The Future of EOS M [CR1]

[Bob Howland]

The future of EOS M ... none.

In my opinion Canon should (a) chuck the EF-M system, (b) join the m4/3 consortium, and (c) make a functional EF-to-m43 translation adapter.

Huh?? Doing that makes no sense at all. It would put them at the mercy of Olympus and Panasonic, mostly Olympus. Canon would still have to introduce lenses, although maybe (repeat: maybe!!) not as many as with the EF-M system. Canon 4/3 camera owners might buy other manufacturers' lenses instead and Canon would have to guarantee that Canon bodies work with their lenses and their bodies work with Canon lenses. What a mess!

Better for Canon to introduce (1) better EF-M bodies, (2) some very small native lenses, perhaps eight total, and (3) an extremely high quality EF-to-EF-M Metabones Speed Booster-type adapter, except with a 1-1/3 stop improvement.

I own a G10. I want one part of the EF-M system to evolve into something the same size (or slightly larger) but with much better high ISO image quality.

 

[paul13walnut5]

My 2 cents.

If canon can nail the Af issue, even if it means reverting to contrast detection only, then they are onto a winner.

They have a market of EF-s and EF users with lenses waiting to be used, a nice solid camera which has the concessions folk already live with when using most compact or compact system type cameras.

I don't see the point of a whole new line of EF-M lenses. ALL CSCs are bulky when they have anything other than a pancake on them, so just go with it. It makes sense to have the 18-55 M as it's most folks walkabout lens. Other than that if you want good reach and a big sensor you need a big camera. When you want a discreet compact camera use the pancake lens.

In the mean time canon could make the pancake lens a real winner by introducing, via firmware, a zone or hyperfocal mode for the pancake. Say 1.5m to infinity at something like f8. No need for slow AF. Just point and shoot and everything in range will be reasonably sharp. It would be a perfect street shooter.

 

[ecka]

My 2 cents.

If canon can nail the Af issue, even if it means reverting to contrast detection only, then they are onto a winner.

They have a market of EF-s and EF users with lenses waiting to be used, a nice solid camera which has the concessions folk already live with when using most compact or compact system type cameras.

I don't see the point of a whole new line of EF-M lenses. ALL CSCs are bulky when they have anything other than a pancake on them, so just go with it. It makes sense to have the 18-55 M as it's most folks walkabout lens. Other than that if you want good reach and a big sensor you need a big camera. When you want a discreet compact camera use the pancake lens.

In the mean time canon could make the pancake lens a real winner by introducing, via firmware, a zone or hyperfocal mode for the pancake. Say 1.5m to infinity at something like f8. No need for slow AF. Just point and shoot and everything in range will be reasonably sharp. It would be a perfect street shooter.

+1

I hear a lot of people choosing 100D/SL1 over EOS-M, for different reasons (better grip, better AF, pop-up flash, viewfinder, longer battery life, etc).

 

[pj1974]

On the weekend (here in Australia, it's Monday afternoon already) - I went to my local dedicated photography store, and handled the EOS M. I was impressed with the small size with the 22mm f/2.8 lens attached (that lens is really small).

The EOS M and 22mm lens is definitely of the 'slip inside a handbag / manbag' size. The build quality and weight spoke of quite decent materials being used.

However the AF was really very slow. In a fairly well lit store, it didn't appear much quicker than my 7D's "Live View" AF (which I consider impractically slow apart from tripod landscape work). I haven't used a P&S in quite a while (occasionally tourists will ask me to take a photo with their P&S along a beach, etc). So I can't really compare to 'average' P&S cameras of todau - as the last time I owned and used my P&S was about 8 years ago.

The salesperson at the store shared that yes, the EOS M had not sold well at all. In fact she said that only a very few people after trying it in store felt it was the camera for them. Who tried the EOS M eventually either purchased an entry level DSLR or a decent P&S, and most were not happy with the AF (for the price / potential).

This is understandable, and I wouldn't buy the current EOS M - mainly due to what you get for the price, compared to a good P&S or even moreso an entry level DSLR. (The saleswoman also indicated she thought it was silly having the small EOS M mounted behind huge EF lenses - I agree). Not user friendly in that case.

I do think if 2 things could be improved upon, the EO SM camera would have more potential:
- the AF to have quick snappy acquisition and very accurate focus
- there to be more (specifically small size) high quality lenses.

Let's see the future... your call, Canon!

Paul

 

[Marsu42]

However the AF was really very slow. In a fairly well lit store, it didn't appear much quicker than my 7D's "Live View" AF (which I consider impractically slow apart from tripod landscape work).

I'd really like some inside information why Canon thought they could get away with this. The speed of the 7d/60d-style live view af is a joke and really only for tripod work (though I like Magic Lantern focus peaking better), but if the eos m is not much better Canon seems to have skipped all field tests or they have beta testers who say "yes, great" to everything?

Or maybe the eos m is just a test model for mirrorless (just like Win8 for MS' new ui) and was scheduled to be replaced in no time anyway? In the latter case, that doesn't build trust in Canon as a premium brand.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I tried an m instore. But I didn't just pick it up, point and shoot.

I went into the menus snd tinkered.

Single point select.

Continuous af off.

Af+mf on.

Selected centre of screen as active af cell.

Point focus lock recompose. I'd say about as fast as my 600d.

In reflex pd mode that is. Not live view.

So that's fairly fast.

Here's my take:

For the folk who don't understand af, or who are scared to tinker thete is an easy user friendly accurate fairly intelligent but fairly pedestrian 'hey let me do all the work for you mode'

As you would expect given the likely target market.

But if you tinker a bit and narrow down the choices the camera has to make then it's actually a snappy wee system, not a sports camera, but fast enough for everything else and fast enough for enthuiasts, a wedding b camera etc.

I'm not a huge fan of AF, perhaps coning from a video background I understand better it's limitations. Where I use af with success i've spent time cracking the manual. Folk knocked the ecf on the 3: I thought it the best thing since sliced bread, folk knocked the af on 7d, i'm fairly confident most of those knocking didn't understand all the options.

I think most folk knocking the m af are using it in granny mode right out the box.

I'm very particular about af, suspicious of it almost. If you grab the m by the scruff if the neck and tell it exactly what you want from it, it will obey. But i'll still use my 7d for very fast sports.

The lack of remote socket and live view tethering are a little bit of a let down (could be the perfect timelapse camera otherwise) but otherwise my brief experience doesn't tally with the negative reviews.

I'm really getting very excited about the ding dong from dhl. More than I can recall for any other camera I've ever owned, since except maybe my zenit horizon!

 

[expatinasia]

I think most folk knocking the m af are using it in granny mode right out the box.

I stood behind a professional photographer friend at a sporting event not that long ago, and in a break he got out the M and started messing with it (and all its settings) for about 20 minutes, trying to get it to focus on people walking, and on some static objects. He was using a 400 f/2.8 ii with it and is no spring chicken, so he knows what he is doing, and I see him quite often as some of the things we cover seem to overlap.

The AF was laughably slow, it hunted and hunted. You almost have sufficient time to go and make a cup of tea, and by the time you get back it will hopefully have locked. There were times when you thought it had a lock, and then the camera suddenly changed its mind and went off hunting again.

Not saying this to knock your purchase, but when there are so many people talking about the AF system on reviews, and in other places, then you there really has to be an issue somewhere. You know what they say about no smoke without fire.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I would be interested to see what settings your pro friend was using. Did he have the manual to hand?

I have to confess I've tried it with an STM lens, not via the EF-M adaptor, and I really found it to work pretty well.

I'll be using mine exlusively with the 22mm STM with AF, and via the EF-M adaptor in MF mode.

The horror stories just didn't tally with my experience so far.
Much the same way as the horror stories about 7D image noise and AF problems don't tally.
I am a RTFM kind of guy. I don;t work that well straight out of bed and so I don't expect complex electronic devices to work straight out the box the way I want.

I am a bit of an odd-bodd in that I don't entirely trust AF for anything, and that I was using an SR-T303 along side my digital gear until around 5 years ago, and that my main work camera doesn;t even have an AF mode, but the M seemed on a par with what I would expect, given segment, price, likely aspirations of user - once I had tinkered. It's not going to replace a 7D, 5D3 or 1DX for speed, but then it isn't meant to.
And not to knock your professional friend with his 400mm f2.8, but I don't think it's the kind of lens Canon designed the M for.

 

[expatinasia]

Did he have the manual to hand?

I can't remember whether he had the manual, I just remember the hunting (which was why he kept changing the settings to try and get it to stay locked). I also asked him about it recently, but can't remember what he said either (must be getting old, that's an awful lot I can't remember! Worrying really! ).

And not to knock your professional friend with his 400mm f2.8, but I don't think it's the kind of lens Canon designed the M for.

I agree, and I do not think I was the only one that told him it looked stupid.

But what one person experiences does not mean that you will have the same concerns, so I wish you well with your M.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Did he have the manual to hand?

I can't remember whether he had the manual, I just remember the hunting (which was why he kept changing the settings to try and get it to stay locked). I also asked him about it recently, but can't remember what he said either (must be getting old, that's an awful lot I can't remember! Worrying really! ).

And not to knock your professional friend with his 400mm f2.8, but I don't think it's the kind of lens Canon designed the M for.

I agree, and I do not think I was the only one that told him it looked stupid.

But what one person experiences does not mean that you will have the same concerns, so I wish you well with your M.

As Paul says, it's unlikely the EOS M wasn't really designed for the 400mm although it can be fitted to it with the adaptor. There has to be a reason the 1Dx has the extra power compared to even the 5D3. What I understand, it doesn't only help increase the fps it also helps focusing faster. So, the EOS M isn't likely to have that extra power to drive its motor very quickly. I have used a (borrowed) M now a couple of days with the 22mm and that touch screen focus and obviously it isn't fast, but not as bad as I expected. It's all about having a balanced system and have the right expectations.

 

[StepBack]

The mirrorless offers from other manufacturers opens up the field for some photographers. While I have never seen a Leica at an NFL game or a MLB game I imagine there are a lot of retail shops in LaJolla that sell their products. When all is said and done the mirrorless don't offer much compared to a dslr for still shots. It's more a gimmick at this point. But I have seen the best results with the EM-5 and I attribute that to the photographer. If u go Canon u want to be able to buy lightweight lenses. Of course u can use your already owned but lightweight black is the idea for being unobtrusive. The RX1 is something only Sony could dream up and find someone to buy. U can get a D800 for the price. The 4/3's offer the largest number of legacy lenses from assorted sources, but when u start adding it up you're back up to a FF if u go picking among the possibilities. However, for hand held lightweight travel w/o the use for a big tele I think they hit the spot. Right now the 5D3 is by far the best out of the box camera offered which almost anyone can use to get good results.

 

[expatinasia]

As Paul says, it's unlikely the EOS M wasn't really designed for the 400mm although it can be fitted to it with the adaptor. There has to be a reason the 1Dx has the extra power compared to even the 5D3. What I understand, it doesn't only help increase the fps it also helps focusing faster. So, the EOS M isn't likely to have that extra power to drive its motor very quickly. I have used a (borrowed) M now a couple of days with the 22mm and that touch screen focus and obviously it isn't fast, but not as bad as I expected. It's all about having a balanced system and have the right expectations.

True. I must admit I am interested by these small cameras, and often find myself at a Sony area of the shopping mall messing around with the RX 1 and RX 100. It will be interesting to see what the new M is like, but for now, if I were purchasing such an item I would get the RX 100.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

As Paul says, it's unlikely the EOS M wasn't really designed for the 400mm although it can be fitted to it with the adaptor. There has to be a reason the 1Dx has the extra power compared to even the 5D3. What I understand, it doesn't only help increase the fps it also helps focusing faster. So, the EOS M isn't likely to have that extra power to drive its motor very quickly. I have used a (borrowed) M now a couple of days with the 22mm and that touch screen focus and obviously it isn't fast, but not as bad as I expected. It's all about having a balanced system and have the right expectations.

True. I must admit I am interested by these small cameras, and often find myself at a Sony area of the shopping mall messing around with the RX 1 and RX 100. It will be interesting to see what the new M is like, but for now, if I were purchasing such an item I would get the RX 100.

I can see why, my brother in law got the RX100 a few months ago and I got to play with it a little when they visited us down here, it definitely outperforms my S100. But for now I'm happy with the S100 as a pocket camera, there are other more pressing areas to spend money on.

 

[paul13walnut5]

For me a csc only has the csc main selling point with a pancake lens.

99% of the time my M will have the 22mm fitted and will fit in my pocket in a way that a DSLR wouldn't.

It'll be miles better IQ than the SX230 that lives in my glovebox.

And if I'm going to bastardize the CSC concept by putting anything other than a pancake on it, then it might as well be a lens that I already own, and I can't do that with a panasonic, fuji or sony.

For me, and I'm feeling increasingly isolated, the M makes quite a lot of sense used in the way it was designed to be used, which was never as an SLR beater, in the same way that none of the other CSCs are SLR beaters.

 

[Jay H]

For me a csc only has the csc main selling point with a pancake lens.

99% of the time my M will have the 22mm fitted and will fit in my pocket in a way that a DSLR wouldn't.

It'll be miles better IQ than the SX230 that lives in my glovebox.

And if I'm going to bastardize the CSC concept by putting anything other than a pancake on it, then it might as well be a lens that I already own, and I can't do that with a panasonic, fuji or sony.

For me, and I'm feeling increasingly isolated, the M makes quite a lot of sense used in the way it was designed to be used, which was never as an SLR beater, in the same way that none of the other CSCs are SLR beaters.

I agree, too many cameras trying to equal the capabilities of a DSLR while not not maximizing the advantages of a small body with a small sensor.

Case in point: Nikon 1 series. Teensy bodies. An expanding collection of small, quality lenses. 4K output (for 1 sec), slow motion video. Etc. A lot to like in a very small package.

 

[Marsu42]

For me, and I'm feeling increasingly isolated, the M makes quite a lot of sense used in the way it was designed to be used, which was never as an SLR beater, in the same way that none of the other CSCs are SLR beaters.

It does make a lot of sense, and this concept and other mirrorless (i.e. smaller, faster fps) cameras will no doubt be the future in the upper p&s or lower rebel segment in the near future.

It's just that the general suspicion seems to be that Canon didn't put such a slow af into it because they thought it'd be sufficient, but simply they couldn't do any better at that time - maybe this will be proven by a eos-m mk2 with a digic6 and faster af.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Thats what I'm saying Marsu. With the right settings I don't think the AF is really all that bad. I wouldn't recommend it to my mum, because she would want it just to work out the box, and I take the point that every review, every forum and everybody who has read a forum (and even those who haven't touched an M) says..

Out the box with the flexi zone left to auto, it's slow and it hunts.

With a dabble in the menus, point select, AF+MF enabled and continual focus switched off, it is about 65x better.

Now I know that 99% of the target users probably aren't going to get beyond A mode. But for folk who used EOS before, who know what the AF settings mean, you can get better results out of the AF.

 

[pj1974]

Thats what I'm saying Marsu. With the right settings I don't think the AF is really all that bad. I wouldn't recommend it to my mum, because she would want it just to work out the box, and I take the point that every review, every forum and everybody who has read a forum (and even those who haven't touched an M) says..

Out the box with the flexi zone left to auto, it's slow and it hunts.

With a dabble in the menus, point select, AF+MF enabled and continual focus switched off, it is about 65x better.

Now I know that 99% of the target users probably aren't going to get beyond A mode. But for folk who used EOS before, who know what the AF settings mean, you can get better results out of the AF.

Thanks Paul for your number of posts about the EOS M. I must admit I didn't go into the menus of the EOS M (but I did for the 100D and 700D DSLRs, which I was quite quickly familiar with).

I had picked up the EOS M as a 'end of my visit to the store' thing - and to be fair to the EOS M, I didn't go through and 'limit all the variables' for AF (like I also do for my DSLRs). I would have

Maybe I will go back to the store and use the menus another time. Some staff in that store know me from some visits / former purchases, and they are all usually very accommodating in letting customers use the camera at length in store.

At the end of the day I think I have been spoiled by the 7D's AF (I agree with you, Paul, that too many ppl have overstated the 7D's low ISO noise and "AF issues" - none of which have been show stoppers for me). But I might have another look at the EOS M - but think that a DSLR is a better 'fit' for my girlfriend (also with my range of Canon EF and EF=S lenses).

Regards

Paul

 

[wickidwombat]

Thats what I'm saying Marsu. With the right settings I don't think the AF is really all that bad. I wouldn't recommend it to my mum, because she would want it just to work out the box, and I take the point that every review, every forum and everybody who has read a forum (and even those who haven't touched an M) says..

Out the box with the flexi zone left to auto, it's slow and it hunts.

With a dabble in the menus, point select, AF+MF enabled and continual focus switched off, it is about 65x better.

Now I know that 99% of the target users probably aren't going to get beyond A mode. But for folk who used EOS before, who know what the AF settings mean, you can get better results out of the AF.

something I have found taking pics of my 5 month old baby girl while i'm holding her.
with the eos-m and 22mm lens is super handy because its light and easy to hold in 1 hand
the 22mm minimum focus distance is only 150mm so i can hold her on my lap and take a quick snap and still get a decent angle without waking her up. the AF speed doesnt matter here anyway

overall as an auxillary camera i really like the EOS-M but I couldnt live with it as my only camera

 

[CanoSony]

For me a csc only has the csc main selling point with a pancake lens.

99% of the time my M will have the 22mm fitted and will fit in my pocket in a way that a DSLR wouldn't.

It'll be miles better IQ than the SX230 that lives in my glovebox.

And if I'm going to bastardize the CSC concept by putting anything other than a pancake on it, then it might as well be a lens that I already own, and I can't do that with a panasonic, fuji or sony.

For me, and I'm feeling increasingly isolated, the M makes quite a lot of sense used in the way it was designed to be used, which was never as an SLR beater, in the same way that none of the other CSCs are SLR beaters.

Cant mount huh?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4749919445_f173f0928a.jpg

I'm sorry your EOS M is on the 4th page of this list, but there ARE mirrorless cameras out there that beat most dslrs

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/List-view