Canon EOS-M mirrorless: all major players are now on the field

[Chris Pollock]

Although I have a pretty good collection of Canon lenses, this camera does nothing for me. My Olympus OM-D EM-5 has a smaller sensor, but the image stabilization, faster lenses, and EVF (making it easier to hold steady) should more than make up for that. Using bulky full-frame lenses with an adaptor also rather defeats the purpose of having a smaller camera.

More generally, I find it annoying that each company feels the need to bring out its own system, with the honourable exception of Micro Four Thirds. Rather than numerous similar but incompatible systems, it would be much better to have one or two compatible systems, so that we could mix and match the best lenses and bodies from different manufacturers. Yet another sad example of the free market failing to serve the best interests of consumers.

[OldRoy]

To me this is pitched directly against the Nikon CX format, despite the sensor size difference, by the inclusion of the adaptor at launch. Like a lot of people with existing Nikon lenses I was initially attracted to the V1 for this reason. The V1's deficiencies - sensor performance; lack of external controls - made me reject it (in favour of an OM-D). I'd say that the many already apparent deficiencies of the Canon offering, lack of a vf for one, make it unattractive to the "serious amateur" who isn't already a Canon loyalist.

No doubt the development of both Nikon and Canon's offerings in this market sector will address their initial deficiencies. However the Nikon CX format will still permit small lenses...
Roy

[32BT]

Does it finally have an MLU switch instead of a direct print button?   Oh, wait…

[Pingang]

SONY is the first to include such adapters with more sense because it is just a 1.5X sensor, as does Canon's 1.6X sensor. Nikon V/J is a bit off except of course on the tele side.
Almost without doubt there will be more models from Canon, they will sell better than the Nikon V/J I suppose, but may be a tough fight against SONY.
I still think the NEX-7 is leading.

Pingang

To me this is pitched directly against the Nikon CX format, despite the sensor size difference, by the inclusion of the adaptor at launch. Like a lot of people with existing Nikon lenses I was initially attracted to the V1 for this reason. The V1's deficiencies - sensor performance; lack of external controls - made me reject it (in favour of an OM-D). I'd say that the many already apparent deficiencies of the Canon offering, lack of a vf for one, make it unattractive to the "serious amateur" who isn't already a Canon loyalist.

No doubt the development of both Nikon and Canon's offerings in this market sector will address their initial deficiencies. However the Nikon CX format will still permit small lenses...
Roy

[Isaac]

EOS M EF-M 22mm STM Kit

Canon EOS M: hands-on preview of Canon's first mirrorless EOS

Canon announces two EF-M lenses to accompany EOS M mirrorless camera

[David S]

So it appears that "standard" EF lens will not work.

Dave S

[aduke]

Canon also announced an adapter to fit the EF lenses.

Alan

[AFairley]

Lots of body colors -- obviously targeted at a market of which I am not a part.

[BJL]

Lots of body colors -- obviously targeted at a market of which I am not a part.

Yes, with four body colors but not even a connector for an accessory EVF, or a tiltable screen, this is clearly not aimed at the photographic enthusiasts found in forums like this. It is instead a first model aimed at the far larger market for a small, simple camera as step-up to an interchangeable lens system. Today, that probably means jumping straight from a camera-phone, and this camera offers the most phone-like touch-screen interface of any system camera so far.

Looking beyond this model, Canon does seem to have set fairly good foundations for future development of the system, like offering the best lens backward compatibility options of any mirrorless system through the combination of PDAF with using the sensor size for which most Canon DSLR lenses (the EF-S ones) are designed. The huge number of EF and EF-S lenses already in use will help.

Still, my preference for any such "compact system camera" is looking forward not backward to old lenses, and using the most compact kit that gets the job done or will son as technology advances. Since 4/3" format (and maybe even Nikon's 1" format) looks able to do that for me, the lenses for this or any "APS-C" system (zoom and telephotos at least) seem doomed to make my desired kit bulkier than other viable options. Starting with that very NEX-like, 61mm long, non-collapsing 3x standard zoom. But perhaps I should wait to see what Canon offers for telephoto zooms.

[NikoJorj]

The rumour sites (don't laugh, they have a good record of eventually filtering the information they receive and getting things right) did say that the first Canon CSC wouldn't be a top end model. So they got that right. They also say that other and more upmarket models will/may follow depending upon market reception.

That leads to another question : will that top-end model be closer to 2k or 3k?

I am actually much more excited about the 22mm lens, this will be an ideal lens for travelling light, say, with a small DSLR.

Alas! It's in shorter-flange EF-M mount, so it won't fit on a DSLR, only a mirrorless.

Does it finally have an MLU switch instead of a direct print button?   Oh, wait…

You're kidding, but it's quite a revolution : there is no direct print button! OMG!

But for me, having both EF, EFS and µ4/3(MFT) lenses, I'd rather buy a GF3 in sale.

[fike]

I had an interesting experience working with a photo neophyte. After seeing my good results carrying my Olympus Pen camera in China, she was interested in buying it second-hand.  After borrowing it, she was frustrated that she couldn't get good pictures of her daughter's school play or gymnastics or anything for that matter.  She wondered outloud..."do I need to get one of those big honkin' DSLRs to catch those shots." ...I had to talk her back away from the edge. I explained that unless she wanted to engage in some substantial photo-education she wouldn't get much better results from the DSLRs either.  What I learned from her response is that to the mass-market, these smaller mirrorless cameras bring with them the baggage of inferiority from the digicams because they share the form factor.  In the end, smaller form factors with larger sensors may remain the only the purview of the enthusiast because they are the only ones able to appreciate and work with their strengths and weaknesses.

As for my other responses to the canon mirrorless camera.  I don't like that it only has two lenses that are sized right.  I can't imagine putting my 24-105 on that body and actually using it.  Of course, that is pretty absurd.  How about my 100-400. Nope, that would not be a practical rig either.  The compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses is mostly just a novelty.  Some folks may use them in a pinch, but not for regular toting around.  

The manufacturers that, to me, have a leg-up in this middle-ground mirrorless camera (between up and coming camera phones and full frame DSLRs) need to have a good collection of matched compact lenses. MFT has that, and they seem to be getting better on their sensor technology.  Panasonic and Olympus could find themselves a niche between the down-market moves of full frame and the up-market moves of camera phones.  Sony seems to also have a decent play here, but their lenses are still pretty big.  They miniaturized the body, but not the glass.

So, mini-DSLRs without the lens have the liability of an inferiority complex gotten from digicams, and the liability of big lenses from their DSLR brethren.  

I can't imagine the ergonomics of this little wonder will be anything other than abysmal.  Touch screens are not great for making pictures.  

[BernardLanguillier]

they will sell better than the Nikon V/J I suppose

It seems that the J1 is in fact selling well, at least in Japan.

I find the concept and target audience to be more clear and coherent. It is super simple to use, has a matching very streamlined design, focuses extremely well and has a sensor that is excellent compared to those of compact cameras, and not that bad in absolute terms. The 1 series is clearly and absolutely not designed for us experts, but it matches near perfectly the needs of the population it was designed for.

The Canon seems to be the result of many internal compromises inside Canon and ends up being incredibly middle of the road... too much camera and not sexy enough for fashion camera folks, not differentiated enough performance wise for experts, if the current performance level is an indication... too slow for everyone.

There is little doubt that it will sell well, mostly thanks to the Canon logo and marketing machine though but it seems very defensive a move.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paulo Bizarro]

The Nikon J1, at least in some geopgraphical areas, has come down quite a lot in price. The new EOS-M seems to be rather similar to the J1, but with a much larger sensor, better build, and touch screen. No doubt later on we will something more "serious" on this EOS-M series.

I am just happy to see all the big ones entering the fray of the "small camera, large sensor" market segment; I am also happy to see that Canon has chosen a APS-C sensor, like the Fuji X100, Leica X2, and Sigma DP cameras.

Indeed, I initially presumed that the 22 mm lens could be used on a DSLR, but no... well, here is hoping for a similar lens for a DSLR, with IS!

[BJL]

I can't imagine putting my 24-105 on that body and actually using it. ... The compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses is mostly just a novelty.

I am just a bit less skeptical about SLR lens adaptors for mirrorless system cameras. I agree that in practice, most users will start with one or two of the small, light lenses designed for the new system and leave SLR lenses behind, maybe adding more dedicated lenses later. But I can see an adaptor being useful in the transition for people with a bunch of lenses for their "APS-C" format DSLR, in particular for keeping a good telephoto lens in use. With longer, faster lenses, there is little opportunity for a dedicated mirrorless lens design to be much smaller or lighter than existing SLR designs, so there is more advantage to being able keep using the SLR telephoto lenses one has. Particularly since I suspect that telephoto lenses faster than f/5.6 at the long end will be slow to come to mirrorless systems. For me it would not be an EF lens but my Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5, which does not yet have any counterpart in any mirrorless system.

One fly in the ointment about EOS-M's "Unique Selling Point" of having PDAF with an APS-C format sensor: it seems that tests of this hybrid of in-sensor PDAF and CDAF in the 650D/T4i show it to be far inferior to Canon's SLR PDAF poor when used with "legacy" SLR lenses, and slower overall than the CDAF in recent m4/3 bodies. But it is first generation technology, so that might improve quickly.

By the way, I am still totally perplexed by the complaints about "big lens, small body imbalance": surely big lenses are normally supported and balanced by a left hand (or tripod) under the lens barrel, not with both hands on the camera body!? Canon does have a cute idea in the tripod mount on its EF-M to EF lens adaptor!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I am still totally perplexed by the complaints about "big lens, small body imbalance":..

Visually.

[fike]

I think most photographers will prefer to use those really big lenses on the larger bodies.  The auto focus performance and balance of the device will be far more conducive to the typical applications for the large telephotos we are discussing--things like sports and wildlife in particular.  The barrier to entry into these fields is already high with the prices of super telephotos, in particular. I don't think a mirrorless body is likely to see its way to the football sideline or to serious wildlife photography anytime soon.

[fike]

Visually.

not just visually. photographing birds in flight, for example requires good balance.  The relationship between the photographer and camera becomes more like a person shooting skeet.  Things need to be balanced and fluid.  The shape and size of the camera as well as the performance of the viewfinder/screen really can have a big impact on tracking in telephoto action photography.

[BJL]

fike, there are two separate issues here.

1. The technical advantages of large professional DSLRs in AF, frame rate and so on. No dispute there, but there is a lot more to telephoto lens usage than BIF and professional sports, and this has little connection to my comment about balance, referring to the endless drivel from some (not you) about the difficultly of supporting a heavy lens with the tiny handgrip of a small body, as if any competent photographer support a big lens that way. As to snickering at images of 600mm lenses on 200g bodies: that is merely a "visual" issue as Slobodan indicated, and not what I was commenting on at all. So back to what I was actually commenting on ...

2. Balance. How does a lighter body cause problems at all? Are you assuming that the position of the left hand on the lens barrel is rigidly prescribed? Surely one can achieve equally good balance by placing one's left hand a few centimeters further forward on the lens barrel with a lighter body, a few cm back with a heavier one. In fact, the bigger and heavier then lens, the less variation needed for a given change in camera body weight: the balanced hand position will be very close to the center of mass of the lens regardless of body.

[fike]

fike, there are two separate issues here.

1. The technical advantages of large professional DSLRs in AF, frame rate and so on. No dispute there, but there is a lot more to telephoto lens usage than BIF and professional sports, and this has little connection to my comment about balance, referring to the endless drivel from some (not you) about the difficultly of supporting a heavy lens with the tiny handgrip of a small body, as if any competent photographer support a big lens that way. As to snickering at images of 600mm lenses on 200g bodies: that is merely a "visual" issue as Slobodan indicated, and not what I was commenting on at all. So back to what I was actually commenting on ...

2. Balance. How does a lighter body cause problems at all? Are you assuming that the position of the left hand on the lens barrel is rigidly prescribed? Surely one can achieve equally good balance by placing one's left hand a few centimeters further forward on the lens barrel with a lighter body, a few cm back with a heavier one. In fact, the bigger and heavier then lens, the less variation needed for a given change in camera body weight: the balanced hand position will be very close to the center of mass of the lens regardless of body.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I am, after all, planning to get the adapter to allow me to mount my Canon 400 f/4 on my OM-D, but that usage is going to be fairly uncommon.  I think if I were to use that combination, it would be a situation that I was working from my car, so I wouldn't have any substantial reason NOT to go ahead and use my large Canon DSLR that I am also carrying in the car.  What these smaller cameras excel at is going light for travel, street photography, or more extended backcountry trekking where you aren't likely to be carrying these big guns anyway. 

Balance-wise, generally serious work with larger super-telephotos is done tripod mounted--often with a gimbal head.  I am sure someone will make an 'L' bracket or something to work with these combos, but I personally think it will be a corner case of actual usage. 

Big lenses on small mirrorless bodies won't feel right and will diminish the convenience and portability that the small body brings.

[BJL]

my Canon 400 f/4 on my OM-D, ...  I think if I were to use that combination, it would be a situation that I was working from my car, so I wouldn't have any substantial reason NOT to go ahead and use my large Canon DSLR that I am also carrying in the car.  What these smaller cameras excel at is going light for travel, street photography, or more extended backcountry trekking where you aren't likely to be carrying these big guns anyway.

That is an excellent point: mostly, if one already has some serious big SLR lenses and an SLR, you might as well keep using them on that SLR body, with its superior AF and so on. My telephoto lenses are not as big and heavy as the ones you mention, so I still see a reason for keeping one or two nice specialty lenses (like my 1Kg 50-200/2.8-3.5) in _occasional_ use without carrying a second, SLR, body (which would add another 500g at least to my hiking kit) just for those lenses.

The more common case might be the person starting from scratch with system cameras who has never owned an SLR or lenses for it, chooses a compact mirrorless system for the main use case of a lightweight system, and then just occasionally wants to carry a bigger or more specialized lens that is not yet available for that system, without having to buy an SLR body just for that lens.

But both are stop-gaps and edge cases, and now Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have extra incentive to keep the m43 and NEX lens system development well ahead of Canon's EF-M, to make the point that you do not need to rely on the fiddle of adaptors if you choose a more mature, complete mirrorless system.