Jim: Given that the utility of the M's compactness is negated by all but the smallest lenses it can mount, you might as well have a Rebel or full frame body. If compactness is a priority, an SL1, G3X or G1X/G1X II might make much more sense overall. I don't get the entire M series at all. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Fair enough and like I previously said, if the camera meets your requirements and it makes sense to you, then by all means enjoy it.
None that I can think of. If that's your criteria then the M3 is for you. Keep in mind that you have to BUY the viewfinder as it's not built into the camera body. A separate purchase is also required for the lens adapter. Again (IMHO) it's a system that just doesn't make any sense at all...especially so given it's price point.
As speculatrix has inferred above, it's a system that appears to be a somewhat half-hearted product offering.
Maybe that person in the marketing department was the chairman of Canon's son-in-law. That would explain a lot. 😊
tedolf: Too little too late. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for the M?
Last time they brought a mirrorless camera to the U.S. is was to dump them all in a fire sale.
To justmeMN: What you say is correct. But the reason that there is an oversupply is because there is a lack of demand.
Potemkin_Photo: Can't wait for this to hit the $250 bargain bin like the original EOS-M. Bring it!
But if you're only going to sell a "limited number", then why bother? I think Canon IS making the same mistake twice...just like they did with the GX3 (but for different reasons). If you want a lower cost backup body, get one of the later model Rebels or an SL1. Again, the M series seems to be a solution in search of a problem. That's what the market has been telling Canon and that's why they're in the bargain bin.
gLOWx: Once again, Canon try to avoid conflicts between DSLR and mirrorless in THEIR brand.But they forget they already have concurrent products from Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and even Samsung now.So, to avoid selling less DSLR in favor of mirrorless, they sell less mirrorless by making them unattractive and don't even sell them in the US market.At the end, they are going to sell less mirrorless...and less DSLR.Good job Canon !Next time, give me the gun to shoot in your foot...it will be less painful than the way you do it.
That's funny. Sometimes I think that they not only shoot themselves in both their left feet but then they stop and take the time to reload. LOL
Given that the utility of the M's compactness is negated by all but the smallest lenses it can mount, you might as well have a Rebel or full frame body. If compactness is a priority, an SL1, G3X or G1X/G1X II might make much more sense overall. I don't get the entire M series at all. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Edymagno: Practically the only advantage Canon had over Sony was the fully articulated screen in lieu of the only-tilt screen. Canon now follows Sony imitating their weak features. Holy crap Batman!
I really dislike tilt-only screens after using fully articulated ones. There's just no comparison. It forces the photographer to adjust to the camera instead of allowing the camera to adjust to the photographer.
timo: 'if you don't mind a little more cost, you can add Canon's EVF-DC1 for $250 (bringing the final cost of the G3 X and finder into near-parity with the cost of the Sony RX10 II).' - Huh? A little more cost?
True...but before I left it on, I'd have to buy one. And then the resulting "compactness" factor decreases. I know...we all pick our poison. :-)
jonby: I'm struggling to see who would buy this over the Sony or Panasonic. I was thinking maybe the trekker/traveller with an interest in landscape - versatile range in a small weather-sealed camera, where an EVF, wide aperture or fast operation are perhaps not so important. But then, battery life isn't great and I suspect the lens isn't quite as good at the edges as the PanaSonys.
The only other niche I can see is for people wanting to do candids from a distance without looking like they have a 'serious' camera, as the Canon looks more like a point and shoot than the others. But then the slow frame rates and shot to shot times would be a hindrance for this.
It's quite a capable camera overall, but at this price point, those in the know will go with the competition - perhaps it's principle market will be those who don't know any better? I don't know - am I missing something?
And those who already have an investment in Canon peripherals (flashes, etc.) would be inclined to give it increased consideration.
KW Phua: 1. External EVF is ok to keep the size down2. fps still can accept as to be use for travel3. Slow Len is biggest problem for this camera 4. 4k is good to have, not the mush as many do not has 4k display yet5. Price is too high.Give me 400mm with f4, I will give my money.
One thing that seems to be overlooked often when discussing 4k is the ability to extract very nice 8MP still images from the frames. This is a very nice capability and a welcome side effect of having 4k as a camera feature.
And annoying to have to reach for it and put it on every time you want to use an EVF.
Just as I suspected...just a G7X with a zoom lens and rinky-dink tilt-only LCD. No 4k video either. No thanks.
Canon is annoyingly frustrating.
Photato: Incomplete test without the Samsung Note 4.Also, the LG G2 and LG G3 can shoot Raw (DNG) with an app XCam LG.The Note 4 and LG G3 can save pictures on microSD cards and the battery can be swapped. Just like dedicated cameras.
Let the readers do the recommendations instead.
I completely agree. Not including the Samsung Note 4 when it's been widely known, evaluated, and found to be excellent by this time is weak, to be generous. I own one and can tell you the image quality is simply excellent for a phone camera. What makes this all the stranger is that the Note II (!!!) IS included in the list when it has already been superceded by TWO models of the Note.
Jim: Rhetorical Question: I wonder how much better the G3X image quality will be over an SX50HS when compared at 600mm and below? Especially so, since the SX50HS can be had for $200. Maybe it's just me but I am not seeing the value proposition here.
If you accept the fact that neither the SX50HS or the G3X is pocketable, then the pockets needed for either is more in line with those found in a jacket. That was all he was trying to say.
I don't disagree with that. All this is still reasonably speculative and we'll all see soon enough when the production level product is released.
Yannis1976: Well no worries, the market will actually give this product the position it deserves. Fortunately there are plenty of alternative options. I really wonder if the marketing or sales people of Canon surf these forums...
Fully agree...the market will ultimately decide.
Rhetorical Question: I wonder how much better the G3X image quality will be over an SX50HS when compared at 600mm and below? Especially so, since the SX50HS can be had for $200. Maybe it's just me but I am not seeing the value proposition here.
The same rinky-dink tilt-only LCD as on G7x...Disappointing.
Augustin Man: Wow! Interesting to say the least, but how big and heavy would be that "grote" zoom? Besides, after the SX60 cold shower, I feel like treasuring my dear SX50, but also like moving away to other brands :(
I agree and am seriously considering an FZ1000. We'll know more in the coming days.