New EOS M Camera & Lens Make an Appearance

[MJ]

I still wish they would sell a round camera body the same size as the back cap.
It would turn pancake lenses into pancake cameras (at lest EF-M, EF lenses would be more of a hamburger camera), it would be great for most macro work on a tripod (where the less you touch the camera the better) and it would let the 400f5.6 fit in a water bottle pouch.

LOOOOOOOLLL!

that is one wicked comment!

 

[bf]

There are folks who don't show up in forums. We don't know them but canon does. This camera is for them.

 

[iron-t]

Iron-t that is exactly why your 24-70 isn't pocketable. Physics. This "dim' lens still provides more light to the image sensor than what 1.8-2.8 lens from G16 does. Then you have more resolution, and the lens will be propanly significantly sharper than that one from G16. AAAAnd it will provide better image even on lower ISO speeds. I call that success, if it will be priced in G16 range, and it will compete with G7X. At base ISO speed, this one should still win, and then it should not loose. That's good position.

I understand the physical limitations well enough. It's no surprise the 24-70 won't fit in my pocket. If you look at the profile shot of the M10, it looks like it won't be pocketable either but rather, similar to the M1 plus 18-55mm, maybe small enough to go in an overcoat pocket.

There are plenty of small zooms that feature a max aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, or feature a long end longer than 45mm. That is why this kit lens seems like a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Loswr]

I understand the physical limitations well enough.

There are plenty of small zooms that feature a max aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, or feature a long end longer than 45mm. That is why this kit lens seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Do you? What are the physical dimensions of those 'plenty of small zooms' compared to the M15-45? I presume you're talking about lenses designed for an APS-C sensor (vs. m4/3, since the former has a 46% larger sensor).

 

[Tinky]

I understand the physical limitations well enough.

There are plenty of small zooms that feature a max aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, or feature a long end longer than 45mm. That is why this kit lens seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Do you? What are the physical dimensions of those 'plenty of small zooms' compared to the M15-45? I presume you're talking about lenses designed for an APS-C sensor (vs. m4/3, since the former has a 46% larger sensor).

how come they could manage to make compact superzooms covering 135 formats 20 years ago?
thinking of camera like the olympus mju, ricoh rz's etc...

 

[weixing]

Hi,

I understand the physical limitations well enough.

There are plenty of small zooms that feature a max aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, or feature a long end longer than 45mm. That is why this kit lens seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Do you? What are the physical dimensions of those 'plenty of small zooms' compared to the M15-45? I presume you're talking about lenses designed for an APS-C sensor (vs. m4/3, since the former has a 46% larger sensor).

how come they could manage to make compact superzooms covering 135 formats 20 years ago?
thinking of camera like the olympus mju, ricoh rz's etc...

But they are not interchangeable lens... no zoom ring and etc... also, I'm sure the IQ of those super compact lens is not up to today standard.

To quickly come out will a better spec M mirrorless camera, may be Canon should just:
Take a 70D and remove the mirrorbox, prism, OVF and install an EVF. Redesign a smaller outer case (which probably mean smaller battery and not so good weather resistance) with an EOS M mount. Modified the firmware to do only live view related shooting only and instead of display on the rear LCD, display it on the EVF first. ;D

Have a nice day.

 

[Loswr]

Hi,

I understand the physical limitations well enough.

There are plenty of small zooms that feature a max aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, or feature a long end longer than 45mm. That is why this kit lens seems like a step in the wrong direction.

Do you? What are the physical dimensions of those 'plenty of small zooms' compared to the M15-45? I presume you're talking about lenses designed for an APS-C sensor (vs. m4/3, since the former has a 46% larger sensor).

how come they could manage to make compact superzooms covering 135 formats 20 years ago?
thinking of camera like the olympus mju, ricoh rz's etc...

But they are not interchangeable lens... no zoom ring and etc... also, I'm sure the IQ of those super compact lens is not up to today standard.

That...and my Olympus Stylus (aka mju) film camera with a 38-80mm zoom was f/8.9 at the long end, and the similar 38-140mm zoom was f/11 at the long end.

Thanks for providing a nice example of why the M15-45 is f/6.3 at the long end...seems pretty fast compared to f/11, not to mention the IQ.

 

[dufflover]

I don't know if the physics will allow it but a longer FL pancake would be nice, say 40mm to 50mm as an alternative to the 22mm. Might be tough as the whole premise of pancakes is the simplistic design for a given flange distance.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't know if the physics will allow it but a longer FL pancake would be nice, say 40mm to 50mm as an alternative to the 22mm. Might be tough as the whole premise of pancakes is the simplistic design for a given flange distance.

An EF-M 40/2.8 should be smaller than the combination of (fulframe-capable)EF 40/2.8 + adapter ... a native APS-C, short flange back EF-M 40/1.8 IS STM should be quite compact, albeit longer/larger than 22/2.0. and a EF-M 50/1.8 IS STM should not be larger than the EF 50/1.8 ... 2 factors involved: flange distance difference and size of image circle ... might just offset each other. But just a wild guess.

I would love to get an ultra-compact EF-M 80/2.0 IS STM ... Most likely not possible as a "true pancake" - but size up to 18-55 kitzoom would still be fine with me.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Indeed. It will be interesting to see how Canon does with their new device.

In the four years I've been watching what casual tourists and serious photographers carry by way of imaging tools on the streets of Paris, the shift from DSLR to mirrorless seems nearly complete. Gone seem to be the Days of the DSLR. Sony and Olympus are the marques of choice from the looks of things.

[snark]I've seen only one EOS-M in all this time. But... price and name might get Canon back into the game, right? Afterall, Canon told us they were going to be Number One in the mirrorless marketplace. I'll bet they know something we don't.[/snark]

Yep. I'm seeing chatter of this being a 'Baby EOS-M'. Yikes. Downmarket it is.

- A

That's where the bulk of the sales are, especially when it comes to cameras which are built from the ground up to be smaller than SLR's. Small, light and cheap. I wouldn't be surprised to see this become a huge success within Japan, and do well in many other markets too.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Simple optical physics says a 50mm lens measures 50mm's from the first optical element to imaging plane (film or sensor, it doesn't matter which). That's just under 2 inches. Is that pancake enough?

In the days of DSLRs with their mirrorboxes, (slightly) inverted telephoto designs meant the length from front to back of a lens could be rather long. In these cases, complex optical designs mean that the position of the first element is many times well beyond 50mm's.

I don't know if the physics will allow it but a longer FL pancake would be nice, say 40mm to 50mm as an alternative to the 22mm. Might be tough as the whole premise of pancakes is the simplistic design for a given flange distance.

 

[AvTvM]

Simple optical physics says a 50mm lens measures 50mm's from the first optical element to imaging plane (film or sensor, it doesn't matter which). That's just under 2 inches. Is that pancake enough?

In the days of DSLRs with their mirrorboxes, (slightly) inverted telephoto designs meant the length from front to back of a lens could be rather long. In these cases, complex optical designs mean that the position of the first element is many times well beyond 50mm's.

Well, i would certainly expect a potential EF-M 50/1.8 IS STM to be closer in size to the EF 50/1.8 STM (l=39.3mm, dia=69.2, filter 49mm) than to a Zeiss Otus.
Question is, whether the reduced image circle (EF is full frame, M only APS-C) would allow an optical design that offsets the size impact stemming from difference in flange distance. Don't know, but hope it would be possible. Those advanced optical design apps are pretty powerful today.

 

[Haydn1971]

To quickly come out will a better spec M mirrorless camera, may be Canon should just: Take a 70D and remove the mirrorbox, prism, OVF and install an EVF. Redesign a smaller outer case (which probably mean smaller battery and not so good weather resistance) with an EOS M mount. Modified the firmware to do only live view related shooting only and instead of display on the rear LCD, display it on the EVF first.

The sensor is in a different place on a EOS-M camera compared to an EOS camera - this is to accommodate the movement of the mirror. I see mirrorless going two ways with Canon, a DSLR sized mirrorless product using the EF mount (sensor in the same place, big space inside wasted), this will come soon and I fully expect this to be a higher end product, using a full frame sensor tech as a sample of high end EVF and other showcase technologies - whatever they may be, with a focus on both photography and 4k video. I also see a continuation of the EOS-M range, where we now have the cheap entry level "SL1" M10, we also have the "750/760D" in the M3, which will no doubt continue to add features in line with the "rebel" lines... I see also a higher end "80D/7DII" in a package not unlike the Fuji X-T1, at which point we shall start seeing greater expansion of the EF-M lens range, to include faster zooms and expand the choice of primes to something more conventional than the pancake.

 

[crashpc]

I still don´t get the display part of this camera. Look at how thick and wide is LCD assembly, then look at top view of all Canon cams made that way, and then look at leaked images of M10 - top view.
Does it make sense to you?
Tried to compare if the display size is adequate and the image isn´t fake, and it seems all valid dimensions wise.

 

[okaro]

I understand the physical limitations well enough. It's no surprise the 24-70 won't fit in my pocket. If you look at the profile shot of the M10, it looks like it won't be pocketable either but rather, similar to the M1 plus 18-55mm, maybe small enough to go in an overcoat pocket.

I measured from the photo that the lens would be about 42 millimeters long. That would be 19 mm shorter than the 18-55 and right between 22 mm and the 18-55 mm. Maybe it does not go easily into a pocket but if worn on the neck under the coat it won't show up too much. As to the speed the difference between f/5,6 and f/6,3 is 1/3 stop, not a huge one.

Is there a tripod mount on the side of the body? For portrait videos?

 

[Dylan777]

Pop-up evf would be nice. I like how Canon try to keep body style small.

 

[Khufu]

Simple optical physics says a 50mm lens measures 50mm's from the first optical element to imaging plane (film or sensor, it doesn't matter which). That's just under 2 inches. Is that pancake enough?

In the days of DSLRs with their mirrorboxes, (slightly) inverted telephoto designs meant the length from front to back of a lens could be rather long. In these cases, complex optical designs mean that the position of the first element is many times well beyond 50mm's.

Well, i would certainly expect a potential EF-M 50/1.8 IS STM to be closer in size to the EF 50/1.8 STM (l=39.3mm, dia=69.2, filter 49mm) than to a Zeiss Otus.
Question is, whether the reduced image circle (EF is full frame, M only APS-C) would allow an optical design that offsets the size impact stemming from difference in flange distance. Don't know, but hope it would be possible. Those advanced optical design apps are pretty powerful today.

Sony work with the same flange distance as Canon and a LARGER sensor/image plane; anything they have out there already obviously works... and they have fantastic, stabilised 50mm and thirty-something-mm (30? 35?) Prime lenses for their nx/a system... These things make for extremely professional looking video footage from a tiny system - unfortunately Canon don't offer the leses and Sony don't offer the mic jack on their affordable/smaller models... But damn, their 50mm OSS 1.8 shoots great footage! I'm desperate for something similar to pair with my EOS M2 - the greatest of the EOS M bodies

EDIT:
The Sony NEX thing I have also doesnt do the sensor crop thing, which is really amazing for "macro" video at the 55mm end of the kit lens on the M2... I imagine you'd get great footage of more distant things with 3x crop of a stabilised 50mm 1.8...

 

[mrsfotografie]

There are folks who don't show up in forums. We don't know them but canon does. This camera is for them.

+1 well said.

 

[AvTvM]

There are folks who don't show up in forums. We don't know them but canon does. This camera is for them.

+1 well said.

No. Those folks will not buy ANY camera for a grand or even for 699. they spend 299 or 349 max. Including kit zoom. That's the only reason why eg a powershot s120 is still sold new and shows up prominently in amazon sales rankings. At 179,- ... For thst target group canon msrp/pricing on "entry level" gear is totally off.

People willing to spend 899 or 1099 or more on a camera generally are well informed. They do their research up front on what new camera to buy, including use of forums like this one.

 

[mrsfotografie]

People willing to spend 899 or 1099 or more on a camera generally are well informed. They do their research up front on what new camera to buy, including use of forums like this one.

Please explain the popularity of the Panasonic 'Leica's' then ;D