jolyonralph said:
Mxxxxxx would make it the crappiest camera ever... it would be a disposable digital camera with a cardboard body, no LCD, plastic lens, and write-once memory
But hey, it will be mirrorless!
Upvote
0
The EOS M10 Replacement Will be the EOS M100
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Mxxxxxx would make it the crappiest camera ever... it would be a disposable digital camera with a cardboard body, no LCD, plastic lens, and write-once memory
But hey, it will be mirrorless!
How is the M10? It appears to be the same form factor of the original M and M2. There is a part of me, even if it means sacrificing the viewfinder, that really likes the original M size as it is kind of the ultimate compact APS-C kit (when paired with the 22mm pancake).
An M100 could interest me (at a cheap enough price) to fill that maximizing of IQ with most compact size camera.
An M100 could interest me (at a cheap enough price) to fill that maximizing of IQ with most compact size camera.
Upvote
0
Talys said:jolyonralph said:
Mxxxxxx would make it the crappiest camera ever... it would be a disposable digital camera with a cardboard body, no LCD, plastic lens, and write-once memory
But hey, it will be mirrorless!
I think you're confusing this with the IKEA cardboard camera: https://petapixel.com/2012/05/04/a-review-of-the-ikea-cardboard-camera/
Upvote
0
i don't care at all for naming, numbering and color of Canon EOS cameras ... as long as there is a black version.
all i care about are functionality, IQ, UI, size and price. if M100 has M6 innards (sensor, DPAF,..) in smaller form factor (M10 or even better M2 size) and comes at a decent price, i will get one to replace original EOS M as my "lite, compact, go anywhere" kit.
if EOS M100 re-uses M3 sensor + AF, i will not buy. Not even in "Hello Kitty" pink version.
all i care about are functionality, IQ, UI, size and price. if M100 has M6 innards (sensor, DPAF,..) in smaller form factor (M10 or even better M2 size) and comes at a decent price, i will get one to replace original EOS M as my "lite, compact, go anywhere" kit.
if EOS M100 re-uses M3 sensor + AF, i will not buy. Not even in "Hello Kitty" pink version.
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
Luds34 said:
I own the M10 (along with the M2 and the M); the flipping-up LCD is nice and kind of essential for Monday as I plan to use an iPhone-controlled (and tripod-mounted) M10 + adapter + (unfiltered) 100-400 lens for the two minutes or so of totality eclipse in my hometown (assuming a cloudless day!).
Normally the 22mm pancake is 'permanently' attached to the M10...for the exact reasons you've described (size, and of course, weight). Plus, the 22mm lens does not obstruct the on-board flash...sadly, the onboard flash, when fired while the 18-55mm M lens (as well as the 11-22 lens) is attached to the M10, DOES cast a shadow at wider angles. (I would be interested in knowing whether the somewhat smaller dimensions of the 15-45mm M lens enables it to interact better with the M10's onboard flash.)
There are occasional (mostly vacation) situations where the on-board flash is essential...I find the M10 to a very important part of what's available to me on our family trips.
On a related note: I had never attached a lens the size/weight of the 100-400 II to an M-sized body--two words come to mind: bad ergonomics. The amazing IS abilities of the 100-400 enable, in my hands, easy hand-held shooting with the 5D MkIII. But when that lens is attached to the M10...it just doesn't work for me.
M10s can be had for reasonable prices at the usual places...and the M10 uses the same battery/charger combination as the M and M2. I find the M10 to be a bit snappier as far as auto-focusing is concerned (compared, again, to the M and M2)...but not significantly better...but it is a noticeable difference.
There is no hot-shoe...so no place for a real flash nor for an external mic...and no input, either.
I've gotten used to the M10's point-and-shoot-style menu; the older M's are better in this regard.
The M10 is, therefore, kind of a point-and-shoot Canon with an APS-C sensor inside.
If the M100 has similar properties...with a much-improved sensor (and improved focusing abilities) inside...I will seriously consider it.
On the nomenclature front--I guess the real question is whether Canon will give the 'M' designation to their full-frame mirrorless offering.
If they do, then it would make sense to give it (the full-frame mirrrorless Canon) the MX designation...say, M1...where X is less than or equal to 3 (they won't do 4, right?).
For their ILC bodies, the single digits are both full-frame and cropped sensor models.
For their MILC bodies, perhaps the same will hold true.
Then, for both ILC and MILC bodies, the MXX and MXXX families will be cropped sensors...with the 3X versions serving as the entry-level models.
All bets are off if Canon supplies their full-frame mirrorless bodies with a designation other than M.
My two cents.
Upvote
0
Obviously, Canon did not actually expect that mirrorless cameras would catch on. Since their higher end bodies have lower numbers, the M series is a goofy jumble.
I look for a new series when pro level bodies come along, Maybe even a 2 letter designation like DM for Digital Mirrorless. We used to have two letter designations, they can happen again.
I look for a new series when pro level bodies come along, Maybe even a 2 letter designation like DM for Digital Mirrorless. We used to have two letter designations, they can happen again.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
There is a reason, its about trying to figure out which model is the high end, enthusiast, or entry level. One of Canon's strengths has been naming models so I can figure them out without memorizing them all. I just imagine the confusion that someone who does not deal with the model numbers every day would have. Nikon is OK this way, but has also changed horses when their numbering system failed. Sony may have a system, but its not easy to understand.
Upvote
0
It does not matter what the numbering scheme is. We forum users know that it will be wrong, and we know that a bad numbering scheme means that Canon is doomed!
They should have made the number scheme chronological.......
They should have done it by feature.......
They should have done it by megapixels.....
(all at the same time)
They should have made the number scheme chronological.......
They should have done it by feature.......
They should have done it by megapixels.....
(all at the same time)
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
There's a difference between saying it's a confusing numbering scheme (it is), that it could be better (it could), and Canon is doomed (it's very much not). The numbering "scheme" does bug me, but clearly not enough to, y'know, change my preference.
But some of us do like order and sense, and will point out when things appear random or poorly-planned, even if the products are good.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
;D
one set of numbers says everything about any makers product lineup ... the price tag. It is a very precise indicator how the manufacturer would like to position its products ... justified or not justified, competitive or not ... ;-)
it will reliably work even when the products were named apple sl-2, banana 1300, cherrry 5 Mk IV ...
;D ;D ;D
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)