Canon Mirrorless System Leaked - EOS M + 2 Lenses

[pete_ferling]

<p>If it does sport and APS-C sized sensor, then it could be nice toy to explore even more vintage lenses with an adapter. </p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>Sorry Canon but I won't be buying a fourth set of lenses from you anytime in the near future.FD,EF,EFs ,enough is enough.Forget adapters because they never seem to function fully with the old stuff.<br>

You know at one time (2004) you made a 'mirrorless camera' and it was called a Pro 1 Powershot and you would of been years ahead of the market if you had only made a Mark II version...........</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I'm disappointed that it's an APS-C sensor size. That means bigger lenses, and a very unbalanced body-lens combo, like the NEX cameras. Canon really should have considered a 4/3 size sensor, like the one in the G1X. Oh, well. Luckily the m4/3 selection for cameras and lenses is really good, so I'll stay there. Canon should have realized that when you're the last one to the party you'd best make a big splash. This doesn't look like it, but we'll see once the system is introduced.</p>

[abbas_haider]

If they really want to take up the market they should come up with something unique like full frame compact or full frame

mirrorless camera like earlier rangefinder film cams.

 

If you are repeating Sony Nex or Samsung Pentax they have already captured the market and a huge manufacturer like canon have just woke up from long sleep.

 

At least they have to do like Pentax where they used the same k mount instead of changing the mount

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00adct"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5998173">Abbas Haider</a>, Jul 21, 2012; 06:50 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>At least they have to do like Pentax where they used the same k mount instead of changing the mount</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How is that better? The Pentax is larger than it needs to be, and the use of a longer flange distance means that you cannot use other brands' lenses. Pentax's design eliminated the two main benefits of mirrorless cameras. You got a camera that is marginally smaller than, say, a D3100, but which trades battery life and AF speed for better video and a faster burst mode.</p>

<p>The camera just shows that Pentax did not understand the mirrorless camera market when they designed it. If they really wanted to support K-mount users, they would have made a 'regular' mirrorless camera, and then sold an accessory pack for $150-$200 that included a K mount adaptor with contacts, and a big, bulky screw-on grip to help balance out larger lenses. Instead they tried to compromise, and ended up with a camera that doesn't fit either market.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>The obvious advantage of the Canon EOS-M is that it will (presumably) be capable of using EF and EF-S lenses via an adapter. That's something no other MILC can do (expect in full aperture, manual focus mode).</p>

<p>For any existing Canon EOS user that's a huge plus. While the lenses will be bigger than the camera, it still means that an EOS-M can serve as an emergency backup for a DSLR since the two can share lenses (and presumably speedlites).</p>

<p>For non-EOS owners of course the question is different. Is the EOS-M better than the Sony NEX and Olympus PEN models? That remains to be seen and may depend a lot on price. If they can sell the EOS-M with the 22/2 lens for under $600, I might be tempted to buy one as a DSLR backup and small pocketable camera. The pictures of the 18-55 make it look fairly large. It doesn't seem to be collapsible line the Olympus 14-42, so it ends up making the overall camera fairly bulk.</p>

<p> </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>In the summary I think 'EVF' is an ill-chosen abbreviation. It could stand for electronic view finder, or external.</p>

<p>With the shorter flange distance the adaptor for EF lenses will be essentially an extension tube. I wonder whether there is enough space to fit an APS-C sized mirror assembly inside the adaptor, put a pentaprism on top, and have an SLR conversion kit. I'm sure no manufacturer will be crazy enough to try that.</p>

<p>A pity it's not full frame - the Leica M9 has shown that it can be done. It would certainly be more expensive to include a full frame sensor.</p>

[leopoldstotch]

Specs are out. Nothing mind-blowing.

 

Here's a translation from the Japanese

source:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/canon-eos-m-specs/

[zml]

<p>No decent* eye level viewfinder or EC dial = zero interest from me. Hopefully there will be a more full-featured follow up soon.</p>

<p>*) the crap VF on the Canon G series or on Fuji x10 does not qualify.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>To me the EF M is clearly only the first step as Canon usually puts new technology in lower-end models. I'm waiting for the XP1/NEX7 competitor: Larger size, built-in EVF, more physical buttons and possibly a built-in flash as well. Early 2013?</p>

<p>In the meantime, place your bets Gentlemen: Does M stands for Mini or Micro? As we already have a micro in the Micro-Four-Thirds system my bet goes to the former. :-)</p>

<p>OT: I see that posting rumors 1 day ahead of the formal launch is O.K. but <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00a3Dj">posting one week ahead is not.</a> Good to know.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Ed: The M9 can be full-frame because it uses the same mount and flange distance as a standard film Leica. On a rangefinder, this is actually quite easy to do, since the lenses sit so close to the camera normally anyway. I doubt that there is enough space inside the XP1 or the NEX-7 for a FF sensor, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could cram a 1.3x or so in those cameras; it would just require living with an adaptor and aftermarket lenses, as any currently available native-mount lenses would not cover the entire frame.</p>

<p>In this case, the fact that Leica never bothered to change their entire lens lineup for the M8 (unlike, say, Olympus) means that they can adapt to FF cameras without much effort. More importantly, they won't have to field a bunch of complaints from people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous whining about how their M9 is overpriced crap because it doesn't take good photos with their 'awesome' 18-55.</p>

[christopher_engeler]

<p>Quick note about Canon EF lenses on mirrorless cameras: You can already use Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX cameras with the Metabone adapter designed by Conurus: <a href="http://www.metabones.com/sony/questions">http://www.metabones.com/sony/questions</a> Electronic aperture control and IS of the lens are preserved, but not autofocus, as far as I can tell. The preservation of full automation including AF would indeed be welcome.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The "M" obviously stands for "Mirorless".</p>

<p>As for rumors, they are allowed when there is massive evidence supporting them. What we don't like here is random 3rd or 4th hand speculation.</p>

<p>I hope there is an EVF for this or at least an upscale version of the M. I have an Olympus PEN E-PL1 and the addition of the EVF transforms the camera. If course I'd expect any EVF to cost around $200, so you have to weigh things against a Rebel DSLR in terms of cost, size and performance. As has already been pointed out, there's little point to a supe compact body if you're going to be using it with (relatively) giant lenses. What the M needs are small, possibly collapsible lenses. The 22/2 is a good start, but it's going to be pretty tough to make an zoom with APS-C coverage that's much smaller than the camera body!</p>

<p>I see that you can use the Canon EF adapter for Sony, but it's $400 and doesn't give you AF. I'd guess the Canon adapter will be cheaper and give you all functionality, including AF, so an all Canon system will likely be better and cheaper.</p>

[leopoldstotch]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it will be available in red, pink silver, blue and goth black...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always suspected you were a wizard from the future...<br /> <a href="

Of note - the EF adaptor is shown at 3:03 in the video.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>The "M" obviously stands for "Mirorless".</blockquote>

<p>Obviously true, but isn't it a little strange that cameras are now being defined by what they don't have. They could have called it the EOS C as it doesn't have a coffee grinder either.<br>

Anyway I put my spare $ into an M4/3 system and I am glad I did. The attraction of being able to use such a small camera on the back of an EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS just isn't all that compelling to me. Strange, I know.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>As for rumors, they are allowed when there is massive evidence supporting them. What we don't like here is random 3rd or 4th hand speculation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand. Apologies for misunderstanding CR3-grade rumors as ones who have "massive evidence supporting them". I always thought they were.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope there is an EVF for this or at least an upscale version of the M.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure both will be introduced.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Of note - the EF adaptor is shown at 3:03 in the video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you. I'm relived to see the small white square alongside the red dot. The name 'Mount adapter EF-EOS M' got me worried for a bit.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>At BH Photo</p>

<p>For real it seems.</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Of course it is real. It was on DP Review hours ago.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, 'cos that's what's <em>really</em> matters...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where the technical marvel, Keith? Seems like I was right...It's both functionally and aesthetically a bit bland...</p>

 

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, 'cos that's what's <em>really</em> matters...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO aesthetics and useability tend to be correlated. Classics don't become classics based on looks alone and it is hard to think of a pig-ugly or even bland camera that is engaging to use.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>As an ex-Canon shooter (sorry, went to the dark side) I just wanted to commend Canon for getting the basics right - a decent capacative screen should make a big difference, a short flange distance picks up the Leica wannabes (I'm one) unlike Samsung and Pentax, and they didn't compromise the sensor size ridiculously (Nikon - which may have a place, but it's not for adapting full-frame lenses, Pentax Q - which is a toy). I'm interested that they didn't go with the 4:3 sensor from the G1x, though.<br />

<br />

The thing that would make any APS-C mirrorless system appealing would be a kit zoom that's actually small enough to make it pocketable. Panasonic sort of managed it with the (expensive) 14-42 powerzoom - but they have the advantage of a smaller sensor. I was vaguely hoping that Canon, of all companies, might wheel out their DO (green ring) technology for the task. Maybe with the next release. If they do, that might tempt me to move from a GF2 as my backup system.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>That's a really good point, Andrew. Why the heck aren't there more DO lenses? I didn't even remember they were still around until you said something, but I used to sell lots of the 70-300 IS DO, and it was a great product. Granted it cost almost three times what the regular version cost, and it didn't have any better specs ... but the pictures were fantastic, and it was almost half the size, AND better build quality.</p>

<p>You would think that a $500 or $600 18-55 DO would sell like hotcakes.</p>

[leopoldstotch]

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/23/Canon-announces-EOS-M-mirrorless-system-camera-hands-on-preview">http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/23/Canon-announces-EOS-M-mirrorless-system-camera-hands-on-preview</a><br /> Price list:</p>

<ul>

<li>$799.99 with 22mm lens</li>

<li>€849/£769 with 18-55mm lens</li>

<li>€1049/£949 with 18-55mm + 22mm lenses</li>

<li>€979/£879 with 22mm lens + EF adapter</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not exactly surprised with the price. The good news is that the EF adaptor costs less than the 18-55 when bought as a kit. The metal construction on the lenses (shiny!) is a nice change of pace.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Three things I would like that I don't have with my NEX 5N: full function M to EF adapter, AI focus, and phase detection AF (if that would speed up focusing). I also like the 22 mm, f2 lens. The NEX despite the complaining has a broader field of lenses right now which has grown over the past six months. My NEX 16MP sensor has better high ISO noise characteristics than my Canon 7D. I would like to see how the M sensor stacks up. I regularly use the NEX electronic view finder. It and the LCD are hard to use in bright light compared to the optical finder on my 7D. Although my 5N has a very good lcd it is unusable in some bright conditions. I don't know how the Canon M gets around this. When I shoot in these light conditions focus peaking, apparently not available in the M, saves a lot of pictures for me with the 5N. I have taken a few thousand pictures with the NEX 5N. I take this light camera out when I would have left my heavy gear at home. It is great as will be the Canon M for many pictures. I would have missed a lot of those pictures had I waited for a Canon Mirrorless so I am locked into Sony which is not all that bad. I use the vertically moveable lcd a lot particularly for street pictures. It looks like Canon has advanced touch screen funstionality over my Sony although it works ok with the Sony. The price is a little higher that the Sony 5N prices and lower that the NEX 7 that does have an EVF. I have to say without equivocation that the 5N does not fill all of my photographic needs nor would the Canon M. I still keep a full complement of Canon gear both full frame and crop.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Interesting as an indication of what may follow.</p>