Mirrorless Canon

[a._t._burke]

<p>Gentlepersons:</p>

<p>Does anybody else think that Canon missed the boat by not placing an EOS-M mount on their already produced EF-S 50-250MM IS zoom? It would be such a cheap modification to an already invented wheel. </p>

<p>On the other hand Canon maybe the only wise man if the larger sensored mirrorless market becomes over saturated or it becomes the latter day ASP system. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>EOS to M adapter. Use any lens you want. Also, I think you mean APS.<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-M-Mount-Adapter/dp/B008NF8CEK</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Flanagan...</p>

<p>Yes, I have and use the adapter. The Canon adapter even accommodates the Loreo Stereo dual-lens unit.</p>

<p><a href="

<p>The problem is that it adds to the bulk and weight to where one could have used one of the smaller Canon DSLRs just as well. The compact issue disappears.</p>

<p>Yes, it is APS. The only question is whether the mistake was due to old brain or old fingers. On the other hand it could be ”Slisdexia.” :)</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anybody else think that Canon missed the boat by not placing an EOS-M mount on their already produced EF-S 50-250MM IS zoom? It would be such a cheap modification to an already invented wheel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They can always do it in the future if they become serious about the EOS-M.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand Canon maybe the only wise man if the larger sensored mirrorless market becomes over saturated or it becomes the latter day ASP system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They wouldn't be the only ones - Nikon and Ricoh could also make similar claims. But that won't happen. APS died because it was a variation on a dying technology - film. Mirrorless is the next step in the evolution of interchangeable lens cameras - check <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00cM3N">the thread about the innards of the A7R</a> for some clues.</p>

[dave_redmann]

To make the EF-S 55-250mm work on the EOS-M, Canon

would have to in effect build a spacer into the lens that would

be almost as big as the adapter. You can't simply change the

mount because then the flange distance would be too short

for the lens to work correctly.

[Ken Katz]

If Canon was really serious about mirrorless, they would already be selling the EOS-M wide angle zoom in places outside of Asia, developed a new M model using the 70D sensor, had a EVF option, and developed a compact EOS-M telezoom similar to the EFS 55-250.

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>You've discovered the joys of APS-C mirrorless. Beautifully compact bodies with DSLR sized lenses. Using an EF lens on an EF-M camera means you're effectively making the lens LARGER than it would have been if it was mounted on a DSLR. Makes no sense whatsoever. That's where Micro 4/3rds got it right.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>Don't lenses for mirrorless cameras require a different type of motor? A stepping motor? If so, wouldn't conversion require more than a simple mount adaptation?</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Redmann...</p>

<p>Yes, I realize they would have to provide extended length in the mount (I took high school Physics in 1934), but the bulk and weight of the adapter would not be there. The 18-55mm sticks out a lot more than the purpose built 22mm but at least the bulky adapter is not there. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>"Don't lenses for mirrorless cameras require a different type of motor? A stepping motor?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I don't they are *required* but they <em>are</em> optimized for speedier contrast-detect AF and smoother video AF. Fast sensor readouts, speedy processors and good algorithms can allow older-style AF motors to work acceptably. While the initial live view AF implementations on DSLRs were horrendous in this regard, later generations are much improved.</p>

<p>I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here to suggest that Canon has made the least effort among cameramakers to embrace (or at least test the waters) with MILCs. </p>

<p>Nikon's 1 system may not have been completely embraced by the more traditional enthusiast community but it has it's strengths and I think it's probably been doing all right with the intended customer. I've seen more than a few around the necks of NYC tourists.</p>

<p>Pentax/Ricoh have aimed a little more niche but have released a number of GXR modules, the Pentax K-01 (which like the EOS-M found a lot of buyers when the price was dropped), and the Pentax Q system which to the surprise of many might be more successful than either of these, and pentax has continued to develop -- three bodies, 8 lenses, plus a 9th (tele/macro prime) likely to appear this year.</p>

<p>This said, along with Canon, I don't think either Nikon or Pentax/Ricoh can claim to have truly embraced this -- they all felt they had to balance their efforts in this area with their SLR systems. Olympus, Panasonic, and Samsung really had little to lose with their SLR systems (4/3 didn't compete especially well with APS-C DSLR, and Samsung only had re-badged Pentax models). Sony has proven over the long haul that they are aggressive and willing to try just about anything and don't seem to mind offering vast model lineups, and perhaps wisely are less willing to rely on their legacy (Minolta, etc.) customer base.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Mr. Burke, I think then we agree that to <em>really</em> 'do it right' Canon would have to re-engineer the optics of the lens, that is, essentially create a new lens design optimized for the shorter flange distance resulting from the removal of the mirror box.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if Canon simply built in a longer tube at the back of the existing 55-250mm, I think you'd find it added to the lens about 80% of the volume and 50% of the weight of the adapter. Whether the resulting modest savings in bulk and weight justified the loss of flexibility and increased cost (due to selling two different lenses) is mostly just an opinion about which reasonable people can disagree.</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Redmann...</p>

<p>“Mr. Burke, I think then we agree that to <em>really</em> 'do it right' Canon would have to re-engineer the optics of the lens...” </p>

<p>Absolutely! </p>

<p>My point is that they could do the extended mount 55-250mm on the cheap and quickly without any major redesign and retooling. If it sold well and/or produced a consumer cry for a smaller version they could then have a solid basis to consider the risk/reward ratio of redesign/retooling. </p>

<p>Your 80% of volume would be close if one removed the adapter tripod mount which would be appropriate for the 55-250mm lens which would not need the forward placed tripod mount as do the larger lenses. So, on and off with the tripod mount to keep bulk and handling comfortable, which is a nuisance and a chance of losing the mount. Another factor is the cost. One must buy adapter and lens rather than just a lens. </p>

<p>I use the Eos-M mostly with the 22mm lens or with the adapter and 75-300mm IS lens. The 18-55mm lives in my bag. I leave the tripod mount on the adapter because of the weight of the larger lens. I have yet to use a tripod with the camera but don’t want to be caught without the mount, just in case. The 55-250mm would do 98% of what I do with the 75-300mm. Even with the added length necessary to add to the already existing 55-250mm lens it would still fall outside of my pan-in- the-XXX area. </p>

<p>An EOS T3 plus 55-250 is smaller, lighter and handier than the M plus adapter w/tripod mount and 75-300mm IS. An M with extended mount 55-250 would be better yet and in the spirit of “going mirrorless”.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Canon missed the boat period with the EOS-M. What were they thinking?</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>They were thinking "Let's give customers the best IQ in the smallest package we can possibly engineer. Unfortunately, they sort of forgot about which kind of person actually tends to buy MILCs! I am really interested to know how many they've sold. I came back on Friday from 10 days on Hainan Island shooting with it and the two lenses which came with it. It is hard work, no doubt- the GX1 plus a good lens is a breeze to use. I am sure the OMDs are even nicer and let's not forget about the GX7. The u4/3 system definitely has a solid place in the photographic world. The M, at the moment, is not even on most serious hobbyist's radar- a huge mistep by the mighty Canon. I was very impressed by the actual<em> output</em> of the M1. It is better than my GX1 plus 25/1.4 combo- noticeably better. And I did get good, true street shots of the type I like. But, as I said, I had to work hard to get them.<br>

Apologies for the slightly blown highlights. </p><div></div>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Bryant... Right you are. I probably should have entitled the thread “Clueless Canon.”</p>

<p>I bought it as my entry into mirrorless because of the price and use of my existing Canon flashes. It produces a nice looking picture with the 22mm lens, but only so-so with the lesser quality 18-55mm.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>