I hate to say you told me so, but...

[paul13walnut5]

Just attended an Olympus event and got to play in depth with the new OM-D with the fast 12, 45 and 75mm lenses in a model shoot.

The live view AF is really something else, even with the long lens and shallow DoF. Really really fast and really really accurate.

Makes me love my M just a little bit less. Still love it lots and lots though.

I need to remember 2 things:

The OM-Ds don't work with EF lenses.
In video use I use MF anyway.

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, wheras Olympus have pretty much had a clean sheet, I just hope the M2 tears more than a few pages from the OM-D's book.

 

[Don Haines]

Olympus has had a long history of innovations... I have always thought that the first decent consumer grade MILC would be from them...

 

[distant.star]

.
I don't recall telling you, but this is part of why I'm still waiting to see where Canon goes with their mirrorless products. My hope is there will be something like the EOS-M that performs close to their DSLRs (AF accuracy and speed, metering, etc.) while enabling my proven EF lenses.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Hi Distant.star,

An OM-D EM-1 with 75mm f2.0 seemed to be faster than my 7D with 100mm f2.0 in phase mode.

Ok, much more recent lens design, smaller, less movement etc. My canon gear just felt old heavy and slow.

I have an SD with some jpegs from the event so I'll maybe share some later.

 

[Orangutan]

That's good news. I know it'll take a couple years for Canon to catch up, but I'm glad we're headed in that direction.

Here's a question for those who know SLR innards: is there any remotely feasible way to have a hybrid EVF/OVF? My imagination is that it would act like a normal SLR with OVF until you turn on Live View; then the the EVF display would move into the optical path of the VF. If this were feasible, and not too expensive, it might be a way to make everyone happy during the (eventual) transition to EVF only.

Just speculating...

 

[AvTvM]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

No, wrong. Canon was neither able nor willing to build a good, fast-responding mirrorless cam. They just try to stuff their dumb old DLSRs down our throats at ever higher prices.

NOT A SINGLE "EF user" would be offenden with an EOS-M that has the sensor and all other innards of an EOS 70D and the hybrid-AF speed of an Olympus OMD1. Or even a FF-EOS mirrorless, the size of a Sony A7/R with a gret 36 MP sensor at 2.500 USD. Actually, if Canon made and sold those and included an EF-adapter for free with each of these MILCs ... they would have a future in this business.

They way they go about it up to now ... likely not.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

No, wrong. Canon was neither able nor willing to build a good, fast-responding mirrorless cam. They just try to stuff their dumb old DLSRs down our throats at ever higher prices.

NOT A SINGLE "EF user" would be offenden with an EOS-M that has the sensor and all other innards of an EOS 70D and the hybrid-AF speed of an Olympus OMD1. Or even a FF-EOS mirrorless, the size of a Sony A7/R with a gret 36 MP sensor at 2.500 USD. Actually, if Canon made and sold those and included an EF-adapter for free with each of these MILCs ... they would have a future in this business.

They way they go about it up to now ... likely not.

Thats not a very constructive response. FW2 was loads better.

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

 

[Don Haines]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

No, wrong. Canon was neither able nor willing to build a good, fast-responding mirrorless cam. They just try to stuff their dumb old DLSRs down our throats at ever higher prices.

NOT A SINGLE "EF user" would be offenden with an EOS-M that has the sensor and all other innards of an EOS 70D and the hybrid-AF speed of an Olympus OMD1. Or even a FF-EOS mirrorless, the size of a Sony A7/R with a gret 36 MP sensor at 2.500 USD. Actually, if Canon made and sold those and included an EF-adapter for free with each of these MILCs ... they would have a future in this business.

They way they go about it up to now ... likely not.

If canon does not care about alienating thier EOS users, then why did the EOS-M have a mount adaptor?

Most of us think that there will be a 70D dual-pixel sensor jammed into the EOS-M2.... Yes, we wish that they would roll out new models faster, but at what cost? There is a trade off between update speed and company profitability and none of us have access to the info required to decide what that is. I would rather deal with a slow moving company that stays around than a fast moving company that goes away after a few years.

 

[Don Haines]

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

The most likely explanation is that it wasn't ready in time. I wouldn't be surprised that if when the EOS M project started, they were expecting to use dual pixel technology. As anybody in R+D knows, things take longer than expected, and at some point they realized they had to go back to the same old sensor that Canon having using for the last four years.

 

[AmbientLight]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

No, wrong. Canon was neither able nor willing to build a good, fast-responding mirrorless cam. They just try to stuff their dumb old DLSRs down our throats at ever higher prices.

NOT A SINGLE "EF user" would be offenden with an EOS-M that has the sensor and all other innards of an EOS 70D and the hybrid-AF speed of an Olympus OMD1. Or even a FF-EOS mirrorless, the size of a Sony A7/R with a gret 36 MP sensor at 2.500 USD. Actually, if Canon made and sold those and included an EF-adapter for free with each of these MILCs ... they would have a future in this business.

They way they go about it up to now ... likely not.

One of the root causes here is that Canon is making so much money with products other than cameras and lenses that their focus is now mostly elsewhere.

As long as they somehow manage to hang on to their market leader status Canon will not go all-out on being innovative. They will only react once they lose market shares in areas giving them high margins, so Olympus won't force a reaction just by providing better product features. Olympus must outsell Canon enough to make them hurt. Otherwise Canon will just allow less profitable niche markets to go down the drain, while they make more money elsewhere. This is just good business sense, but will not exactly stir the rumor mill.

In my humble opinion the story of the EOS-M just illustrates Canon's cautious approach. They do know their strengths and thus provided the EOS-M with an EF-adapter, but otherwise Canon to me appear to regard the mirrorless market as a relatively bad business for them. Putting the 70D AF into a DSLR first may have happened purely based on product release cycles, but what if this is not the case and putting this kind of AF into a DSLR just for increased live view AF performance generates more profits than putting the same technology into an EOS-M2? We cannot fully ignore such possibilities, although from my own experience with such issues I agree with Don, dependencies on planned release dates and time taken for development projects are quite likely.

Multiple posters have claimed on this forum that Canon may fear mirrorless sales eating into their DSLR sales, but I don't expect there is much behind that with the kind of hype going on inflating the mirrorless market up to fully unrealistic proportions. Canon is sure to have real numbers to base their market research on. I expect this will serve Canon well in the long run.

 

[AvTvM]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

 

[AmbientLight]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Now I think you are going overboard with your arguments. Canon may not be willing to invest more, but this is no basis for any kind of assumption that they cannot do this.

Remember that you are comparing the R&D efforts of companies struggling for survival and compare this with a corporation at the very top of their business, reaping in substantial profits. R&D budgets will be set according to what kind of money there is to spend.

 

[Orangutan]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Neither you nor anyone outside of Canon is ABLE to say what Canon is able to do, only what they have chosen to do.

We can say that they are ABLE to outsell their competition in DSLR's, and likely ABLE to make more profit than their competition.

Serious question here: why do you think Canon is not a for-profit business?

Your attitude is like a petulant art critic who thinks every artist should starve to put every drop of energy, creativity and money into each piece they produce. DSLRs are not works of art, they're the products of a for-profit business.

 

[Pi]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, wheras Olympus have pretty much had a clean sheet, I just hope the M2 tears more than a few pages from the OM-D's book.

Canon is missing IBIS. Not only in the M series...

On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the 4:3 format. I was, when I owned 1600x1200 screens but not anymore.

 

[AmbientLight]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, wheras Olympus have pretty much had a clean sheet, I just hope the M2 tears more than a few pages from the OM-D's book.

Canon is missing IBIS. Not only in the M series...

On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the 4:3 format. I was, when I owned 1600x1200 screens but not anymore.

You are currently running a Macbook Pro with Retina display, don't you?

 

[Pi]

You are currently running a Macbook Pro with Retina display, don't you?

No, PC's.

 

[Don Haines]

On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the 4:3 format. I was, when I owned 1600x1200 screens but not anymore.

I preferred the 4x3 format, particularly for printing... but as time marches on, more and more work gets displayed electronically, and the 3x2 format is better, particularly when it gets cropped down to 16x9.

 

[Don Haines]

Canon is missing IBIS. Not only in the M series...

IBIS would be much appreciated by bird photographers... (picture from Wikipedia)

 

[paul13walnut5]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agreee with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Nope, no clearer.

What bit did I get wrong again? My argument is that the M was hamstrung by backwards compatability. Systems that were not had a clean sheet to design without compromises.

You seem to disagree that canon made the M backwards compatable (they did) as a selling point (no doubt) and that instead they should have started from scratch (you say they would do that if they wanted anyway, but ahem, they didn't appear to want to, so we can only surmise what they wanted)

So I'll ask again, because at the moment you are making as much logical sense as a chocolate teapot... how am I wrong?

Oh and you are back to video. Yawn.

 

[AmbientLight]

I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...

I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.

I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?

I totally agree with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.

Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.

* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.

All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.

Nope, no clearer.

What bit did I get wrong again? My argument is that the M was hamstrung by backwards compatability. Systems that were not had a clean sheet to design without compromises.

You seem to disagree that canon made the M backwards compatable (they did) as a selling point (no doubt) and that instead they should have started from scratch (you say they would do that if they wanted anyway, but ahem, they didn't appear to want to, so we can only surmise what they wanted)

So I'll ask again, because at the moment you are making as much logical sense as a chocolate teapot... how am I wrong?

Oh and you are back to video. Yawn.

Did you actually try a chocolate teapot? I wonder what that might taste like. I am not much of a tea drinker, more somewhat of a Swiss chocolate eater, so please forgive me for asking.