EdLu: @mosswings - Interesting analogy! But I can't get your equation to work - I think the final result needs to be the reciprocal.
I agree with what you are saying, but 75% sounds like we are losing a lot. It is just a technical number. Consider how good the image quality is with modern equipment, and how much better it is than a few decades ago.
@mosswings - Interesting analogy! But I can't get your equation to work - I think the final result needs to be the reciprocal.
Johnny666: Hey ! everything is a compromise ...Size, weight, quality, performance and of course , price.Everybody has different priorities and requirements.Lot of people here seem to want a larger sensor.Go buy a G1X.Remenber the compromise though, a larger sensor requires larger lenses and this is a compact camera. You can't have large sensors without larger lenses !!!!!!So what do you want ? larger sensor, or compact camera ..... your choice.Compromises !!!
I already have the RX100! And I'm a Canon guy! Around 850 shots so far on the RX100 and doing great.
Typical Canon protection of its DSLR line.
Sony and the other players will not protect Canon's DSLR line!
The market is shifting... Canon and Nikon have to move fast to retain their positions in the market.
EdLu: Very interesting offering from Canon.
Mirrorless models offer reduced weight, and that is a big benefit. But I found it a bit tricky to figure out what the weight actually is for my preferred configuration. That made it hard to do useful comparisons. The problem is sometimes the weight is without the battery or without the lens or with the wrong lens. So here is what I found on the weight of the EOS-M.
With battery and with the 18-55mm lens, the weight is 506 to 508 grams. This compares to 775 grams for the Canon T4i/650D, similarly equipped. So the mirrorless model has a weight advantage of 268g. That is significant, but far from half the weight of the DSLR. The two cameras will probably produce pics with similar IQ. But note that the DSLR has a viewfinder and flash, which the M does not.
The new offerings from the different manufacturers are fantastic. But I think it is important to gather all the facts you need to make the best buying decisions.
I am hoping fervently that a suite of EF-M lenses will be introduced and that they will be smaller than the EF and EF-S lenses. One hopes that the new lens mount makes that possible. And it is the established pattern, for instance if you compare 35mm gear to 120 format. The smaller format lenses are smaller and lighter -- and faster by about 1 stop.
But the 18-55mm EF-M lens is not lighter than the 18-55mm EF-S lens, nor is it faster. Not a good start!
Very interesting offering from Canon.
johnsaxon: Minimum focusing distance goes from 2" at 28mm to a whopping 8" at 35mm, an equally whopping 15.5" at 50mm, then 18" at 70mm and 19.25" at 100mm. IMHO, this makes the camera fairly useless for most macro work. It's hard to believe that Sony would even release a camera with such poor close-focusing distances. I also feel that DP Review failed to mention this as a major problem in their review. I certainly would have immediately dropped the camera from consideration.
John, thanks for this useful information. You had a nasty surprise when you discovered something that is either not described online, or is very hard to find. I have some gripes too about the info regarding this camera -- namely the statement that it uses a 1 inch sensor. It is NOT 1 inch, but only slightly more than 1/2 inch wide. Plus, the max aperture of 1.8 is only for the widest zoom. At a normal zoom, the lens is almost 2 stops slower -- around F3.2 or F3.5.These gripes are about the hype, not about the camera.