Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?

[AvTvM]

How do you know that?? Millions of people bought Rebel/xxxD cameras last year. They plunked down their hard-earned money to buy very good and functional cameras that can take excellent pictures. Millions more will do the same thing this year. But you're saying they didn't want to, they had no choice, they were forced to spend several hundred dollars, for a product they didn't want, for a hobby? Get a clue.

It just baffles me how people can think that their own personal opinion is universally shared by everyone, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You have your opinions. And I am entitled to mine. Just deal with it. I am sick and tired of your condescending and derogatory tone. Cut it out.

My opinion is: Canon did give "limited budget" amateurs willing to spend no more than 1 grand for body + kit lens no choice other than Digital Rebels (DSLRs) ... and a very non-compelling, crippled EOS-M. Slow AF, no WiFi, no viewfinder, no built-in flash ... and a 2 or 3 "lens line-up". It only sold once it was dumped at USD 299,- because it is such a limited camera "system".

As evidenced by APS-C MILC sales of other makers [most notably Sony and Fujifilm; possibly Samsung NX is also selling in Asia], a good number (many millions) of "Rebel-class" buyers would be more than happy to buy a more compact mirrorless Canon EOS, provided it is "fully competitive" - in photographic capabilities and in price.

It is really ridiculous that Canon does not offer this choice - desirable mirrorless vs. stale Rebel/Kiss DSLRs.
I consider it a huge mistake on Canon's part that they have no EOS M2 that matches Sony's A6000 or Fujifilm XE-2 all the way [sensor and AF] and no EOS-M3 that fully matches something like a Fujifilm XT-1.

The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You have your opinions. And I am entitled to mine.

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions, and I respect that. But that respect disappears when you make statements such as, "Millions of people dide not really want it...," you are assigning that opinion to others – millions of others. Do you honestly believe that the millions of people who bought Rebel/xxxD bodies did so because they had no other option? You've been singing the praises of Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic MILC options all along...why didn't those millions of people choose those, if they're so much better? I don't know why, and neither do you. But the incontrovertible fact is that those millions of people chose a Canon dSLR over any MILC.

You consider Canon's choices for the MILC market a mistake, and that may be true (although with the second best-selling MILC in Japan, a model that outsold both Fuji and Panasonic's top-selling models, they apparently did something right). Time will tell. Meanwhile, last year Canon alone sold close to twice as many dSLRs as all the MILCs sold by all manufacturers combined. Deal with that.

 

[bauerman]

We need to have the following t-shirt printed for "AvTvM" - it would simply state the following:

"If If's and But's were candy and nuts - we'd all have a wonderful Christmas!"

I don't know that I have ever seen someone so obsessed with a camera that he does not own and/or has no plans to own in the future. Yet it has obviously become a burr in his saddle to the point where he feels it his mission to taint and tarnish the product endlessly.

My suggestion? Go take pictures if photography is your hobby and leave us "suckers" to our crippled and useless camera bodies.

My opinion of the M carries with it literally no less weight than AvTVM's - and I think it is a useful camera system and one that when implemented properly can produce fantastic images.

And I guaran-damn-tee you I an NOT a "limited budget amateur" has he put it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

My opinion of the M carries with it literally no less weight than AvTVM's - and I think it is a useful camera system and one that when implemented properly can produce fantastic images.

And I guaran-damn-tee you I an NOT a "limited budget amateur" has he put it.

I happen to share your opinion of the EOS M.

I suppose you could say I'm a 'limited budget amateur', albeit with a limit that's pretty darn high. For example, I only own one supertelephoto lens...

 

[Sporgon]

Millions of people dide not really want it ... but were not offered anything else at prices affordable to regular income earners with photography being one of their hobbies.

You're overlooking the fact that a very high percentage of camera buyers still like the concept of seeing through their camera's lens, optically. This trend may change in the future, but at the present time sales figures support this fact.

 

[sdsr]

How much improvement was gained with the new firmware update?

Improvement in what?

The most significant improvement was in AF speed and it improved quite a bit. Still not best in class, but acceptable.

Right. What it didn't speed up is the time lag between taking shots, which I found far more annoying than the focus speed (I hardly ever photograph moving things, so that wasn't much of a problem for me) or, of course, all the other irritating design features.

 

[sdsr]

An EOS-M2 sized as is, but with 70D sensor (= with useable AF), priced like an SL-1 and a higher-end EOS-M3 equipped with best-in-class EVF, wheathersealing and RT-speedlite trigger, sized and priced like a Fujifilm XT-1 ... would be the only ticket for Canon to replace sales of all those rebels nobody will want to buy any longer a year or two from now ... maybe not even @ USD 299,- in firesales.

Excellent mirrorless cameras have existed for a while, but outside the far East it's *them* that "nobody wants to buy", in part, perhaps, because they're not cheap compared to APS-C dslrs. The XT-1 is $1300, the OM-D E-M1 is c. $1400, the newest Panasonic will cost even more, and the next tier down from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic are c. $1000 (most of them without weather sealing) - and that's body-only. What's more, unless you spend a bit more and buy an Sony A7 (and are willing to work around the limited native lens selection), the image quality is no better than an APS-C dslr provides. So unless small body size really matters, it's unclear exactly why anyone *should* prefer these alternatives. I happen to like them a lot - Olympus OM-D and Sony A7/7r, at any rate - but for now it's pretty clear that I'm in a minority in this part of the world (apparently Fuji have yet to sell a million worldwide of all their X-series cameras put together).

 

[AvTvM]

An EOS-M2 sized as is, but with 70D sensor (= with useable AF), priced like an SL-1 and a higher-end EOS-M3 equipped with best-in-class EVF, wheathersealing and RT-speedlite trigger, sized and priced like a Fujifilm XT-1 ... would be the only ticket for Canon to replace sales of all those rebels nobody will want to buy any longer a year or two from now ... maybe not even @ USD 299,- in firesales.

Excellent mirrorless cameras have existed for a while, but outside the far East it's *them* that "nobody wants to buy", in part, perhaps, because they're not cheap compared to APS-C dslrs. The XT-1 is $1300, the OM-D E-M1 is c. $1400, the newest Panasonic will cost even more, and the next tier down from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic are c. $1000 (most of them without weather sealing) - and that's body-only. What's more, unless you spend a bit more and buy an Sony A7 (and are willing to work around the limited native lens selection), the image quality is no better than an APS-C dslr provides. So unless small body size really matters, it's unclear exactly why anyone *should* prefer these alternatives. I happen to like them a lot - Olympus OM-D and Sony A7/7r, at any rate - but for now it's pretty clear that I'm in a minority in this part of the world (apparently Fuji have yet to sell a million worldwide of all their X-series cameras put together).

Exactly. It is all about price and performance. Acceptable MILC performance has only come about very recently. And mFT will go under as soon as APS-C and FF_MILCs will start to flow, because the sensor is too smal, no matter what they say or do.

We are entitled to the digital dividend. A camera like a (fictitious) EOS-M with the 70D sensor and capabilities and a first-rate EVF should still be 300 USD less to produce, because it has fewer parts and is so much easier to assemble, align and quality control without all that mechanical mirroslapping stuff in it and an off-sensor phase-AF system. Yet camera makers believe they can cream off their customers once again. That's why customers other than Japanese girls and 299 firesale-shoppers have not been buying all of those inadequate, overpriced mirrorless offers up to now.

There is nothing that supports a 799 MSRP for an EOS-M or 1300 for a Fuji XT-1 or 1400 for an Olympus OMD1. They should all be about half of those price points .. around where the Digital Rebel DSLRs are, and well below a 70D/D7200 pricepoint - for the same functional capabilities (except EVF vs. OVF).

 

[neuroanatomist]

We are entitled to

...choose whether or not to buy the products that are made available, at the prices at which they are offered. Nothing more than that.

Oh, and we're entitled to complain on the Internet. But we're also entitled to totally disagree with some of those complaints, and with the complainers.

 

[wickidwombat]

The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.

WTF?
this shows you dont own the camera let alone have ever used it
I have no problems with the EOS-M using EF lenses via the adapter
i use the 16-35 or the 135L the most and AF is reasonable and accurate with both lenses
:

 

[AvTvM]

The extremly narrow EF-M lens-lineup could be overcome by a nice published road-map (like other makers who act much mor customer-friendly than arrogant CaNikon) and even more so by means of the existing EF-/EF-M adapter, IF AF-performance would still be "decent enough" with existing EF/EF-S lenses mounted via that adapter. Unfortunately this is not the case with the current EOS-M and for all I have read so far, neither with the M2.

WTF?
this shows you dont own the camera let alone have ever used it
I have no problems with the EOS-M using EF lenses via the adapter
i use the 16-35 or the 135L the most and AF is reasonable and accurate with both lenses
:

All a matter of expectations I guess. If you are happy with this kind of AF-"performance"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHhEEu7YuU
... I am not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

All a matter of expectations I guess. If you are happy with this kind of AF-"performance"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHhEEu7YuU
... I am not.

That 'demo' was prior to the v2 firmware that more that doubled the AF speed. Given your evident bias, I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ

 

[neuroanatomist]

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ

So, you're saying that the a7R with a Canon lens mounted via an adapter is just as fast as what you describe as 'AF speed that's the most primitive among mirrorless cameras'...and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ

So, you're saying that the a7R with a Canon lens mounted via an adapter is just as fast as what you describe as 'AF speed that's the most primitive among mirrorless cameras'...and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?

No!

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :

Yes! the a7R is a lot more faster, with its 4 native FE lenses, as opposed to the the only 2 native EF-M lenses for EOS-M (available for purchase in your part of the world). Even with a third party adapter, manually focusing with focus peaking, the a7/R is far more faster than the EOS-M with its native lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ

So, you're saying that the a7R with a Canon lens mounted via an adapter is just as fast as what you describe as 'AF speed that's the most primitive among mirrorless cameras'...and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?

No!

Well, actually that's exactly what you said. Maybe it wasn't what you meant, though...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Based on my admittedly limited testing, the M focuses faster than the a7R. So in that regard, witness that the 'imperfect' Sony FF mirrorless is even more imperfect than the EOS M.

You probably tested a defective a7R ... the auto focus speed of EOS-M (even after its firmware update) is by far one of the most primitive among the mirrorless cameras (assuming there are any other ones that are as slow as the EOS-M) .... the a7R with a metabones adapater on certain EF lenses is just as fast as the EOS-M (after its firmware update).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZDStFUixQ

So, you're saying that the a7R with a Canon lens mounted via an adapter is just as fast as what you describe as 'AF speed that's the most primitive among mirrorless cameras'...and somehow that's fine for the a7R but the M is too slow?

No!

Well, actually that's exactly what you said. Maybe it wasn't what you meant, though...

No, what I posted and what you are thinking are two different things

 

[AvTvM]

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :

yes it is. And given your level of technical understanding, I am sure you appreciate this, as you are undoubtedly aware of the technical challenges involved to achieve similar AF-speed with FF-lenses/FF-sensors compared to much smaller sensors.

And ... looking at APS-mirrorless cameras, Sony A6000 and Fujifilm XT-1 show "very decent" AF-performance, including tracking-capability. Canon EOS-M? not at all. EOS-M2? neither.

And ... only 3 months after launch, 4 native lenses are currently available for Sony A7/7R

And ... 18 months after launch of the EOS-M? 3 native EF-M lenses ... only 2 for the US

And ... Sony has a roadmap showing which 15 native lenses will be available until 2015 and up to now they been delivering. Wouldn't it be nice to see such a roadmap for Canon EF-M lenses too?

And ... until then, the Canon EOS-M/EF-M is a rather "dead end".

 

[Dylan777]

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :

yes it is. And given your level of technical understanding, I am sure you appreciate this, as you are undoubtedly aware of the technical challenges involved to achieve similar AF-speed with FF-lenses/FF-sensors compared to much smaller sensors.

And ... looking at APS-mirrorless cameras, Sony A6000 and Fujifilm XT-1 show "very decent" AF-performance, including tracking-capability. Canon EOS-M? not at all. EOS-M2? neither.

And ... only 3 months after launch, 4 native lenses are currently available for Sony A7/7R

And ... 18 months after launch of the EOS-M? 3 native EF-M lenses ... only 2 for the US

And ... Sony has a roadmap showing which 15 native lenses will be available until 2015 and up to now they been delivering. Wouldn't it be nice to see such a roadmap for Canon EF-M lenses too?

And ... until then, the Canon EOS-M/EF-M is a rather "dead end".

Sony needs to release uwa asap for a7 system. ...otherwise, it could be "dead end" as eos-m.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm sure the a7R is a lot faster with the wide variety of native lenses currently available. :

yes it is. And given your level of technical understanding, I am sure you appreciate this, as you are undoubtedly aware of the technical challenges involved to achieve similar AF-speed with FF-lenses/FF-sensors compared to much smaller sensors.

And ... looking at APS-mirrorless cameras, Sony A6000 and Fujifilm XT-1 show "very decent" AF-performance, including tracking-capability. Canon EOS-M? not at all. EOS-M2? neither.

And ... only 3 months after launch, 4 native lenses are currently available for Sony A7/7R

And ... 18 months after launch of the EOS-M? 3 native EF-M lenses ... only 2 for the US

And ... Sony has a roadmap showing which 15 native lenses will be available until 2015 and up to now they been delivering. Wouldn't it be nice to see such a roadmap for Canon EF-M lenses too?

And ... until then, the Canon EOS-M/EF-M is a rather "dead end".