Two EF-M Primes Coming in Q1 2016 [CR2]

[Bennymiata]

I agree with Mr Canuck that it is about the viewfinder.
No mirrorless camera can really cut it when doing large and busy events where even the flash can't keep up.
I tried an S7 and almost threw it in the bin! The lag with focussing, the lag with a black viewfinder in between shots drove me nuts.

No, mirrors are still very much alive and slapping away merrily and will be doing so for at least the next 10 years, if not much longer!

 

[Woody]

I tried an S7 and almost threw it in the bin! The lag with focussing, the lag with a black viewfinder in between shots drove me nuts.

What is S7?

Or do you mean A7S?

 

[AvTvM]

There was only one Canon S7, a very formidable mirrorless FF camera. 8)
http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/film55.html

AUtofocus was indeed very ... poor. Or rather non-existent. ;D

 

[StudentOfLight]

56mm f/1.2 on APS-C behaves a bit like a 85mm f/2 on full frame

Is is cheaper to make a high performance 85mm f/2 lens for full frame or a 50mm f/1.2 for APS-C?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3835460#forum-post-55695253

 

[Bob Howland]

There was only one Canon S7, a very formidable mirrorless FF camera. 8)
http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/film55.html

AUtofocus was indeed very ... poor. Or rather non-existent. ;D

That's a 7S, not an S7. And it's formidable indeed.

 

[Bob Howland]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Way back in 1987, when the EF mount was introduced, there was a reason why it was made so large: the Canon EF 50 f/1 lens, introduced soon afterwards. With the introduction of the EF mount, Canon went from having the smallest lensmount (i.e., FD) among major manufacturers to having the largest and Canon was quoted in Modern Photography or Popular Photography as stating that the 50 f/1 could not have been made with a smaller lensmount. In 1987, I had a major investment in Canon MF equipment and was livid for the next 10 years that Canon didn't introduce an MF body with an in-viewfinder focusing indicator even without a way of controlling lens focus from the body. The Canon T90, co-designed with the EOS-1 film camera, would have been the perfect place for it.

Granted that it's not 1987, but large lens mounts do have real advantages with certain classes of lenses. The CEO of Sigma has been quoted, within the last year or so, as stating that the small size of the FE lens mount presents problems in designing lenses for it.

It could be more complicated than that IF you assume dSLRs and the EF mount will be dropped from the lineup. I don't think that's the case. With a FF EF-M mount, I doubt Canon would seek to replicate the full EF lineup in the new mount – the EF mount adapter would remain for the 'esoteric' lenses (of which I own several), with FF EF-M lenses available for 'standard' lenses (several zooms from UWA to tell, a macro lens and a few other primes.

So are you suggesting that Canon support both FF and APS-C in both M and EF mounts? Presumably, REAL photographers would use FF EF.

I think I could live with a FF MILC the size of an SL1, assuming they reduced the depth by about 20mm and kept the weight down.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#448,579,ha,f

 

[AvTvM]

That's a 7S, not an S7. And it's formidable indeed.

Thanks! You're absolutely right ... Canon 7S it is ... or was, back then. Last Canon rangefinder camera, launched in 1965 for the last Canon forum users who refused to buy those "modern, gimmicky, bulky SLRs with large lenses". History repeats itself ever so often. ;D

 

[FunkyCamera]

I'd prefer it if Canon stopped wasting time with pointless dead end mirrorless junk. Proper photographers want to see the real world through a real viewfinder, not use a rear screen or peer through at a tiny, laggy tv screen.

It's no coincidence that falling profits follow on from wasted time and effort put into this sort of garbage. Move all the engineers involved in this back into proper cameras and lenses and leave olympus, sony, fuji, etc to fight over the scraps of 5% or so of photographers who can't figure out what a proper camera is.

 

[Luds34]

Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.

I think you kind of invalidated your argument a bit. If those kit moms (new term here) are never going to use any other glass on their Rebel, than what difference does it make to them if that Rebel suddenly turned into an EF-M mount mirrorless camera that otherwise looks like a traditional Rebel? If they aren't concerned with other EF-S lenses and only with the EF-M lenses in the kit, than it's not going to matter to them.

Plus for those that do have older bodies, there are plenty of EF-S lenses that will be on the used market for decades to come. So anyone with an EF-S camera (like a 7DmkII) will still have plenty of choices, including EF glass (new or used). So I think the transition to an all EF-M line wouldn't be that big of an undertaking. Assuming the new Rebels carry over to EF-M as well.

I agree. However, the Rebel is not disappearing today, or tomorrow in it's current form. Yes, eventually it will probably go, and I said as much. My point was more to the "Canon needs to have these X number of mounts, and drop EF-S today" argument.

Plus here is the kicker, EF-S is not a different mount. EF and EF-S are the same physical mount. It's the lenses that different.

 

[Luds34]

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.

Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.

Love the M + 22mm. A very very compact kit and one gets an APS-C sensor to boot!

 

[Chaitanya]

If there is a macro for Ef-M coming then I am interested in system.

 

[ashmadux]

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.

Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.

You kind of have that lens for your Rebel, don't you? --> the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake is a stop slower but it's just as sharp.

- A

Um, not wide enough too slow. The f2 is the deal sealer here, at least for me. I did handle the Sigma 24 1.4 at Photoexpo, and it felt fantastic. sharp in the center wide open, its a beautiful thing. The 22/f2 is sharp in the center, but not critically so.

I'm thinking of getting a 40 2.8 for my 5d3 though...talk about small and well built. I would get that 35 1.8 in a heartbeat, especially if it was a pancake- i see why people have fallen in love with them.

 

[Michael Burnham]

At this point almost ANY new EOS M lenses would be good news. I've been a Canon shooter for 30 years and I have decided that I will commit to the EOS M systems when Canon commits to the EOS M system.

 

[ahsanford]

Nontrivial update to the thread's leading story, in case you missed it:
http://www.canonrumors.com/ef-m-35mm-f1-8-stm-coming-cr1/

So it's a nifty fifty (-ish) for EOS-M. Thoughts:

• Apparently, the simple/stripped down EOS-M platform is more worthy of a nifty fifty (equivalent FF focal length) than EF-S is. This is something EF-S users have long wanted and had to either pony up the dollars for an EF 35mm or go to Sigma for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but EF-S has zero primes that don't have 'pancake' or 'macro' in their names. But EOS-M gets one for some reason. Ouch.
• Another (yawn) STM lens. Will EOS-M ever get a proper USM lens?
• If the other lens is a prime, surely it'd be a macro and not a larger aperture 50-60mm-ish portrait lens, right? Should we be expecting an EF-M 60mm f/2.8 STM macro, then?

- A

 

[noncho]

35 1.8 sounds fine, can be small and cheap.
I hope they break the classic 50/85mm distance and make something more suitable for crop like 70 1.8. Or 70 2.8 IS macro. Or the best 70 2.0 Macro IS (I don't really believe it).

 

[ahsanford]

35 1.8 sounds fine, can be small and cheap.
I hope they break the classic 50/85mm distance and make something more suitable for crop like 70 1.8. Or 70 2.8 IS macro. Or the best 70 2.0 Macro IS (I don't really believe it).

Canon's never made a macro faster than f/2.8, have they? I admit, if the general (non-macro-range) focusing was quick enough, that would make for a killer macro/portrait dual-purpose lens. But I doubt they'd give such a first to EOS-M before EF gets it.

- A

 

[jefflinde]

It is funny reading the comments on any EOS-M thread because everyone is wildly different in what they think would be perfect. All that happens is everyone is upset. I wish people would just look at what the camera has to offer and either use it if it will suits your need or not. If it does not then shut up and buy one that does. I own an original M and yes it has its quirks but it takes good pictures for what I want. If I wanted super fast AF I would have bought a Sony a6000.

I still don't believe that MILC it why canon is loosing money. Cell phones I think are taking more of that away than anything. Which is funny that people keep screaming for a EVF when I have yet to see a cell phone with and EVF and that is what the general population uses to take pictures. You have to remember that canon sells more stuff to people who don't read this forum than who do and most of the things that are being requested those people don't care about. There is just a very vocal but very small subset of people on here that complain and want unrealistic things.

 

[Luds34]

For me the interest in mirror less was size and weight, my M with 22mm f2 is vastly smaller and lighter than my FF DSLR and 35mm f2 for not a huge difference in IQ and DOF most of the time, a FF mirror less with current sized lenses has no appeal until the feature set is much much better, EVF's need to get hugely better before I'd consider a 'serious' mirror less.

For me as well. Today I look at mirrorless as an opportunity to pack big bang (IQ) in a small package. I think APS-C sensors hit that sweet spot of excellent IQ yet small kit. That is the advantage and draw for me personally, today.

With that said, Down the road I'm sure we'll look back and think of the old days, where one had to AFMA your lens, and using certain focus point, etc. Mirrorless does bring some things to the table that someday I'll use or want. The combo of on die phase detect and contrast detect eliminates AFMA and gives a more consistent accurate focus. Sure it's typically slower then PDAF on DSLRs today, but it's always getting faster. And mirrorless also brings the whole face/eye detection allowing the camera to auto focus on your subject. Also subject tracking, etc. I just haven't felt like I need or even want that stuff yet (have face detection turned off on both my Ms). And that must mean something because I shoot with a 6D a lot and we all know the focus system and it's flexibility is not the 6D camera's strong point.

 

[brad-man]

Nontrivial update to the thread's leading story, in case you missed it:
http://www.canonrumors.com/ef-m-35mm-f1-8-stm-coming-cr1/

So it's a nifty fifty (-ish) for EOS-M. Thoughts:

• Apparently, the simple/stripped down EOS-M platform is more worthy of a nifty fifty (equivalent FF focal length) than EF-S is. This is something EF-S users have long wanted and had to either pony up the dollars for an EF 35mm or go to Sigma for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but EF-S has zero primes that don't have 'pancake' or 'macro' in their names. But EOS-M gets one for some reason. Ouch.
• Another (yawn) STM lens. Will EOS-M ever get a proper USM lens?
• If the other lens is a prime, surely it'd be a macro and not a larger aperture 50-60mm-ish portrait lens, right? Should we be expecting an EF-M 60mm f/2.8 STM macro, then?

- A

No. Canon is moving in the DPAF direction for its consumer and prosumer cameras. Since a major usage of this feature is geared towards video, and USMs are too noisy, there won't be any for the M. As this technology matures, presumably STM motors will become faster and replace USM motors for all but L lenses.

Disclaimer: The previous statements are wild speculation, but I still don't think there will be any USM M lenses...

 

[ahsanford]

No. Canon is moving in the DPAF direction for its consumer and prosumer cameras. Since a major usage of this feature is geared towards video, and USMs are too noisy, there won't be any for the M. As this technology matures, presumably STM motors will become faster and replace USM motors for all but L lenses.

Disclaimer: The previous statements are wild speculation, but I still don't think there will be any USM M lenses...

There's two ways to look at it:

My view (just an opinion):

• STM replaces the old [nothing] AF motor designation (like the old squeaky 35mm f/2, old 50 f/1.8 II, etc.) and represents the lowest lens price point.
• Non-L USM lenses (more and more with IS, distance scale, internal focusing, etc.) represent the middle price point
• L USM lenses are at the top, have the largest max apertures, weather sealing, better build, etc.

The interpretation of my view is that only offering STM for EOS-M says that they aren't taking the brand seriously for enthusiasts and pros.

The other way to look at it -- and I'm not disagreeing with it -- is that Canon believes especially at the lower end of the spectrum, video needs AF and therefore quiet lenses are needed. EOS-M and Rebels should therefore prioritize the needs of video more than stills, hence a big reliance on STM.

I can see it both ways, but I just can't take STM lenses seriously from a focus speed perspective -- it is only a downgrade for a stills shooter that is accustomed to USM.

- A