Why M?

[yakim_peled1]

<p>My initial thought was that it stands for Mini or Micro (it surely can't relate to the ill-fated EF-M camera) but surprisingly, Canon haven't said why they have chosen this name. Have I missed something?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[denisgermain]

<p>try Mirrorless...</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I'm going with Mirrorless as well.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>That's a very good guess (certainly better than mine) but was it declared officially?</p>

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

[massimo_foti]

<p>They just run out of good excuses to use "X" :-)</p>

[colin carron]

<p><em>Mirrorless</em> seems the most obvious but there are some special camera vibes around the letter 'M'.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Some other company, the name will come to me, also famously used the "M" designation. Some people still lika' their cameras a lot...</p>

[nathangardner]

Mine

[nathangardner]

I do have a question about this system though. Does the adapter to allow use with EF lenses have a glass element in it?

If it didn't it would seem it wouldn't focus to infinity, but if it does how much will that affect IQ and AF speed?

[massimo_foti]

<p>No glass inside.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>No glass in the EF/EF-S adapter. It's not needed, because the distance from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance">lens mounting flange</a> to the sensor is less on the EOS-M (18mm) than it is on the rest of the EOS family (44mm). The adapter just needs to space out the EF or EF-S lens 26mm to the standard flange distance, couple the electronics, rotate it all around a few degrees so it all looks right, and not let in extraneous light. It also provides a (presumably) stronger and better balanced tripod mounting point that can be removed, if desired.<br>

<br /> Optics are only needed in an adapter if the flange distance of the camera is longer than the flange distance the lens needs, e.g. putting a Canon FD lens (42mm Flange Focal Distance) on an EOS body (44mm FFD).</p>

[zml]

<p>Nathan: no glass, pretty much a hollow tube with electrical contacts. EF lenses have a much longer flange to sensor distance than the EOS-M mount so all you need is a spacer. Expecting a mount for FD lenses coming from the Middle Kingdom soon :-)</p>

[anuarpatjane]

Om mani leicanon om

[dogbert]

<p>I find it odd that the camera is defined by something it doesn't have: namely "mirroless". Most cameras don't have mirrors ranging from view cameras, compact films cameras, to those in smart phones.<br>

There are plenty of other things the EOS M doesn't have either.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p><em>"I find it odd that the camera is defined by something it doesn't have"</em></p>

<p>fat-free food, weightless, non-stick pans, cling-free wrap, calorie-free soda, nonalcoholic beer (yuck, but still), non-stop flight, weightless...</p>

<p>Not so odd at all. :-) </p>

<p>Lots of times things are initially described in terms of what they are not, since a name for what they are has not yet been devised. In this case, the closest thing might be the rangefinder camera, but this and cameras like it really don't have the thing that used to be called a rangefinder. (For an example of such a "M" camera, see Leica M9, etc.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>Chasing Leica?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>EF-M ill-fated? I am shocked to see this averred. After all, The EF-M was <em>the</em> camera that every worshipper of manual focus and operation has begged for, for a long, long time. I am shocked, yes shocked ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Zyz7 ).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there are some special camera vibes around the letter 'M'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joking aside, it will be interesting to see if Leica will get huffy about the M moniker. Who knows what will happen. Just think, if Minolta hadn't tried to use crossed exes like Exxon, maybe they'd be the leading camera marque today. Or maybe not..., but it didn't help any. Surely, Canon has already worked this out? [ I know, don't call you Shirley.]</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Mine</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Om mani leicanon om</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guys, this is hilarious. LOL :-) <br>

OT: I wish this site could support smilies.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>"They just run out of good excuses to use "X" :-)"<br>

Just wait until the advanced model shows up, it will be the M-1X...</p>

[massimo_foti]

<blockquote>

<p>Just wait until the advanced model shows up, it will be the M-1X...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right! :-)</p>

[colin carron]

<p>JDM, surely Leica can't seriously complain about the 'M' designation after the Pentax M series cameras and lenses? PS my favourite gag from the Airplane series is from Airplane II where a door inside the shuttle is marked 'Danger Vacuum'. When the door is opened they are attacked by a crazed vacuum cleaner. I know, I know, but every tine it just makes me laugh.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm told they are working on a lower-cost, reduced functionality version called the MT.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>Canon P would have been better. They did make a rangefinder with that name once, a long time ago.</p>