Canon EOS M Officially Announced

Canon is now officially in the compact system camera game. Someone started a thread about it on the Canon forum on Monday but I figured we needed one here, too. I also finished my own Canon EOS M announcement / analysis article today. For those who are interested in the EOS M features and specs and my thoughts on the camera, here's my announcement article:

The New Canon EOS M Compact System Camera – A Mini T4i / 650D | Camera News & Reviews

What do you guys think of the EOS M? Is Canon too late with their mirrorless offering? Does the camera look good to you? Or does it even matter because Canon is so big its going to sell no matter what? I'd like to know what you think. By the way, you can also post comments at the bottom of the article page and even share it on your Facebook page. The conversation, the better :)

It's an interesting challenge to micro 4/3 and all the other compact systems.
The Nikon 1 series and Canon EOS-M will sell just because of the brand.

Even though practically I think my OMD-D E-M5 is much better, I can see the marketing push behind it will give huge sales.
And then when people actually try to put an EF lens on it, joining the Canon system, they'll realise what an unmanageable monster they've made.

I'd compare it to the E-P1, no viewfinder, no optional device interface, no tilting screen, no weatherproofing. And a much more limited lens range - really is it only two EF-M lenses?

It took a long time for the E-M5 to appear, and that's what I'm waiting for from Canon.
A camera to match the E-M5.
And a lens range to match the Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 put together.
Canon have a long way to go, will this go the way of APS or will it survive?

They have a $200 converter mount to allow all EF lenses, so I would suppose this thing is instantly king of the mirrorless lens domain. I really liked the idea of the mirrorless cameras when I first saw them, a P&S box to house your sensor and abilities to use real glass, but now I think it might be a bit of a confused class. I can't pan without a viewfinder, and the lack of box translates to a lack of button space and thereby dreaded menus. (Plus, my hams need a body to grasp!) I've been led to thinking, though, this is the first mirrorless camera to have decent autofocus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MotorToad

They have a $200 converter mount to allow all EF lenses, so I would suppose this thing is instantly king of the mirrorless lens domain. I really liked the idea of the mirrorless cameras when I first saw them, a P&S box to house your sensor and abilities to use real glass, but now I think it might be a bit of a confused class. I can't pan without a viewfinder, and the lack of box translates to a lack of button space and thereby dreaded menus. (Plus, my hams need a body to grasp!) I've been led to thinking, though, this is the first mirrorless camera to have decent autofocus.

---

But do you really want to put your L lenses on a mirrorless camera body? Sure, you can do it. But doesn't that defeat the purpose of the smaller camera format? I think it does. As for auto focus, the jury is out. I haven't had a chance to realy test it yet, but I played with a T4i / 650D in the store and was not impressed with the speed of the live view AF. Yes, Canon has a new auto focus system, but I don't think it's that good yet.

I agree John.
The existing micro 4/3 lens line from all manufacturers has relatively small (but small aperture) lenses in keeping with the size of the bodies.

For me, the reason to use micro 4/3 was to lose weight so I could actually pick up and use the cameras while recovering from surgery. They have proved usable for motorsport in sunlight, and there's no way I would put a 2lb EF 24-70 or 3.25lb 20-200 onto the EOS-M. I wouldn't be able to lift it and use it !
On the other hand the TS-E lens would be cool on that body, but since Kipon announced full function EF adapters for NEX and micro 4/3 - why do I need another body?

The only reason to use the EOS-M, for me, is if the AI Servo focus has normal DSLR speed.
My lowly 20D could do most motorsport, including F1 as a backup body.
But the killer then becomes the range of EOS-M lenses - or lack of it.

According to some who have tried both, the autofocus on the OM-D beats the EOS-M hands down.

That's half the reason I'm tending to "confused." Good glass is very rarely not big glass, outside the 50 and especially the new 40, so anything that I'm interested in the body weight advantage just isn't. I could see this justified if it cost less than a T3, but that's hardly the case. (Speaking of that, where is the cost here?)

As far as I can read it, things are thus:

1. It's small and light, great for taking higher quality snapshots for monitor viewing... except that iPhones these days are going to take as good of pics for this and you're already carrying it.

2. It has a big sensor in a small body! Oh yeah, we already mentioned lenses...

3. Studio work? No advantage to the size of the box on the stick.

4. Sports? You're kidding, right? Even if the focus is half as good as it's said to be, panning and telephoto lenses kill its advantages. And the menus instead of buttons; I can't imagine being trackside and trying to change settings to go between long down-the-straight head-on shots and close-up at the apex panning shots.

It's hard for me to judge where cameras are going. I get kind of bent out of shape when I see these iPhone galleries that take really artsy and high quality shots with a stinking phone, while I'm carrying this stone-age box full of moving parts. But I at least know they can't do that with a 300 mm lens chasing motorcycles. Yet.

So, yeah, I think it's confused. Or I am. :)

I think Canon is a little too late with a little too little. Make sense?

At any rate, I think some people will just automatically go with the name and buy the camera. However, m4/3 has come a long way, especially since the EM5 and other newer cameras have a LOT more to offer than what Canon's first edition includes.

I don't understand the reasoning behind an expensive adaptor so you can attach huge lenses. As a matter of fact, I have gotten images with some of my m4/3 lenses that are comparable to what I used to get with some of my "L" lenses. IMO one big reason for people buying M4/3 is the size and weight.

A couple of years ago, I couldn't carry around the weight of my nice Canon gear anymore. It took me the best part of a year to finally decide to sell my Canon gear and invest in the M4/3 sytem, and to be honest I haven't looked back.

I'm thrilled with the progress made since then - especially with Panasonic and Olympus giving us the option to use their lenses interchangeably - Wow!

With all the above, and especially with all that others mentioned here, I really don't think Canon will automatically go to the top of the M4/3 rating list of manufacturers. Just my two cents.

Sorry Canon!

Liz

John I think it's a great looking camera. It all depends on image quality. I don't how ever think hard nose pros that shoot weddings or sports will use a compacts as their main camera but Canon really needed to put something out there. As with all their gear I am sure it will be a nice little carry all.
It certainly looks good. Great for primes.
I am sure Canon may be a little behind but sometimes the last one in winds up making the biggest splash...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

John I think it's a great looking camera. It all depends on image quality. I don't how ever think hard nose pros that shoot weddings or sports will use a compacts as their main camera but Canon really needed to put something out there. As with all their gear I am sure it will be a nice little carry all.
It certainly looks good. Great for primes.
I am sure Canon may be a little behind but sometimes the last one in winds up making the biggest splash...lol

---

I didn't mean to imply that pros should or would replace their DSLR kits with a compact system camera like the EOS M - or any other mirrorless camera, for that matter. I think for most working photographers, a mirrorless camera is a complement and alternative to the digital SLR - not a replacement. I wouldn't take one to shoot a race. But I love compact system cameras when I'm mountain biking and for travel where some compromise is perfectly reasonable. I *can* ride with a digital SLR. But if I can get the same, or nearly the same performance and results with a smaller and lighter camera, I'm going with the smaller, lighter kit.

Beginners, point-and-shoot photographers and less committed photographers could very well choose a compact system camera over a DSLR. That makes perfect sense - they're smaller, lighter, generally less intimidating, and they now cost about the same or even less than a DSLR. A camera like the EOS M, designed more like a point-and-shoot than a DSLR, is a natural progression for a casual photographer used to a point-and-shoot who wants the performance of a digital SLR.

Good point about the last one doing things the best. By waiting, Canon let everyone else make most of the development mistakes. And I'm sure the image quality is excellent. I have an EOS 7D, which I believe has either the same or a very similar sensor, and the image quality is great. I think they may have improved the low light performance a bit since the T4i / 650D has a one stop increase in ISO settings. I have to try one of the cameras to know for sure, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

I didn't mean to imply that pros should or would replace their DSLR kits with a compact system camera like the EOS M - or any other mirrorless camera, for that matter. I think for most working photographers, a mirrorless camera is a complement and alternative to the digital SLR - not a replacement. I wouldn't take one to shoot a race. But I love compact system cameras when I'm mountain biking and for travel where some compromise is perfectly reasonable. I *can* ride with a digital SLR. But if I can get the same, or nearly the same performance and results with a smaller and lighter camera, I'm going with the smaller, lighter kit.

Beginners, point-and-shoot photographers and less committed photographers could very well choose a compact system camera over a DSLR. That makes perfect sense - they're smaller, lighter, generally less intimidating, and they now cost about the same or even less than a DSLR. A camera like the EOS M, designed more like a point-and-shoot than a DSLR, is a natural progression for a casual photographer used to a point-and-shoot who wants the performance of a digital SLR.

Good point about the last one doing things the best. By waiting, Canon let everyone else make most of the development mistakes. And I'm sure the image quality is excellent. I have an EOS 7D, which I believe has either the same or a very similar sensor, and the image quality is great. I think they may have improved the low light performance a bit since the T4i / 650D has a one stop increase in ISO settings. I have to try one of the cameras to know for sure, though.

---

I believe that it is the same sensor as the T4i simce they both have the limited main sensor PDAF. - Terry