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.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why on earth does a camera review (Canon 5D R) get ten times more comments than a lens' review? Bodies come and go, lenses stay (even more so in this digital age); that's why lenses are the heart of a phogorphic system. It should be the other way round, but I guess cameras have more gizmos and fancy figures... oh well.
I'm not so sure. At 11mm, the lens can do something that hasn't been done before (probably not that useful but we'll see a lot of it until people get it out of their system.)
The cameras, at best, will capture more detail than some other camera with fewer megapixels. It will be hard to find an image that would have been impossible with less than 50mp.
Tizzio: Huh...what about the front element of my 600/4 EF
"According to Canon, the 11-24mm's front element is the largest ever manufactured for an SLR lens, at 87mm in diameter."
Does the veracity of this claim have any bearing on how the lens performs or what it can be used for?
birdseed007: The truth is that the Pentax 645Z blows this and every other Canon or Nikon camera into the weeds for image quality and weather sealing which is why DpReview haven't reviewed it and nor have DXO Mark because they don't want to upset Canon and Nikon who pay the bulk of their advertising dollars.
The 645Z isn't for everyone (sports shooters) but it has brought the cost of superior image quality into levels that serious enthusiasts and professionals can realistically afford. With a range of 16 lenses covering extreme wide angle to 400mm telephoto it can do pretty much everything.
Canon is facing an onslaught from powerful new upstarts like Samsung and Sony plus a revitalised Pentax who under Ricoh have a turnover twice the size of Nikon.
Canon sales of DSLRs/ILC down 17%Compact cameras down 32%and those numbers got worse in Q4, the Christmas selling quarter.
Canon have been resting on their laurels for too long, fortunately the competition is acting as a spur to innovation
Yes, medium format will do better (and DPR will write "but we were surprised how close the Canon came.") The new Canons will get gold awards because, "despite reservations about dynamic range and top ISO, the tried and proven Canon layout combined with 50 mp makes these cameras an achievement and deserving of a gold award." (I shortened this considerably and left out the inevitable diplomatic comments about the D810.)
That's a given. But as for the conspiracy to not test the Pentax, the reality is not many people are going to buy it which makes it low priority.
I wonder if the general public (meaning anyone in the world who buys a camera but does not read DPR) knows about sensor size(?) The reason we have tiny cameras with 24 mp is because it's a bigger number than 18 or 16. But sensor size really makes a difference and I suspect people don't even know.
Rod McD: It always seems that Canon can't quite get it right. The M system - bodies and lenses - just don't compare as an ILC system with the comprehensive approach of the other mirror-less manufacturers. I still use a Canon G1X (original) but went Fuji for my MILC system - reason : XT1 EVF and lenses. Now here's the latest iteration of the M still with no built-in EVF and an expensive optional add on. Please just give us a complete camera from the outset.
I agree, the lens adapter option isn't an option. This is supposed to be a small camera, but with APS sensor quality. As for comparing to Fuji, sure the Fujs are nicer but the system costs more. Canon knows a lot of people got into the M system because the body was $300.
Maverickmii: I must admit that I am not an eos-m expert but have just done a quick side by side comparison between the m and m3 and the only substantial difference i can see is 6MP more... and of course digic6 instead of digic5..Did canon need three years to get that done ??I hope that the IQ will prove otherwise!
Where did you get the M3 you used for your comparison? I thought they hadn't shipped any yet. Even if all it has is faster focusing, built-in flash, tilting LCD, focus peaking and an optional EVF, that's enough for me. If I want innovation, I'll read Popular Science.
Roshni: Personally, I think the M2 is an absolute gem of a camera. The M3 is not.
Here is my reasoning: The M2 is a fantastic mini camera for grab and shoot shots when out and about - using the M lenses, but with the adapter can be used with the whole range of Canon lens (assuming it can drive them all unlike the Low end Nikon DSLR cameras) . Small, light, point, (maybe swipe or two) click (or point), back on the bike.
For real photos grab your big canon... See the Ms don't need and EVF, it's not what it is for, but people want the M to be like their SLR so canon take away the pure simplicity and ruin it's niche. It's gone from being a sturdy small brick to being a delicate heavy one.
Where Canon went wrong was not encouraging DP review to do a Review on the M2 - because it is a fabulous niche camera that deserved a lot more recognition that it got.
It depends on what you plan to do with your M. I think pop up flash makes a lot of sense on a small, lightweight camera. But there are other people who want to carry large flash units and lots of big, fast lenses which will cost as much as Fuji, in which case you might as well just buy a Fuji.