New EOS-M?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/03/canon-eos-m2-mirrorless-camera/

If true, the current version might drop even further in price.

<p>It's official now: <a href="http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2013-12/pr-eos-m2.html">http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2013-12/pr-eos-m2.html</a> (run Google translation). English <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/canon-eos-m2-gets-official/">spec list</a> is also available.</p>

<p>Seems like a minor update, though it does seem to address the problem of AF speed. But I find it odd that they use Hybrid CMOS AF II and not the dual pixel system from the 70D. Hopefully we'll know a North American price soon.</p>

<p> </p>

DPReview's take on things

<p>

http://m.dpreview.com/news/2013/12/03/canon-announces-eos-m2-in-japan

<p>From the DP site <em>"It appears that the EOS M2 won't be sold in either the European or US markets."</em></p>

<p>I hope it becomes available in the US. A few will wander to this country regardless. KEH seems to be a good place to find such stuff; they always have a few Kiss-branded Rebels from the Japanese market.</p>

<p>Seems like a pretty half-hearted "upgrade" and nothing to likely to convince anyone that Canon have a serious investment in the EOS-M series.</p>

<p>Not being sold in Europe and North America seems to make absolutely no sense either. If you're going to bother to build it why not sell it - unless Canon don't see any market for the M series in Europe and North America, so they don't think it's worth the trouble of marketing it. That also would not bode well for the future of the M system.</p>

<p>You can hardly even call it an upgrade. Back in the early Fall though, the word on the internet was that Canon was going to release two models to replace the current M, a low-end version and a high-end version. This definitely sounds like the low end version!</p>

<p>Pretty much anything anyone can make up is "the word on the internet". I'll believe it when I see it (maybe...).</p>

<p>This isn't even a "low end" version (for us) if it really isn't going to be sold in the US, which seems likely since there is no mention of it on the Canon US website, only the Canon Japan website. That doesn't happen if they intend to sell it here. Mirrorless camera sales have been falling fast in the US (down 30%) and Europe (down 50%) - and falling much faster than DSLR sales - but gaining market share in Japan and Asia. Maybe the decision to only sell it in Japan reflects this. The question then is whether it makes any sense for Canon to bring out a "high end" M model for the US and Europe.</p>

<p>Pretty funny to call it the M and M2 given that Leica has been using M[x] for their cameras for decades and their latest camera is called just the M. The EOS M does not profit by the comparison.</p>

<p>It is dirt cheap. Kind of reminds me of the Blackberry tablet they fire-saled a while back. If a camera is cheap it doesn't have to be great (or even that good) and the EOS M is probably a capable APS-C camera. I expect though that no-one is contemplating abandoning their 5D mk III for the EOS M.</p>

<p>That's not the market. It's the Rebel users who want something they think is smaller, or the digicam users who think they want a larger sensor or the Smartphone users who want something more versatile.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, none of these groups are buying heavily into the Canon EOS M series, and in fact the numbers show they are not buying into mirrorless cameras at all. In all likelyhood, they just aren't buying anything and sticking with what they have.</p>

<p>One advantage the EOS M has over the Leica M is that you can pick up an EOS M body for around $240, which is around $6750 than the Leica, or a factor of about 28x in price. My guess is that image quality (even allowing for lenses and larger sensor) probably differs by significantly less than a factor of 2. Yes, the EOS-M really is a bargain (especially compared with the Leica).</p>

<p>Well, I shall have a look at the M2 when it comes out. Having a faster AF would be nice but I shall have to see if it is worth $600+. Probably not.</p>

<p>The M was released 18 months ago with an initial price of $800, and look at it now. The M2 price will fall too.</p>

<p>Larger question is whether it will ever be generally available outside of Japan.</p>

<p>I too am amused by the parallels with Leica's naming scheme.</p>

<p><em>"Mirrorless camera sales have been falling fast in the US (down 30%) and Europe (down 50%)..."</em><br>

<em><br /></em>I read this somewhere else a few days ago and was surprised by this. It's amazing how much money has been invested into this area for such poor return. As much as the new mirrorless cameras are touted, I would have thought that sales were much better than what they apparently are, or at least that there was some financial motivation to continue producing new products.</p>

<p>I got the numbers reversed - it's about 30% down in Europe and 50% in the US</p>

<p>The data are here - <a href="http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201310_e.pdf">http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201310_e.pdf</a></p>

<p>For Jan-Oct 2013, "non-reflex interchangeable lens" shipments to Europe were 71.9% of those of Jan-Oct 2012 (SLRs 79.8%)<br /> For Jan-Oct 2013, "non-reflex interchangeable lens" shipments to the Americas were 51.3% of those of Jan-Oct 2012 (SLRs 87.8%)<br /> For Jan-Oct 2013 "non-reflex interchangeable lens" shipments to Japan were 112.8% of those of Jan-Oct 2012 (SLRs 139.8%)</p>

<p>Only Japan seems to have a growing market. Europe, The Americas, Asia and "Other Areas) are all declining, though Asia is actually holding just about even for mirrorless shipments (92.9% but 105.5% in terms of revenue).</p>

<p>Given these numbers you can see why Canon is targeting the EOS M2 at Japan and ignoring the rest of the world.</p>

<p>Maybe sales are dropping because the mirrorless market is saturating. Most of those who wanted to switch to mirrorless from whatever they had have already done so and we're looking mainly at "upgrades" now?</p>

Hopefully it will be available in Asia outside Japan. Although I've always fancied going to Japan.

<p>Those stats confirm the anecdotes and summaries I'd been reading around the web the past year. Apparently mirrorless and enthusiast P&S's are still reasonably strong *other than* in N. America and Europe. Cult cameras like the various Ricoh GR's have a solid following in Asia but not much distribution in N. America.</p>

<p>There's still plenty of room for competition, if not growth, in the mirrorless and high end P&S class, if only because not a single manufacturer has gotten it quite right yet - at least if you go by web chatter. And I'm inclined to agree.</p>

<p>So far there's no mirrorless or high end P&S that combines the APS sensor, the effective in-camera stabilization of the Olympus OM-D, the ultra-fast AF of the Nikon 1 System, either the V1 EVF or the RX100 form factor, the ergonomics of the Ricoh GR, the viewfinder of the Fuji X100/s, the TTL/CLS flash of the ... oh, wait, even Nikon hasn't bothered to get that right even with the V2 or Coolpix A.</p>

<p>So there's still some room for improvement.</p>

<p>Oh, and it should cost under $500. I think that was the price point the internet wanted. And a free light saber. And jetpacks.</p>

<p>I spent some time last night looking at EOS-M videos on YouTube. One did a direct compare with Canon point and shoots. The controls were almost identical. Bob's right, it's a point and shoot with a bigger sensor and interchangeable lenses. The Sony, Olympus, and others are more like attempts to replace DSLRs. In a sense this camera is a red herring. Canon isn't really putting out a bad mirrorless camera, they're not putting one out at all really, just a new more capable point and shoot. But does anyone want this type of camera? I'm guessing the answer is few.</p>

<p><em>"But does anyone want this type of camera? I'm guessing the answer is few."</em></p>

<p>I guess I'm one of the few. I've wanted a p&s that had most of the capability and control of a DSLR in a very compact body, and with a big sensor. I had hoped that the G-series would become that camera and it seemed to do so in the G1X. But when the M came out with an even slightly larger sensor (probably a negligible difference in image quality) and an even smaller body, I was excited, and even more so after having used it for alomost two months. Yes, the physical controls are identical to many of the PowerShots and the body is roughly the same size but that's about where the similarity ends. The touchscreen offers even more control and the menus are straight out of the EOS cameras, offering the same level of control as many of the Canon DSLRs. Plus, in addition to the two new lenses it introduces to my arsenal, with the adapter the full range of EOS lenses is available as well. So it's a "more capable point and shoot" that's fully compatible with my EOS system and produces images of the same quality as my 7D, and at current prices costs $250 less than a new G16. That's a lot in a tidy, inexpensive package.</p>

<p>The EOS-M either works for you or it doesn't. Yes, commercially for Canon it was a flop but now that prices have dropped so drastically a lot of photographers who wouldn't have tried the camera otherwise are now buying it or considering doing so. I'm one of those photographers. To be quite honest, I'm not really a huge mirrorless fan and I don't want any mirrorless camera badly enough to pay what most of them cost, so getting this one for the price of a PowerShot SX280 HS is quite a nice deal. As for the M2, the improved AF sounds nice but the current AF works well enough for what I shoot these days, as does the M in general and best of all, I enjoy using it. But if the M2 should make its way to our shores at a similar price, I'd try it. If Canon releases a version of the M/M2 with more capability and is a competent alternative to the best models on the market, I'd consider paying a higher price for it, but probably still not the $1000+ prices a lot of mirrorless cameras go for. That's money to put towards my future 5DIII. For now though my current M is a lot of fun and I'm really enjoying making pictures with it. That's what it's really all about for me anyway.</p>

<p>I'm apparently one of the few as well. I think the M is kinda brilliant - that is, making a very compact mirrorless that takes EF lenses and supports all their features.</p>

<p>My heavy kit is a 5D mk 3 and a set of generally large lenses. For some events I also take a 5D mk I and a 30D. I used all three last night, and four different lenses, shooting portraits and candids at a community theater. I work mostly without a flash and often in very low light.</p>

<p>My light kit is a Canon D10, the waterproof P&S. Decent image quality in good light, and nearly indestructible. I carry it pretty much everywhere.</p>

<p>I like the D10, but it's got problems. It's bad in low light and it can't shoot RAW. The AF is slow, and the zoom range and video modes are unimpressive. Meanwhile the 5D3 is very heavy and large. It's fairly loud. And it's expensive so I have to be careful taking it some places.</p>

<p>It would be nice to have a medium kit with much better low-light performance. A mirrorless camera seems ideal for that purpose, but I don't really want to invest into a whole new camera system. So the EOS M makes a ton of sense to me. It can use all my existing lenses. It's small and light and great in low light. It's quieter than an SLR, which I like. The lack of a flash doesn't bother me since I seldom use one anyway. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and quieter than the SL1.</p>

<p>I was hoping for an M2 with a the dual-pixel AF stuff like the 70D has. It appears they didn't do that, but they seem to be saying the AF is improved. I'll read the reviews, and it if looks really good I might try to hunt one down here. Or just buy the M, which is certainly priced to move right now.</p>

<p>If you are going to use all your existing lenses an SL1 makes WAY more sense. What's the point of what is essentially a compact digicam (with no flash or viewfinder and a digicam type touch screen menu), when you can have a real DSLR like the SL1. I just don't see the point of saving a few oz in weight and a few mm in size if you're carrying around a lens adapter and EF lenses to use on it.</p>

<p>I see absolutely no advantages - and lots of disadvantages - to using an EOS M as a backup body if you're going to adapt EF lenses to it. The SL1 is small. It's smaller than my Powershot SX50 HS. In silent mode it's also pretty quiet (but it isn't actually silent). AF is fast and accurate, even in live view and video modes. It has a touch sensitive LCD if you prefer that to the conventional controls.</p>

<p>The M makes sense with the 22/2 pancake lens for an outfit you can slip in your pocket, but with a decent size EF lens (and adapter) attached I don't see the advantage (other than you can get an M body for around $360 with the adapter, vs. around $450 for the SL1 body). I've used, tested and reviewed the SL1 and I liked it. It's also a lot more similar to a 5DIII or 7D than the M is in terms of which dials you need to turn and which buttons you need to push to do anything, so switching between them is easy.</p>

When the Blackberry tablet was sold at a closeout price It sold out. The problem was of course that Blackberry couldn't

make money normally at that price. I suspect you're right about the SL1. But if they hardly ever use the backup, maybe

it's not so bad a choice if it is cheap enough. There IS a special magic in a cheap camera. The Nex might be better but

the 7 is $650 or so even used.

 

 

As a product category, it's flawed. People who want a point and shoot probably are using their phones. People who are

serious probably are buying a more full functioned mirrorless camera or DSLR. Really today is a kind of transitional period

where the entire point and shoot category is probably going away. Maybe Canon is thinking that the only point and shoots

that will be left are really high quality ones and they're shooting for that spot. For myself though, I'd rather have a RX100

II.

<p>The SL1 ia great choice for people who want a tiny slr. I'm not one of them. If I'm going to use an slr I want it to be the usual full-size version. I didn't even like the reduced size of the 20/30D bodies and was overjoyed when the larger 7D came out. I don't use the M as a backup body; I use it as simply another camera that is very compact and very capable, the same reason that I used the G11/12 and the G15 that I used to have. If I were going to use a camera for a backup body I'd prefer it to be the same type of body as my primary slr. I like the M because it's similar in size to the G11 we have when the 22mm is mounted. It's certainly larger with the 18-55 but still smaller than the SL1 with its 18-55 mounted. I don't often mount my other EOS lenses on my M; I pointed out that capability to emphasize the point that the M has much more versatility than a point & shoot camera. <strong>Bob</strong>, you're right; once you start to add big lenses then the advantages and point of using of the small size camera disappears quickly, but to me that also includes the SL1. Yes, it's smaller than the SX50 but try coming close to the focal length of the SX50 with the SL1 and the sizes aren't even in the same ballpark anymore. As I said, I don't particularly want to delve into the world of mirrorless cameras. I have just always wanted a very small camera the same size as a point and shoot with a sensor as good as the one in my 7D, and the M meets that criteria.</p>

<p><strong>David</strong>--the RX100 II certainly looks like a superb camera, and I had considered getting one until the price on the M dropped. Now the RX100 II costs 2 1/2 times more than the M with the 22mm, and still has a significantly smaller sensor. I agree that this is a transitional period and it's really interesting to see what's coming out. As for what Canon is thinking, that's <em>really</em> confusing and the M2 just makes it even more so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have just always wanted a very small camera the same size as a point and shoot with a sensor as good as the one in my 7D, and the M meets that criteria.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's fine, but my concern is a very small camera with a large sensor is useless until you put a lens on it, and then it generally becomes a much bigger camera with a large sensor! As I"ve said above, put a 22/2 pancake lens on it and it's great.<br>

<br>

I have an SX50 HS and I think it's a remarkable camera. It's pretty small, pretty light and has a 24-1200mm equivalent lens, and the lens is of good quality, even at 1200mm. It also has a viewfinder (EVF) and a built in flash. - and a tilt and swivel LCD. As long as you keep the ISO low, image quality is truly excellent (especially if you take the trouble to shoot RAW). For me, I'd rather have the long lens than the larger sensor, but that's just me. If I was shooting in very low light and/or planning to make poster sized prints, I'd want the M with the 22/2 on it!<br>

<br>

The ideal camera is currently technically impossible. It would have something like a 24-600(or more) lens, high image quality even at high ISO settings, small size and light weight. It would be possible if sensor quality could be improved by an order of magnitude, allowing a digicam sized sensor with the quality of today's larger sensors. Just about the only thing you can't get around is the inability to blur out backgrounds though shallow DOF that you get with a small sensor. That's basic optics and I don't think there's a way around it (at least optically).<br>

<br>

The key would be the <em>high performance small sensor</em>. Once you have that you can miniaturize the camera AND the lenses. Miniaturizing the lenses has the great attraction of not only making them smaller and lighter but also cheaper! It's a matter of diminishing returns making the camera smaller and smaller if you have to use a large sensor, which in turn means you have to use large lenses on it.<br>

<br>

Canon have displayed a "future concept" camera, which would have very high pixel count, very high quality, fairly small sensor and a built in zoom lens. By cropping and zooming it would be capable of very high quality images over a wide range of effective focal lengths. Maybe that's where they are heading? I saw the camera mockup myself in 2010 in New York. It may be decades before we actually see such a camera being produced of course - see <a href="http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/27448/slr-camera-concept/">http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/27448/slr-camera-concept/</a>. I hope by then they get a better camera stylist too!</p>

<p>I tried the M and found that the slight delay in autofocus was frustrating even with the firmware update. I then switched briefly to the X-E1, but found that I missed the compact size, touch screen, and build quality of the M. Also, the white balance of the X-E1 was a bit foreign to me after being used to what Canon has offered for many years (although I readily agree that Canon's AWB has many issues). I then found an M2 and an have found that the autofocus response is on par or even better than the X-E1. As many have noted, the M2 + 22mm lens makes for a great compact setup. The touch screen allows for a more pleasant video experience than compared with my 6D. Actually, paring the M2 with my 24-105 (and monopod) makes for a great video setup.</p>