Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?

[Rienzphotoz]

ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.

The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses

 

[sdsr]

ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.

The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses

Well, not the 12mm, but taking that crop factor into account, current primes get you to the equivalent of 150mm (I would add the 45mm Olympus to the list), with very high image quality. As for Micro 4/3 zooms, they tend to compare quite favorably with their dslr equivalents and are, of course, much smaller and lighter.

 

[jeffa4444]

The right comparison is effective focal length.

 

[Bob Howland]

dead end is a generous description. this system was still born - Canon shoved it out the door ... Now you're in
a "pasting feathers on a turkey" mode and you might be better off kissing it off and starting from scratch.

The EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan last year. One country's meat is another one's spoiled turkey...

I just wonder how many Japanese buyers buy it with only one lens and will never even put another lens on it. Of course, as I recall, the average number of lenses owned by Canon DSLR buyers is less than two.

There are many people who would buy it without any EF-M lenses. They only care about adapters for lenses they already have, like Canon EF. That makes a lot of sense for telephoto, because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ. EF-S 55-250mm IS STM can be considered "near native" lens for EOS-M (via the adapter) - fast AF, nice optics, stabilized, compact (for 88-400mm equivalent ) and affordable. Many are using old manual lenses and they love it.

That might be true in North America and Europe. (It certainly is part of the reason that Neuro bought his.) But is it true in Japan? I thought a lot of buyers there were young women looking for a fashion accessory.

 

[canonographer]

I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.

I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.

it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.

 

[ecka]

ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.

The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses

Well, not the 12mm, but taking that crop factor into account, current primes get you to the equivalent of 150mm (I would add the 45mm Olympus to the list), with very high image quality. As for Micro 4/3 zooms, they tend to compare quite favorably with their dslr equivalents and are, of course, much smaller and lighter.

Well, for me, the cheaper m4/3 output is not good enough to choose it over a good P&S camera or two, or three (G1 X, RX100, RX10) and the expensive one just makes no sense.
150mm on FF is a short telephoto, nothing powerful really , just like anything else in 100mm to 200mm range. So, for m4/3 it must be 100mm+.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.

I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.

it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.

+100 !

Exactly! Japanese managers have little clue about euro and us markets. As evidenced by their recent interviews on dpreview - all of them. Canon, nikon, fuji, sigma.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

ecka
"because there are no small CSC tele lenses without huge compromises in IQ"

I would dispute that claim Olympus & Fuji both make very good and high IQ lenses for CSC cameras. Lenses like the Olympus 12mm f2 ED, 60mm f2.8 ED, 75mm f1.8 ED, Leica 45mm f2.8 in micro four thirds or the Fuji XF 27mm f2.8 all perform excellently.

The lenses you mentioned are not really "tele" lenses

Well, not the 12mm, but taking that crop factor into account, current primes get you to the equivalent of 150mm (I would add the 45mm Olympus to the list), with very high image quality. As for Micro 4/3 zooms, they tend to compare quite favorably with their dslr equivalents and are, of course, much smaller and lighter.

Well, for me, ...
150mm on FF is a short telephoto, nothing powerful really , just like anything else in 100mm to 200mm range. So, for m4/3 it must be 100mm+.

+1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I don't think Canon knows who to sell this system to in the US and Europe or how they should position it.

I don't know if the market is big enough to sustain the system, but it's a great second or third camera for those with an investment in Canon.

it's insulting to assume that people aren't buying because they think bigger is better. Canon marketing is pretty naive and uninformed if that is the conclusion.

yeah right :