 5D3 performance? And yet you presently settle for a scabby auld 7D (as do I)

* sizewise: I know, the Minolta CLE was a rangefinder cam. But at 124.5 x 77.5 x 32 mm it is significantly smaller than a Leica M9 [139 x 80 x 37 mm]. And a lot lighter at 380g (CLE) vs. 600g (M9P). And still a FF camera. And compatible with most M-mount lenses from any maker. That's why I keep using it as a reference point. Because some people mistakenly believe, a FF mirrorless would have to be "bigger / too big".

I Never compared the CLE to an M9. I compared it to an M6.
The CLE had many caveats to compatability and was best used within the 28-90 range, not exclusively with the minolta lenses, but certainly within that range. Purely for the brightscreen etchings. The CLE was different from the CL in that it wasn't so much a colaboration as a competitor.

Try using any rangefinder with anything below a 28mm and above a 135mm. Not quite so appealing.

It can be done. Just it can be done better without an M mount.

 

[AvTvM]

I'm certainly with you on that. Not so sure about the M mount, but the rest of the specs are dead on to what I would also like to see from a large optical company like Canon. Especially since they had years to evaluate the market and produce something truly fantastic. This camera is just ridiculous as an entry to an already well established market.

Exactly! It is really about time, Canon comes out with a truly innovative and absolutely amazing camera.

It is beyond me, why they are coming last to the mirrorless market and then still with only a dumbed-down Rebel T4i/650D in a smaller box without mirror and viewfinder and even more severly limited photographic controls. That will NOT cut it. At least not with me.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

@DarkKnightNine

There is no reason Canon (or even Nikon) can't give us a Leica M9 killer:

Other than it's not their established market segment, and that the folk who would already buy rangefinders already buy leica rangefinders.

They are as different as chalk and cheese.

I want a mirrorless that is as versatile as a DSLR.

Apple skates to where the puck is going and waits for the market to catch up (which is why they charge a premium for their products).

No. they charge a premium for unique exclusive OS and user experience. Quite often they get it wrong. Quite often they dumb down. I'm an FCP user and will never be an FCPX user. So my next NLE is Adobe Premiere. My next platform, unless Apple GROW THE 'PUCK' UP is a PC. If apple don't want to give me a decent FCP, or a mac that can run Production suite decently, then they become the weakest link in my chain.

Adobe are doing great things. Flash is dead. But Apple have smelt smart device gold. Apple will not be relevant in production terms in 5 years. Apple will have went from equipment for creators to equipment for consumers,

Canon skates over the lines that other players have already skated in search for the puck, yet they want to charge a premium because they simply stamped a Canon badge on retreaded tech.

USM lenses. Best AF for last 20 years? First affordable DSLR. First Affordable FF? First affordable 20MP+ camera?

This camera is just a useless waste of time and R&D.

Nah, it will sell to loads of folk who trust canon but who aren't that into the specifics of working a camera.

It might not be what the enthusisast want. But they are a small segment already served well by the EOS range.

The PRo's wont want it. (No grip)

Lets face it. A mirrorless camera that respects legacy users. Olympus PEN (not OM) Nikon 1(Not F) Sony NEX (Not MAF) Samsung (Not K) Pentax Q (not K) if the canon can take a fully functional EF lens, even via an adaptor then it is ahead of everybody else (Sony get close, but no cigar)

There is so much wrong with your arguments that I won't even bother to pick them a part one-by-one because we could be here all day. I will just say two things to sum it all up.

1. There are many people here (who like me) feel this camera is crap as a first entry into a market from a company like Canon so you seem to be in a minority.

2. You also seem to pick up your paychecks from Canon. Blind fanboyism has never helped any company make better products.

And I know what you're thinking....
So before we even go down that road, NO I AM NOT an Apple fanboy but at least I see them trying to innovate (even today). You keep mentioning Canon innovations of the past as a basis of your arguments. My counter-argument would be Canon "What have you done for me lately?"

Overcharge me for 5D Mark III and subsequent lens updates. Overcharge me for the C300 and C500 that are really no better that other cinema cameras of equal quality that came before them (or even after them) at more reasonable prices.

I directed multimillion dollar musicals like Cats, Lion King etc... when I audition dancers, actors, singers I don't rely on videos of past work, I want to see what they can do for me today. I suppose you live in a Canon past and shroud yourself with Canon goodness. I live in the now and tomorrow and want to see them shock and amaze me. We just have different perspectives. Let's just leave it at that. Canon of late has done very little to amaze anyone (with the exception of outrageous pricing).

 

[AvTvM]

Why then haven't you got a 5D3? You want full frame? You want 5D3 performance? And yet you presently settle for a scabby auld 7D (as do I)

3 simple reasons:
1. I am more often reach-limited than IQ-limited.
2. I will rather drop dead than pay even one cent more for a 5D3 than what a Nikon D800 costs.
3. Even more importantly, I am very hesitant to buy another bulky DSLR if tomorrow I might get the same goodies in a Minolta-CLE sized package.

I Never compared the CLE to an M9. I compared it to an M6.

Yes, I saw that. But I do not care in the least for the M6 ... its just another old manual, mechanical, overpriced Leica rangefinder cam. I am only looking at digital cams, therefore the M9, which is a FF-.sensored digital cam ... albeit a very unappealing and weirdo one to me.

Try using any rangefinder with anything below a 28mm and above a 135mm. Not quite so appealing.

This is one of many reasons why I never even considered using a rangefinder. I loathe them. Except for the compact size of the cams and many of the fixed focal lenses.

It can be done. Just it can be done better without an M mount.

the beauty of using the Leica M-mount and add the necessary wiring and chip to it to be 100% compatible with Canon's EOS/EF-lens protocol would be that we could use all/many of those wonderful M-mount lenses in addition to any wonderful AF-lenses [EF-M] Canon might eventually bring to market. And of course even in case of an M-mount I would still have liked to see a Canon EF-to-EM adapter ["electrified extension tube, of approx. 22mm width] so we could also use all EF-lenses. But again, using "M" will not happen. It was just an idea. I would also buy a hi-end Canon FF mirrorless meeting all my other criteria if it had any lens mount ... as long as there is an EF-adapter.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

So I am keenly interested in a hi-end compact FF-cam that matches or beats a DSLR like the 5D3 in every way [except OVF] and has additional benefits of a mirrorless cam [no noise, no vibration] on top. At a price not higher than a 5D3. I would use it to complement my 7D and possibly even replace it.

Why then haven't you got a 5D3? You want full frame? You want 5D3 performance? And yet you presently settle for a scabby auld 7D (as do I)

* sizewise: I know, the Minolta CLE was a rangefinder cam. But at 124.5 x 77.5 x 32 mm it is significantly smaller than a Leica M9 [139 x 80 x 37 mm]. And a lot lighter at 380g (CLE) vs. 600g (M9P). And still a FF camera. And compatible with most M-mount lenses from any maker. That's why I keep using it as a reference point. Because some people mistakenly believe, a FF mirrorless would have to be "bigger / too big".

I Never compared the CLE to an M9. I compared it to an M6.
The CLE had many caveats to compatability and was best used within the 28-90 range, not exclusively with the minolta lenses, but certainly within that range. Purely for the brightscreen etchings. The CLE was different from the CL in that it wasn't so much a colaboration as a competitor.

Try using any rangefinder with anything below a 28mm and above a 135mm. Not quite so appealing.

It can be done. Just it can be done better without an M mount.

Dude are you just here to pick on anyone who doesn't like this camera?
It sure seems like it.
People wanted and expected more from Canon's entry. It's as simple as that. Don't know why you can't seem to get your thick head wrapped around that concept. Stop picking on people, you're becoming very annoying, even trollish.

Hell it doesn't even have to be Canon. In this day and age, I think it's reasonable for people to expect more bang for their buck. There is stiff competition in any market and we as consumers have a right to demand more from any company entering a market to compete for our VERY hard earned money.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Re: Useless waste of R&D!

I hate that Canon seems to lack any innovation of late yet they want to charge high premiums for giving us something that the rest of the industry has already provided except with a Canon badge. The entire concept is insulting to us as their loyal fan base. If it weren't for the fact that I love Canon lenses, I would have moved on years ago as there definitely better bodies on the market.

I hate everything about this camera because I imagine what it could have been. There is no reason Canon (or even Nikon) can't give us a Leica M9 killer (a FF mirrorless camera, with a complete lens system) at a decent price. It may cannibalize their low end DSLR market, but their higher end models like the 5D Mark III and 1DX would still sell well. Besides the industry is moving toward mirrorless anyways so lower end DSLRs have a short life span if market indicators are so be believed.

Canon tries so hard to be like Apple (with secrecy etc...), but they are a far cry from it. Apple skates to where the puck is going and waits for the market to catch up (which is why they charge a premium for their products). Canon skates over the lines that other players have already skated in search for the puck, yet they want to charge a premium because they simply stamped a Canon badge on retreaded tech.

This camera is fugly and it looks like the specs and usability won't be anything spectacular either. I could probably get better pictures out of a 60D with a kit lens, so this camera IMO is useless. If Canon wanted to enter the mirrorless market, they should have done in a way that they could have added something to it or reinvent it. That's what Apple would have done. A FF M9 killer would have made sense. This camera is just a useless waste of time and R&D.

If Lion is anything to go by, Apple would have disabled all the useful things and added extra steps to things. I have recently upgraded to Lion and apart from one or two things, I'm regretting it. Apple would also have auto everything so don't imagine for a second that Apple doing it would be any better. Apple are great at PR above all else.

If you think that Canon is going to sacrifice the lower end DSLR for high performance you are barking up the wrong tree altogether. It's biggest market of DSLR is the low end DSLR, not the semi pro/pro models. I think too many people are expecting way too much. I too would love a FF mirror less with all bells and whistles. If you put the full-size full resolution sensor in it, and use a smaller lens, then you are going to be sacrificing image quality or having to use a large lens against a small body which will be unwieldy and unbalanced.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sensor is the G1X sensor. A bonus if its a 18mp APS-C. I agree with those that say the G1X is overpriced - Even more so in the UK where it is £700 (about $1100). I have to wonder where Canon are going to price these. It has to be better than the Sony NEX 5 if it is to price it similarly.