The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]

[neech7]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.

Agreed -- I got to thinking about it and was about to follow up with a post saying that it likely be EF only because it would need the extra clearance. I also would like to revise my price guess: this will be marketed as a piece of pro gear -- a Canon teleconverter runs about $450 -- so that would likely be the ballpark for the reducer -- $450 - $500. I hope it's closer to the first guess, though!

It isn't a matter of clearance, it's how large an image circle the lens throws onto the sensor. With an EF lens, the adapter shrinks the image from 43mm diameter to about 27.6mm. An EF-S lens already has a (nominal) image circle of 27.6mm so shouldn't be reduced more.

Exactly. EF-S lenses can never be FL reduced for EF-M because they are both APS-C. What is there to reduce when both sensors are exactly the same size?

If the FL reducer part of the rumor is true, I suspect Metabones finally got Canon to buy or license what they have to offer.

But what does that leave this video, I wonder: SpeedBooster For Eos M

 

[unfocused]

Why is it that people never seem to get that retailers are not Canon and an individual retailers pricing decision often occurs independent of Canon (or any other manufacturer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Fact: Canon is not offering the EOS M for $299.
Fact: There is no rebate currently offered for the EOS-M, which means no enforcement of minimum advertised pricing.
Fact: B&H offered the camera for $299.
Fact: We don't know why B&H made this offer.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon are major competitors with B&H.
Fact: Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price.
Fact: We don't know why Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price, but we can speculate it has something to do with the competitive marketplace.
Fact: Eventually, the EOS-M will be replaced.

Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply sloppy reasoning.

 

[Loswr]

Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply...

Going to be done be nearly everyone because a) it's human nature, and/or b) it's just plain fun.

 

[preppyak]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Am I right in thinking that such a reducer would also increase the effective light-gathering capability of a lens, as the same image will be projected on a smaller area? This would mean an f/2.8 lens could behave something like an f/2.2 lens (depending on efficiency) when mounted to the reducer (in terms of light gathering).

This already exists, so, you can see what it would essentially do: http://www.metabones.com/buy-speed-booster

So, for the EF to NEX one, it makes the lens .71x wider while increasing the aperture by a stop (technically a little more). It essentially creates a full-frame approximation while using an adapter and APS-C sensor. There would be some short-comings (AF being one, I would imagine), but a great combo for landscape and video no doubt. The Metabones one is all the rage with people shooting on GH2's and GH3's

As you can see, the price is as much as a mirrorless body. Can't imagine Canon selling it as a loss-leader, so, expect it to be $5-600 if it's as good as the Metabones one.

 

[Dylan777]

To be able to use current EF and/or EF-S lenses is a nice feature, however, I still want pancake lenses to go with mirrorless cameras.

 

[infared]

I agree, something to reduce the image circle from a full-frame EF lens to match the M sensor size makes the most sense I think. This also tallies in with the suggestion in the original rumour that it will be aimed at the full-frame Canon shooter -- focal lengths would remain approximately the same.

This has certainly been one of the big reasons I haven't snapped up the current EOS-M at the bargain price -- I don't want to have to duplicate wide-angle lenses.

Am I right in thinking that such a reducer would also increase the effective light-gathering capability of a lens, as the same image will be projected on a smaller area? This would mean an f/2.8 lens could behave something like an f/2.2 lens (depending on efficiency) when mounted to the reducer (in terms of light gathering).

Hopefully it will be a speed booster, i.e. reducing the effective f-stop and image circle of the lens...no?

 

[justsomedude]

Heh.

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

8)

How is paying $300 for a mirrorless with DSLR IQ and a small, fast, and by all accounts, sharp prime silly? That there would be an improved successor is blatantly obvious. But you're the Man.

In my opinion the EOS-M is not worthy of its price tag due to its poor AF, even at $299. Opinions vary. And people can buy in to first generation gear; it's their money - their choice. They know the risks going in. And when there's a fire sale, it's pretty telling that the new technology (ie, dual-pixel AF) just made the previous generation obsolete.

Don't be mad.

:-[

 

[adhocphotographer]

To be able to use current EF and/or EF-S lenses is a nice feature, however, I still want pancake lenses to go with mirrorless cameras.

+1... being able to attach you EF/Ef-S lenses to it is great indeed, and a feature that was required, but equally (or more so) is the need for smaller, lighter lenses to go with the smaller lighter body... I want a pancake feast... preferably EF!!! Bring out pancakes at all the physically available focus lengths, no matter how odd (40mm wasn't exactly normal)!

 

[kennephoto]

Heh.

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

8)

How is paying $300 for a mirrorless with DSLR IQ and a small, fast, and by all accounts, sharp prime silly? That there would be an improved successor is blatantly obvious. But you're the Man.

In my opinion the EOS-M is not worthy of its price tag due to its poor AF, even at $299. Opinions vary. And people can buy in to first generation gear; it's their money - their choice. They know the risks going in. And when there's a fire sale, it's pretty telling that the new technology (ie, dual-pixel AF) just made the previous generation obsolete.

Don't be mad.

:-[

Cheaper than my 600$ iPhone, more portable than a 5d that's why I bought one. I can make decent photos with an iPhone and better ones with a 5d but I get nervous walking around with my 5d I won't cry as much if my 300 dollar camera gets stolen. So congrats to the happy people that got a great deal on a great camera!

 

[dswtan]

In my opinion the EOS-M is not worthy of its price tag due to its poor AF

Did you miss the whole firmware upgrade news recently perhaps, fixing the AF?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/the-new-eos-m-firmware-coming-soon/

 

[pwp]

The 20mpx dual sensor flagship model with EVF sound like the camera made just for me!
I'll have one with a 20mm pancake please...

-PW

 

[Loswr]

The 20mpx dual sensor flagship model with EVF sound like the camera made just for me!
I'll have one with a 20mm pancake please...

Sure, that'll be $1,200.00, please...

 

[eos650]

A one stop focal length reducer would create some really interesting effective lenses. I'm thinking a one stop focal length reducer would be the opposite of a 1.4X teleconverter. If so, I come up with the following, assuming my math is correct.

85mm f1.2 would become a 60.7mm f0.86.

Here is my math...
85mm / 1.4 = 60.71mm

f-Stop = f/d (f-Stop = focal length / diameter). Solve for 'd':
1.2 = 85/d
1.2d = 85
d = 85/1.2
d = 70.83

Plug in the new focal length. I expect the diameter would remain the same since it's the diameter at the front of the lens:

f-Stop = 60.71 / 70.83

f-stop = .857

 

[JohanCruyff]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

I would expect a factor of .707 (sqrt(2)/2) mainly because it would be an even 1 stop difference, whereas a factor of .63 comes out to a very odd 5/4ths stops.

85/1.8 would become a 60/1.3
24-70/2.8 would become 17-50/2
70-200/4 would become 50-140/2.8

I think that would be enough to make focal lengths that are only so-so on crop (24-anything) quite attractive.

...and the 60/1.3 would become a 85/1.8 equivalent,
the 17-50/2 would become a 24-70/2.8 equivalent,
the 50-140/2.8 would become a 70-200/4 equivalent,
on a crop body.

 

[bvukich]

A one stop focal length reducer would create some really interesting effective lenses. I'm thinking a one stop focal length reducer would be the opposite of a 1.4X teleconverter. If so, I come up with the following, assuming my math is correct.

85mm f1.2 would become a 60.7mm f0.86.

Here is my math...
85mm / 1.4 = 60.71mm

f-Stop = f/d (f-Stop = focal length / diameter). Solve for 'd':
1.2 = 85/d
1.2d = 85
d = 85/1.2
d = 70.83

Plug in the new focal length. I expect the diameter would remain the same since it's the diameter at the front of the lens:

f-Stop = 60.71 / 70.83

f-stop = .857

Your answer is pretty close (one stop faster than 1.2 is .84), the math is actually quite a bit more complicated though.

Actual formula:

sqrt(2)^((log(OLDF)/log(sqrt(2))+CHANGE)

Since OLDF = 1.2 (actually it's sqrt(2)^.5 if you want exact numbers, or approx 1.18920711500272)
And CHANGE = -1

sqrt(2)^((log(1.2)/log(sqrt(2))-1) =~ 0.848528137423857
or
sqrt(2)^((log(sqrt(2)^.5)/log(sqrt(2))-1)) =~ 0.840896415253714

 

[bvukich]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

I would expect a factor of .707 (sqrt(2)/2) mainly because it would be an even 1 stop difference, whereas a factor of .63 comes out to a very odd 5/4ths stops.

85/1.8 would become a 60/1.3
24-70/2.8 would become 17-50/2
70-200/4 would become 50-140/2.8

I think that would be enough to make focal lengths that are only so-so on crop (24-anything) quite attractive.

...and the 60/1.3 would become a 85/1.8 equivalent,
the 17-50/2 would become a 24-70/2.8 equivalent,
the 50-140/2.8 would become a 70-200/4 equivalent,
on a crop body.

Not quite
The 85/1.8 converted to 60/1.3 would behave like a 96/1.3 instead of a 128/1.8 if unconverted
The 24-70/2.8 converted to 17-50/2 would behave like a 27-80/2 instead of a 38-112/2.8 if unconverted
And the 70-200/4 converted to 50-140/2.8 would behave like a 80-224/2.8 instead of a 112-320/4 if unconverted

Obviously all these numbers are with a .707 conversion factor, which is just my guess, and a 1.6 crop factor.

Also , when I say "behave", I'm talking about FOV and exposure. DOF/bokeh/etc., not included.

 

[rs]

A one stop focal length reducer would create some really interesting effective lenses. I'm thinking a one stop focal length reducer would be the opposite of a 1.4X teleconverter. If so, I come up with the following, assuming my math is correct.

85mm f1.2 would become a 60.7mm f0.86.

Here is my math...
85mm / 1.4 = 60.71mm

f-Stop = f/d (f-Stop = focal length / diameter). Solve for 'd':
1.2 = 85/d
1.2d = 85
d = 85/1.2
d = 70.83

Plug in the new focal length. I expect the diameter would remain the same since it's the diameter at the front of the lens:

f-Stop = 60.71 / 70.83

f-stop = .857

Your answer is pretty close (one stop faster than 1.2 is .84), the math is actually quite a bit more complicated though.

Actual formula:

sqrt(2)^((log(OLDF)/log(sqrt(2))+CHANGE)

Since OLDF = 1.2 (actually it's sqrt(2)^.5 if you want exact numbers, or approx 1.18920711500272)
And CHANGE = -1

sqrt(2)^((log(1.2)/log(sqrt(2))-1) =~ 0.848528137423857
or
sqrt(2)^((log(sqrt(2)^.5)/log(sqrt(2))-1)) =~ 0.840896415253714

However, if Canon want to retain the same field of view, depth of field and light gathering capabilities that EF lenses enjoy on FF, they'll need to develop a 1.6x telecompressor instead of a 1.4x. That would make an EF 85/1.2 into an EF-M 53/0.74 lens.

Lets hope that an EF lens, telecompressor and dual pixel AF sensor combine to make a quick and accurate AF system, as well as good image quality.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I think it's a sweet camera with the firmware upgrade. I really wish I didn't have to use an adapter to use my EF lenses. But at least I can use them with the camera. Better than a P.S., smaller and cheaper than a DSLR. Almost as capable.

If I had the cash, I would've seriously considered the EOS M. Definitely good gear.

 

[bvukich]

A one stop focal length reducer would create some really interesting effective lenses. I'm thinking a one stop focal length reducer would be the opposite of a 1.4X teleconverter. If so, I come up with the following, assuming my math is correct.

85mm f1.2 would become a 60.7mm f0.86.

Here is my math...
85mm / 1.4 = 60.71mm

f-Stop = f/d (f-Stop = focal length / diameter). Solve for 'd':
1.2 = 85/d
1.2d = 85
d = 85/1.2
d = 70.83

Plug in the new focal length. I expect the diameter would remain the same since it's the diameter at the front of the lens:

f-Stop = 60.71 / 70.83

f-stop = .857

Your answer is pretty close (one stop faster than 1.2 is .84), the math is actually quite a bit more complicated though.

Actual formula:

sqrt(2)^((log(OLDF)/log(sqrt(2))+CHANGE)

Since OLDF = 1.2 (actually it's sqrt(2)^.5 if you want exact numbers, or approx 1.18920711500272)
And CHANGE = -1

sqrt(2)^((log(1.2)/log(sqrt(2))-1) =~ 0.848528137423857
or
sqrt(2)^((log(sqrt(2)^.5)/log(sqrt(2))-1)) =~ 0.840896415253714

However, if Canon want to retain the same field of view, depth of field and light gathering capabilities that EF lenses enjoy on FF, they'll need to develop a 1.6x telecompressor instead of a 1.4x. That would make an EF 85/1.2 into an EF-M 53/0.74 lens.

Lets hope that an EF lens, telecompressor and dual pixel AF sensor combine to make a quick and accurate AF system, as well as good image quality.

I just reran the numbers starting with image circle sizes (43.2mm & 27.3mm) and working from there, and my original calculation of 5/4ths stop is a bit off now, and it is actually pretty damn close to 4/3rds stops (-1.32426072248723) which would be a very convenient factor (except for the goofy 1/6th stops you get when going from a half stop like 1.2, but that really only affects two lenses).

That would make an 85/1.2 convert to a 54(53.7)/.75(.749) that behaves like a an 85/.75 on crop. Yes please ;D

 

[Fleetie]

I just reran the numbers starting with image circle sizes (43.2mm & 27.3mm) and working from there, and my original calculation of 5/4ths stop is a bit off now, and it is actually pretty damn close to 4/3rds stops (-1.32426072248723) which would be a very convenient factor (except for the goofy 1/6th stops you get when going from a half stop like 1.2, but that really only affects two lenses).

That would make an 85/1.2 convert to a 54(53.7)/.75(.749) that behaves like a an 85/.75 on crop. Yes please ;D

So the focal length is effectively unchanged at 85mm? Even though you're dividing it by sqrt(2) and multiplying it by 1.6 (for crop)?