[shuttertalk]

Ok, so it's now official, with the announcement of the EOS M Mirrorless Interchangeable lens camera going live. Just confirming things that we already know - it uses a 18MP APS-C sensor and DIGIC 5 processor, and uses a new lens mount. However it does offer an adapter which allows the use of EF and EF-s lenses.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/23/canon...ss-camera/

It's launching with two lenses a 22mm f2 STM lens (35mm equiv) and a 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM lens and will be priced at $800.

In their usual fashion, dpreview have already published a hands on preview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/

Some thoughts:

- The size itself is not much bigger than a S100, and paired with the 22mm pancake, looks absolutely pocketable.
- It doesn't feature an accessory port for an EVF like some of the M43 cameras - so framing will be exclusively via the LCD
- No built in flash, although there's a hotshoe with compatibility with all Canon Speedltes
- Sensor-wise, it's APS-C which means that unlike the Nikon 1, noise performance and IQ should be similar to Canon's other DSLRs and M43 as well.

I think for Canon shooters this could make a very exciting proposition. Assuming image quality comparable to their APS-C DSLRs, you could end up with a nice compact system but still have compatibility with your existing stable of lenses.

Any other thoughts?

[shuttertalk]

There's a great commentary over at The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/23/317669...competitor

The meaty bit is where Canon USA are not pushing it as a CSC competitor, but rather a video-first device. Very interesting... although in other markets it will definitely be marketed as a camera.

When we met with Canon, reps were careful to note what the EOS M is, and what it isn't. In the US, the company is positioning the EOS M as a video-first camera, designed to be something of a companion tool for videographers and cinematographers much the same way the G1 X is designed for pro shooters who want something smaller than their DSLR. Since it lacks a viewfinder, reps said, it doesn't provide the same still photography experience as a camera like the T4i. Without the controls and ergonomics of a DSLR, it's also not as fast to operate. Canon's not even calling the EOS M a "mirrorless camera," lest buyers be confused into thinking it's a NEX or Micro Four Thirds competitor. Though the camera's clearly capable of the same functionality as a NEX-F3 or an Olympus OM-D E-M5, Canon imagines a different user, one much more focused on video. If you want to step up from a point-and-shoot, reps said, buy a T4i.

[slejhamer]

Canon can finally compete with Sony! Yay!

I don't care for the aesthetics; looks too much like a Powershot S-model. Especially in silver or red. I'd have preferred a form factor more like that of the G1X, with buttons and dials, instead of a touch-screen menu. Just me.

But, in white ... with a red automotive racing stripe ... now that would be stylin'!

The EF-to-M mount adapter is going to be US$200? Seems spendy. But I guess that's a lot better than the aftermarket EF-to-NEX adapter. Haven't seen Canon's yet ... I wonder if it will change the focal length significantly.

Not sure about the need for a 22mm wide prime. I'd rather a "normal" (after the crop factor) 35mm f/2 ... now I'd have to get that AND the adapter. Does 22mm wide lend itself better to the alleged video-first marketing scheme?

The new EF-M zoom does nothing for me, with those apertures.

Assuming overall image quality is on par with other cameras using the same sensor, this could make a nice backup or grab-and-go alternative to my 60D. With the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, it would be great for indoor shooting and family get-togethers. A pancake EF-M 35 or 50 would be even better, if the optics are good.

Does it have the automatic sensor cleaning? I didn't see that spec. May have missed it.

In any case, I'll probably wait a generation or two ...

[Pavel]

I really do not get this camera. Whom is this for? For those not into photography, why bother with 2 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) interchangeable lenses. Buy a decent fixed lens camera with a zoom. For those into photography, this camera seems to have all the controls of a P&S. It is not so small. Just like Sony's lenses, Canon's are not all that much smaller than those for a DSLR. What am I missing here. I would buy mirrorless and accept extra cost and limitations (compared to a camera I have), because I want something smaller. If it is not much smaller, what am I getting? I really do not get this camera.

[shuttertalk]

Quite a few polarised opinions here!

I think one of the biggest weaknesses vs the other systems is the lack of an EVF or OVF - every other system there at least has the option of an EVF in one form or another. Perhaps it's a gen 2 feature or a different model down the track.

I think the biggest appeal will be for existing Canon DSLR users - it will be sticking with what is familiar and the opportunity to use existing lenses with full functionality via the adapter is great.

For non-Canon users it's a bit more of a head scratching exercise. It doesn't have the retro appeal of say the OM-D or the premium appeal of the Fuji X-Pro 1. It doesn't (yet) have the range of accessories or lenses to make it a complete ecosystem like M43. And like Pavel pointed out, the point and shoot controls won't win over anyone hoping for a DSLR shrinkage / replacement.

On the plus side though, when paired with the 22mm lens lens, what you do end up with is a souped-up compact with DSLR IQ, a nice bright fixed focal length lens, super-fast AF (To Be Confirmed) in a relatively compact package.

@Mitch, the sensor has a 1.6x crop factor, so the 22mm f2 lens will be a 35mm f2 equivalent.

[slejhamer]

@Mitch, the sensor has a 1.6x crop factor, so the 22mm f2 lens will be a 35mm f2 equivalent.

I get that... I just don't GET that! I'd want close to 50mm 'normal' equivalent if I have only one prime option.

The more I think about this, the more I think Canon missed the target market here ... or misdefined it. It's not going to be a pocket camera with a lens attached, so why not go for a full-blown Rangefinder style (a la G1x) with features that DSLR users would want in a small body - like an OVF.

[Pavel]

Quite a few polarised opinions here!

I think one of the biggest weaknesses vs the other systems is the lack of an EVF or OVF - every other system there at least has the option of an EVF in one form or another. Perhaps it's a gen 2 feature or a different model down the track.

I agree, about OVF/EVF, but it is particularly important to more advanced photographers but it is only one of many limitations.

I think the biggest appeal will be for existing Canon DSLR users - it will be sticking with what is familiar and the opportunity to use existing lenses with full functionality via the adapter is great.

Here is where I disagree - it is just as useless for Canon shooters as it is to everybody else. Why would you buy a new camera which is less powerful than the one you have, does not give you any new capability and (together with an extra adapter shaves only a few grams from the weight of your system? If I was a Canon shooter, this camera would be a nonstarter.

On the plus side though, when paired with the 22mm lens lens, what you do end up with is a souped-up compact with DSLR IQ, a nice bright fixed focal length lens, super-fast AF (To Be Confirmed) in a relatively compact package.

Ah, you mean a GX1 at higher cost and without the later camera sophistication?

[slejhamer]

Why would you buy a new camera which is less powerful than the one you have,

Because it's cute.

On the other hand, it looks really silly on the back of these lenses:

http://www.gizmodo.jp/upload_files/20120...son14.html

[slejhamer]

The EF-M adapter is larger than I would have hoped, but there's a built-in tripod mount.

http://www1.pcmag.com/media/images/35219...pg?thumb=y


Best/most ridiculous picture yet:
http://cdn.pocket-lint.com/images/GTFC/c...723-214842


Interesting comment from one review I came across:
"Canon told us on several occasions that the EOS M is aimed at those who want DSLR quality photos, but might find themselves overwhelmed with all the controls on offer. "

[Pavel]

Interesting comment from one review I came across:
"Canon told us on several occasions that the EOS M is aimed at those who want DSLR quality photos, but might find themselves overwhelmed with all the controls on offer. "

Interesting indeed. I guess they also need a DSLR photographer

[slejhamer]

Pavel, what are your thoughts on the competition's offerings? I think this is certainly competitive with Sony, and obviously much less expensive than the retro looking Fuji X-Pro1. The Fuji had an initial lens group (35mm, 60mm macro, 18mm wide) that made more sense to me than Canon's.

[Pavel]

Pavel, what are your thoughts on the competition's offerings? I think this is certainly competitive with Sony, and obviously much less expensive than the retro looking Fuji X-Pro1. The Fuji had an initial lens group (35mm, 60mm macro, 18mm wide) that made more sense to me than Canon's.

I like the Fuji system for serious photographers, perhaps it is even a replacement for DSLR, if the weight is a BIG issue and if you can live with the limited selection of lenses. Fuji has its idiosyncracies though in software and I see this as a risky but rational choice - I gave it a lot of thought.

Sony I do not get - tiny body but largish lenses and again only a few lenses. Given the size of lenses, is there enough weight benefit not to stay with DSLR? I do not think so.

Nikon's sensor is too small. considering that, it is a largish camera. The lens selection is very limited. I do not get it

Most people that buy system cameras (with interchangeable lenses) buy only one lens or end up using only one lens. I would recommend anybody but a serious shooter to stay with a fixed lens camera. Canon and others have good choices for different level of expertize and their lenses cover the sweet spot between 24mm equivalent and 100+mm equivalent.

For those that have the expertize, money and will to use the camera and lenses and are willing to carry the weight, I would recommend Canon or Nikon, primarily because of the line of lenses these 2 companies offer.

For those falling into the above group but are unable or unwilling to carry the weight of a camera and a few lenses, I feel that micro 4/3 is the primary option. (perhaps a leica for very well healed). There is a fairly complete list of lenses for micro 4/3 from fisheye to tele. There are some superb lenses among them. They are cheaper than DSLR lenses and yet of comparable caliber and they are 1/2-1/3 the weight. You need to go with primes to get shallow depth of field you get on a full frame DSLR with a zoom and you do not get the resolution, dynamic range or light sensitivity you get with current line of full frame DSLRs. You get "only" a decent or superb EVF and no OVF. As far as I know, those are the only drawbacks. I voted with my feet today and bought a system built around Olympus OMD-E5, a well received micro 4/3 camera. It is sitting in boxes together with a clutch of primes, filters etc. in the hall and I have no experience with it at this point, besides fidling with the camera at a show.

[shuttertalk]

Good points Pavel. I can't disagree with any of them.

However, I still think it's a bit premature to decide either way - seeing that it has just launched with 2 dedicated lenses, whereas M43 has had time build up a pretty comprehensive ecosystem.

If you compare it to when the M43 system was first introduced - it's pretty comparable to say what Olympus did with the E-P1. However, Canon are playing catch up now and maybe they haven't quite put their best foot forward.

[Pavel]

Good points Pavel. I can't disagree with any of them.

However, I still think it's a bit premature to decide either way - seeing that it has just launched with 2 dedicated lenses, whereas M43 has had time build up a pretty comprehensive ecosystem.

If you compare it to when the M43 system was first introduced - it's pretty comparable to say what Olympus did with the E-P1. However, Canon are playing catch up now and maybe they haven't quite put their best foot forward.

I agree in principle Julian. However, it is difficult to compare systems based on what the situation will be 4 years from now, say. We do not know what any of the systems will be like and in fact whether they will still be around. You can only judge based on what is knowable now. I can only say that creating a camera with a large sensor P&S interface and 2 interchangeable lenses which strike me more as alternatives than complements does not make obvious sense, as I can not imagine a pwerson to whom I would recommend this. Anobdy interested in this camera, I would probably say GX1, although obviously it has more sophisticated interface (which I assume can still be set up to use as a P&S). Yesterday I heard a salesman explaining to a customer buying a D7000 (!!!!) that it is OK if he does not plan to learn how to use it. You set it up on all automatic and when everything is automatic this green light comes on. I would have recommended an iPhone.

[slejhamer]

Yesterday I heard a salesman explaining to a customer buying a D7000 (!!!!) that it is OK if he does not plan to learn how to use it. You set it up on all automatic and when everything is automatic this green light comes on. I would have recommended an iPhone.

But he wants the one with the bigger GBs, and the WI-FIs.

After all, one needs a higher end DSLR to post duckface pictures of themselves on instagram.

[shuttertalk]

There's a good hands on video from TechRadar here, and I think the kit 18-55mm lens is actually quite small compared to a normal EF or EFs kit lens. The 22mm makes it even smaller.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras...580/review

I've been thinking on it some more, and I speculate that Canon and Nikon are established DSLR players, and the bottom line is that they are not going to do anything directly in competition or to cannibalise sales from their entry-mid level DSLR market. For Now. If they had produced an OM-D equivalent that could out-do a 7D then there would be no reason for consumers to buy their entry level DSLRs anymore. They themselves have the most to lose by entering the mirrorless market.

With Nikon they nerfed it with a smaller sensor size which (arguably) can't deliver the same IQ as APS-C, while Canon chose the "let's take away all the controls and turn it into a point and shoot" route. What they are doing though is laying the foundation by developing the ecosystem so when they are finally forced into playing in the mirrorless space, they at least have a foot in the game.

Thoughts?

[shuttertalk]

Aaand just because you can, here's a photo of a 800mm f5.6 IS mounted on a EOS M.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/canon...-f5-6l-is/

[Kombisaurus]

I don't know what all the complaints are about.

Clearly this is designed as an entry-level camera. It is trying to offer "DSLR quality" while being as non-threatening and non-technical looking as possible. And I know several people (such as my father) who would see this as the perfect camera. They're already used to shooting via LCD screen, so no EVF is no problem. They want the security of a zoom lens (although if you can trick them into shooting a prime, they will probably learn to love it). They love the IQ of a DSLR, the flexibility of owning a couple of lenses, but they aren't interested in any of the manual controls or technical stuff. Look at the Panasonic GF2, GF3, and GF5. There is a market for them.

But the camera is not the real news here, the new EF-M mount is the real news. Canon don't just develop a new lens mount on a whim, so this is the real indicator of things to come. And judging the whole EF-M mount based on this single camera is like judging the entire EF mount based on a Rebel film camera. The camera does not do the system justice.
Obviously there will be more cameras to come, and obviously Canon will release bodies and lenses that appeal to more advanced shooters. But it makes little sense in releasing advanced bodies until there are at least a few more lens and accessory choices out there. Releasing entry-level bodies into such a market is not as much a problem, because those buyers are more likely to just want to stick with the kit lens. But by releasing a 22mm pancake prime as well, they're giving an indication of where they're heading with this system. They have seen just how important lenses like the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 have been in giving Micro Four Thirds the credibility it has (and differentiating it from advanced compacts and providing justification for interchangable lenses), and so they're taking a similar approach.
They've chosen to stick with the APS-C sensor format instead of going smaller, and while I prefer the benefits of a smaller sensor (mostly in smaller lenses), I can see sensible reasoning behind sticking with APS-C.
The full compatibility (via adapter) with EF-S and EF lenses is sensible (and expected). And I expect that will be a major selling point. Although I did notice that Kipon announced on the very same day as Canon that they have developed an EF adapter for MFT and NEX systems that allows electronic aperture control of EF lenses. That's a pretty exciting product for me, although note that it only provides aperture control, not AF, IS, or lens EXIF data.

But back to Canon...
It also makes no sense in announcing a bunch of different lenses and bodies all at once. Sure it will grab headlines, but they will soon fade. If you drip-feed new products to the public then you can grab headlines again and again, and really give consumers a sense that this system is expanding over time. Remember that this camera is just the very first step.

I don't know about you guys, but I think this is a really sensible entry into this market by Canon (unlike the train wreck system that Nikon released). The EF-M mount is full of potential and I can't see any fatal flaws.
It might be another year or two before Canon have a camera out that I would seriously consider for myself, but I think they're heading in the right direction. They've clearly learned a lot from Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony's experiences and applied the results to their own products. Really it's the lens selection that will determine my interest in this system. And given Canon's resources and history, they absolutely have the potential to become the dominant mirrorless player with the EF-M mount. But it won't be this particular camera that does it for them.

[slejhamer]

Clearly this is designed as an entry-level camera.

That's why it's disappointing to me.

But for the masses, it's probably alright. We'll see!

[shuttertalk]

Here's a great link showing every lens in Canon's stable attached to a EOS M (or is it the other way round). Yes, all at the same time!

http://www.canonwatch.com/review-next-eo...-round-up/

They also do a roundup of all the EOS M reviews on the web, so it's very useful. One interesting conclusion from CameraLabs review:

having compatibility (with some limitations) to the entire EF lens catalogue which makes it extremely tempting to existing Canon DSLR owners. Second is having a decent sized APS-C sensor with performance that’s identical to an existing EOS DSLR. Third, for me anyway, is also sharing the movie capabilities of EOS DSLRs including a decent array of frame rates, full manual exposure control, audio level adjustment and the chance to connect an external microphone. Fourth is the standard hotshoe, which can accommodate any of the Canon Speedlites, and fifth is the decent touch-screen interface which includes pinch and swiping gestures. As for the hybrid AF system, this could become a big plus point or a negative depending on its performance in practice.

[shuttertalk]

Ha ha, and for a bit of humour on a Friday afternoon, Ken Rockwell claims that "The Canon EOS M is the world's first serious mirrorless camera". Yep, you heard that right... and by serious he means professional grade.

Sony, Samsung, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and other third-tier brands offer lots of mirrorless cameras, but then aren't pro grade; they are just consumer electronics products and usually only with smaller 4/3 sensors (or smaller) and/or lens mounts often with few advanced lenses available.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ken-rock...ss-camera/

I'm not sure how he can say that with a straight face...

[Pavel]

I thought that Ken Rockwell favored Brownies as the first pro grade mirrorless cameras.

[Pavel]

And given Canon's resources and history, they absolutely have the potential to become the dominant mirrorless player with the EF-M mount. But it won't be this particular camera that does it for them.

This is well reasoned Adrian and I agree with most/all you wrote. In my comments, I am talking right here and now, since it is hard to tell what will happen a few years down the road. At my age, you are looking at the system that will be good today and not what it will grow into 5 to 10 years from now. Chances are, I will be out of photography by than.

The part I did not agree with you is that there are people (not necessarily serious photographers) to whom one could recommend the current camera. I think given the limited number of lenses available, one can do better with a fixed lens camera (or less likely a smallish camera with a good selection of smallish lenses). When it comes to image quality of a large sensor, I think it is in practice not very relevant to casual shooters, as they are unlikely to print big or shoot at high enough ISO (in program mode) to make the noise distracting on small prints or JPEGs. At best, they will do slightly better on the "craft side" of photography. I like a camera to have features that give you more creative options, thus giving an opportunity to enhance the "art" aspects of photography. Getting all the many things right that makes a good photo is far more important than the sensor size. I really can not conceive a shooter to whom I would recommend this system TODAY. It may well turn out to be a good system for family shooters. serious shooters or pros one day, but not now, I believe. Time will tell.