The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]

[rs]

BTW ...

How about focus peaking and a swivel screen ?

With on chip PDAF covering the whole area, I see no reason why canon couldn't do on-screen split focus, as Fuji have implemented with the X100S. But with Canons resistance so far to implement focus peaking, I'm guessing neither will appear anytime soon

 

[neech7]

I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.

That would require a new mount, because APS-C is the biggest that can fit the EOS-M.

 

[Loswr]

That would require a new mount, because APS-C is the biggest that can fit the EOS-M.

???

The EF and EF-S mount are the same size...

 

[neech7]

That would require a new mount, because APS-C is the biggest that can fit the EOS-M.

???

The EF and EF-S mount are the same size...

He's talking about stuffing a FF sensor into EF-M, whose diameter is smaller than EF/EF-S. The EF-M is optimized for APS-C, just like EF is optimized for FF. EF-S is a compromise because it has the bulk of the EF with a smaller imaging circle.

 

[rs]

I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.

If your proposed system allowed EF lenses to be mounted at a shorter flange distance, wouldn't it require sensors larger than our FF sensors? Sounds like a challenging and expensive proposition! Not an unwelcome one though.

I was thinking of using a glass-free tube, much like the current EF to EF-M adapter to use FF glass on a FF sensor and retain the normal focus range. Focal lengths above about 40mm can't really be made smaller with a reduction in the flange distance (just look at the shorty forty), so just use EF glass with a tube adapter. But the EF-M flange distance lends itself well to shorter lenses such as 22mm pancakes. There's little reason why a similar sized 22mm pancake couldn't have a larger imaging circle for FF. That would make it more compact than even a crop M for wide angle.

 

[transpo1]

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.

Sounds spot off, to me. Maybe I'm biased because I bought one for $299. But, if this rumor is true (it's CR1, just the new 100-400 has been for what, 4 years?), the next M will be an 18 MP minor update (T5i/SL1 sensor), and the 20 MP dual pixel CMOS will follow that...but when? And 'aimed at the FF Canon shooter' sounds like a $900-1000 camera, to me. So, $299 really doesn't sound 'silly' especially when the camera + 22mm pancake only costs $85 more than the 22mm pancake alone. That way, the next M can be bought with the kit zoom (since the best way to buy a kit lens is in a kit), and even selling the body for $150 you'd come out ahead... Or you'd have a cheap body for IR conversion - one almost ideally suited for it as any lens can be used.

Just my $0.02 (or $299, as the case may be).

Spot on. I bought one, too- $299 for an APS-C sensor w/an ultra-compact 35mm equivalent pancake that w/an adapter can take all of my EF lenses is a great deal. Also, I'm a video shooter and not having to get the shutter out of the way everytime you shoot video is a wonderful feature- a great backup for my 5Dii.

 

[CANONisOK]

I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.

If your proposed system allowed EF lenses to be mounted at a shorter flange distance, wouldn't it require sensors larger than our FF sensors? Sounds like a challenging and expensive proposition! Not an unwelcome one though.

I was thinking of using a glass-free tube, much like the current EF to EF-M adapter to use FF glass on a FF sensor and retain the normal focus range. Focal lengths above about 40mm can't really be made smaller with a reduction in the flange distance (just look at the shorty forty), so just use EF glass with a tube adapter. But the EF-M flange distance lends itself well to shorter lenses such as 22mm pancakes. There's little reason why a similar sized 22mm pancake couldn't have a larger imaging circle for FF. That would make it more compact than even a crop M for wide angle.

Thanks for the clarification! I can see where you're going with this. Following this down its logical path, if Canon released this FF compact which requires an adapter for EF lenses, do you think they'd release a new lens mount for direct mounting to the on-camera flange? I guess it wouldn't be much different than their current EF/EF-S systems, but I'd be surprised to see them have two mirrorless lens systems out there.

 

[justsomedude]

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.

You are spot on. I picked up my M last night and realised that it didn't have dual pixel AF. I cried. I gave it a viking burial. I think my 7D and 600D are going to get it next.

Obsolete is in the dictionary. Look it up.

Are you being cute? I can't tell.

Obsolete: Out of date. No longer current.

The dual-pixel AF system launched on the 70D single-handedly restructured Canon's line that is based around Live-View focusing. And, in case you are unaware, the EOS-M line is the only one based around Live-View focusing.

Do you really not find it curious that there's a $299 fire sale on the EOS-M, and then hours later rumors drop of a replacement in the works?

You may want to look up naive... it's in the dictionary too.

 

[Loswr]

The dual-pixel AF system launched on the 70D single-handedly restructured Canon's line that is based around Live-View focusing. And, in case you are unaware, the EOS-M line is the only one based around Live-View focusing.

You're using the past tense. I do not think the restructuring you think has happened has actually happened. In fact, if you read the rumor that 'dropped just hours after a fire sale' you'll see that, according to that rumor, Canon intends to release another M camera before dual pixel CMOS 'restructures' anything about the M series.

And, in case you are unaware, the EOS-M line is the only one based around Live-View focusing.

So apparently, you are unaware of the PowerShot G1 X, not to mention the other PowerShots with CMOS sensors.

 

[distant.star]

.
I, for one, fully comprehend manufacturer/retailer relationships.

However, I'll never believe Canon does not have some hand in this particular move. To think B&H suddenly got a wild hair up their tookus one day and fire-saled the M and then their competition followed the piper like mice is far too improbable.

This is why I initially said I'm scratching my head trying to understand this. There is something behind it -- and I know all (or some at least) will be revealed in time.

Meanwhile, while I think it would be delightful to have the M right now, I'm not taking the bait. For me, it won't get me any pictures I can't get with my current equipment.

No offense intended to anyone who bought into this deal. I think that's great for you if you need it or just want it. And I'll be listening to hear your experiences with it -- so far I've heard nothing but good things. Thanks.

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]

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.

Fact: B&H, Adorama, and Amazon offered a very low price on the EOS M
Speculation: Canon had a large backstock of EOS M kits
Speculation: Canon offered discount wholesale pricing to a select group of their largest US retailers
Speculation: The discount pricing was based on retailers' purchase of a large number of units
Speculation: Canon did this to drive wider adoption of the EOS M system
Fact: I bought one, it's been delivered to my building and I'll have my hands on it within the hour

 

[CANONisOK]

Fact: I bought one, it's been delivered to my building and I'll have my hands on it within the hour

Fact: You got it for a great price.
Fact: I, for one, think it's a great little camera (even before the firmware update).
Speculation: Being an advanced user, you will find it to be a great camera with intuitive controls, a small footprint, and great IQ considering the size of the package.
Speculation: You will like it.

 

[justsomedude]

The dual-pixel AF system launched on the 70D single-handedly restructured Canon's line that is based around Live-View focusing. And, in case you are unaware, the EOS-M line is the only one based around Live-View focusing.

You're using the past tense. I do not think the restructuring you think has happened has actually happened. In fact, if you read the rumor that 'dropped just hours after a fire sale' you'll see that, according to that rumor, Canon intends to release another M camera before dual pixel CMOS 'restructures' anything about the M series.

And, in case you are unaware, the EOS-M line is the only one based around Live-View focusing.

So apparently, you are unaware of the PowerShot G1 X, not to mention the other PowerShots with CMOS sensors.

I'm also unaware of my stinky feet... but my girlfriend continues to complain about them.

Actually, I just don't understand all of the projecting that takes place on these forums. I state my opinion that I think the current EOS-M is a bad buy, and you'd think I just insulted some one's mother... at her funeral.

Why does everyone care so much about what others think of how they choose to spend their money?

I still think the EOS-M is a bad buy. And no amount of sarcastic responses, or jabs at my knowledge of the word "obsolete" will change that fact. Cripes. Take the camera out and have fun... really... WHO CARES????????

 

[Loswr]

Actually, I just don't understand all of the projecting that takes place on these forums. I state my opinion that I think the current EOS-M is a bad buy...

At a guess, I'd say it was because the word you used was 'silly'...being called silly (and yes, I know that's not what you stated, but that's a natural interpretation) tends to piss people off.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I state my opinion that I think the current EOS-M is a bad buy, and you'd think I just insulted some one's mother... at her funeral.

Simple solution, don't make them think you "just insulted some one's mother... at her funeral" ;D
But we get it, you don't like EOS-M and you don't want to buy it at $299 or at any other price... thanks for letting us know. :

 

[Daniel Flather]

Fact: Rumo(u)rs are not fact.

 

[Mantanuska]

Seems more likely any new M body will have dual pixel AF

 

[expatinasia]

I, for one, fully comprehend manufacturer/retailer relationships. However, I'll never believe Canon does not have some hand in this particular move. To think B&H suddenly got a wild hair up their tookus one day and fire-saled the M and then their competition followed the piper like mice is far too improbable. This is why I initially said I'm scratching my head trying to understand this. There is something behind it -- and I know all (or some at least) will be revealed in time.

Meanwhile, while I think it would be delightful to have the M right now, I'm not taking the bait. For me, it won't get me any pictures I can't get with my current equipment.

+1

I was quite surprised by how many people came out and, at least publicly, said they were buying the M camera, either to keep, sell on later, or some other reason. It was almost as if everyone had US$300 burning a hole in their pocket which they just had to get rid of.

Sure the new M is likely to be more expensive, but then it is also likely to be better.

Look at the much more costly - some say much higher IQ - RX 100. Sony has just come out with the RX 100 ii which addresses some of the main issues customers had with version one. It is a little more expensive than v1 but many would be happy to pay that extra for improved performance.

I have never been impressed with the M, and I was not even aware you needed a mount, a this and a that. The whole point of these small things is that you stick it in your pocket and not worry about which bits you have left at home.

I will look at the M ii when it comes out, but until then, I do not care if the M I is US$ 100, I still won't buy it.

 

[gmrza]

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.

Sounds spot off, to me. Maybe I'm biased because I bought one for $299. But, if this rumor is true (it's CR1, just the new 100-400 has been for what, 4 years?), the next M will be an 18 MP minor update (T5i/SL1 sensor), and the 20 MP dual pixel CMOS will follow that...but when? And 'aimed at the FF Canon shooter' sounds like a $900-1000 camera, to me. So, $299 really doesn't sound 'silly' especially when the camera + 22mm pancake only costs $85 more than the 22mm pancake alone. That way, the next M can be bought with the kit zoom (since the best way to buy a kit lens is in a kit), and even selling the body for $150 you'd come out ahead... Or you'd have a cheap body for IR conversion - one almost ideally suited for it as any lens can be used.

Just my $0.02 (or $299, as the case may be).

Can't fault that logic. I like the idea of IR conversion, since fast AF performance is usually not a factor for IR, since the main use of IR is for landscapes.

Hmm, I'm now wondering what B&H will charge to ship an EOS-M Down Under.....

 

[privatebydesign]

Why are they fire saleing them? It seems obvious to me, these kinds of cameras are set up on one production line and they have a production run of one. Once the M II comes out they won't even sell for $299 because everybody will want the new one. Canon have to get rid of the backlogged inventory or they write it off, at the moment I suspect they have the MII boxed up and ready to ship but are holding back to get ride of as many M's as they can.

Why would anybody buy one? Well it seems to me only a fool wouldn't. This is a fully compatible post 2012 APS-C sensored EOS camera, the perfect backup, or backup of your backup, depending on how anal you are. It shoots video, it uses your current lenses, it takes up practically no space or weight. It is fully functional in Group Mode with the RT flash system, the list of practical features goes on and on. Will the M II be "better"? Of course, but it won't be $299 unless Canon mess up on the stocking again and even then not for a year, and now they have the M nearly out of the way I am sure they have a much better feel for the M II market quantities.

At $299 with a decent 35mm f2.8 (equivalent) I can't see a down side to this camera bearing in mind the functionality and system integration. I was looking at the Fuji X100s or the EOS-M as a smaller camera, at less than 25% of the price for a much more useful (for us Canon shooters) interchangeable lens body the M seems like a no brainer.