More non-innovation from Canon. The 17 TS is another example where they lacked originality and just copied what everyone else was doing.
I want to use the 11-24 on my EOS M. I think it will balance well (kidding, but someone will do it, after they post their how I opened the box video.)
Paul B Jones: Looks like DPR has had a good swig of "the end is here for Canon" kool-aid. Too funny. Time to break out our fringe brand Fujis, Olympuses, Pentaxes, etc. and celebrate.
As president of the Miranda Topcon Kowa Petri Contax Bronica Minotla Club (new members coming soon) I resent your suggestion.
57even: Why are so many people obsessed with how successful a company was or how many cameras it sold? (Emphasis on past tense).
It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of individual cameras, or how the market may be changing.
Because companies that are out of business don't sell anything.
straylightrun: It's obvious what Sony is doing here.
They are intentionally releasing gigantic lenses now so that next year they can conveniently release the Mark II version with up to 40% smaller size reduction as a major selling point.
Just like they did with the a7 grip: Intentionally put an inferior grip and shutter release placement and then add the proper grip and shutter placement in the Mark II version (a7II and soon to be a7rII/a7sII) and sell it as a new feature upgrade.
Good FF digital lenses are gonna be large. But it's too soon to judge these mockups, even before they become prototypes. We need to wait for the pre-production "copies" which may or may not match what ends up for sale.
More from the non-innovators.
PhotoKhan: Oh boy...these guys can't win, can they?If they do, it's because they do, if they don't is because they don't...
Give them a rest (...if for nothing else, because they're probably still jet-lagged :) )
...by the way, if you can't do a general appraisal of the lens performance, after having being informed what is used with for the provided samples, I suggest you shoot more and "analyze" less.
In the meantime I can help you out: This is a most excellent lens, the full excellence of which, will be clarified with more formal evaluations.
...And they're "professionals". They can take a razor sharp photo with a $2500 lens that's image stabilized, which takes a lot of skill.
I guess it all depends on whether it has near-L quality or Tamron super-zoom quality. Convenient and good, or convenient and lousy. Being able to use the same accessory EVF for 3 different cameras is a nice option.
AD in KC: All the whining over "only four lenses"! This is a compact travel camera. Its lenses are perfect for the purpose. If you want a giant collection of lenses to fill a camera bag with, there are better options! I'm a professional photographer and I use THREE lenses. I could probably use a couple more, but point is: are you collecting cameras or are you taking photos?
What the EOS M needs is a "roadmap" with a dozen f/1.4 lenses that cost $1200 and weigh 3-4 pounds each. And the whole brick will fit in a bag the size of a lunchbox!
dwill23: MISSED THE MARK ON THIS STORY
This author is not in the board rooms, does not know the strategy behind Canon's decision to not come out with the same lenses it already has in a smaller version to mount on the EOSM. Sure, the mount did take some of the portability away, but it allowed me to save $5000 by using what I already had.
He states the adapter is hard to find? Two are available on BH $60, & $100. Both in stock. Use the internet before you write these 'stories'.
I agree with so many other people that Canon knows the US market can afford both a large SLR and small mirrorless, so why make a mirrorless as good as an SLR? Thus no EOS M in US.
Yes, it sucks, but it makes perfect sense. This article was a waste of time to read.
The failure of the EOS M (v1) was due to THIS SITE killing it before it hit shelves with stories like this. The AF was shockingly slow, but would almost always focus perfectly accurately.
Give it a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, the 22mm is awesome.
Yes, the 22mm is excellent and cheap and the author lacked information that could have made the piece less subjective and closer to accurate.
That said, the EOS M1 bombed because the focusing was very slow and they wanted $800 for it. No mystery.
OTOH, they must have sold a boatload at $300, creating a nice user base for new M products even if they lack the esoteric, hypnotic draw that photo enthusiasts apparently require.
Brian Slater: The consensus here seems to be that Canon is a company totally out of touch with the market. Some even suggest that Canon will be the next Kodak or Polaroid. Really? In fact, Canon remains a highly successful (profitable) business with clear goals and strategy. To answer the question as to whether they are serious about Mirrorless, just consider what their executives have communicated: they want to dominate. I would not bet against them.
Canon has no more similarity with Kodak and Polaroid than it does with Radio Shack. These were high-profile failures in unrelated businesses for unrelated reasons.
neo_nights: Is it me or does it have more of a Medium Format look?
It'd be nice to see if Pentax could make a small camera (for fullframe standards of course) like they did with the K5.
Maybe it will have an accessory grip with a wooden handle (joke for us Pentax 67 owners.)
If the pre-final build turns out to be similar to the pre-production model and the pre-production closely resembles what consumers will be able to purchase, this is a very useful article.
Assuming the actual, for purchase lenses are good it's hard to see people dropping $2000 for the Canon or the Nikon. Having resale value is great but not at twice the price.
Richard Franiec: Thanks to this story, more people know about EOS M3 than ever before and interest in the camera is raising according to the survey.Shame on you, Canon marketers, bring the M3 to USA. LOL.
I love the part about the M lenses failing to exhibit the "hypnotic draw...for enthusiast photographers." You cannot make this stuff up. If you want hypnotic draw you can buy an adapter and a Leitz lens.
JRFlorendo: Canon just needs to build these fast EF-M lenses; 14f1.2, 21f1.2, 35f1.2, 50f1, 85f1.2, 100f2 and 135f2. Canon will be back in the game in a heart beat
Exactly, rrccad. They could conceivably make big heavy fast lenses and add $300 for a built-in viewfinder but Fuji already does this.
donCortizone: Too little, too late. I've already replaced my 5D Mark III and lenses with an X-T1. No need to look back.
That's the point. Some people will scale down to a Fuji, others will get a Fuji as a smaller second outfit.
Either way, its already happened. The only thing Canon can do is offer a lower priced alternative (which means leaving the viewfinder off, unfortunately.)
sh10453: Serious Canon camera owners obviously have invested large sums of money in Canon lenses, especially the L-line. The ability to use these lenses with this camera is crucial.
It may be a good idea if Canon simply include the adapter as a part of this camera's package, without adding significantly to the price. Better yet, include it free, seriously.
Canon has traditionally sold similar adapters (if we could find them), at ridiculously high prices.
I disagree. I have an M, the adapter and lots of Canon lenses. Almost all of them are too large to make any sense on a tiny camera and if that's what I wanted to do, I could buy the SL1 for less than the M3 will cost.
I'm surprised Canon even made an adapter because from a manufacturer's perspective, interchangeable lens cameras exist only to sell lenses. They constantly track the lens to camera ratio, hoping to get it to "3" but it's usually around 1.5 due to the number of cameras sold with kit zooms.
photosen: The thing is we all need to look at market numbers, volume and profitability, before we can make these sweeping statements.
While mirrorless cameras from Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic are nice, Canon has in fact responded wth the SL1 and a couple of pancakes, which fit the bill nicely for many, and without the need for lens compatibility problems.
On the other hand the 11-22, and 22mm lenses seem nice, perhaps they just need a couple of small telephotos for the M system. Although for me it's still no viewfinder, no deal.
We don't need to look, but the folks at Canon do. Look at all of Sony's innovations. Think of the money they have thrown at this. Now look at their market share.
justmeMN: Canon estimates that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
bgbs, unfortunately it does matter if Canon, Nikon or any company with a product, sells. With cameras, the market is very over-crowded and in steep decline. Canon obviously doesn't think they can create so much excitement, it will reverse this trend. Nobody else has been able to either, because current cameras are good enough for almost everybody.
If somebody wants a Fuji system, they can buy (and pay top dollar for) a Fuji system. Read Tom Hogan's articles and you'll see how well Fuji cameras are doing. Fuji should be #3, but they trail almost everybody and their big success is a fixed lens camera.
So Canon could put a lot of money into a camera whose customers have already bought a Fuji, or they could attract customers who want to use their existing Canon lenses, meaning no new lens sales. Great choices.
So they offer a camera with APS sensor quality and high quality lenses that cost less than Fuji. They leave the finder out for those who don't want to pay for it (a mistake, IMO.)
The photo is misleading, showing only 2 of the lenses (what manufacturer would do that). The 11-22 is a very interesting lens; excellent, stabilized and cheap. The others are just sharp and cheap.
Scorpius1: Kudos to Sigma's management for turning the company around,a few yrs ago the were seen as a brand for people that couldn't afford Canikon's best glass and now they're convincing a lot of people to sell their Canikon glass for Sigma,.
Next up should be the 85 and 135 to finish off an impressive collection of primes.
This is a truly remarkable "unknown" story. Sigma lenses weren't known just for low prices; they were exceptionally variable and unreliable. Ask anyone who had to sell Sigma alongside Tamron, Tokina, even Vivitar and Soligor if you go back that far.
Now, people are lining up to buy state of the art Sigma lenses and they're as good as name brands and half the price. Making a $5000 normal lens is impressive. But making a $2000 lens for $850 is really impressive.