Debankur Mukherjee: Its neither "smartphone" nor "lack of fun"...its the price that's killing the camera........most companies are charging abnormally high price for a decent set of camera and lens.............most of them are over priced........
I was not speaking of the second hand market.
dynaxx: Just one more symptom of a society that now has a dull and uneducated majority, that used to be a minority. Everything has to be dummed-down to its simplest level so they can cope and the simplest photography is found in a mobile telephone.
Too many examples in modern life but look at newspapers, TV programs, cinema that now use simple language/ideas and avoid complexity because most people can't handle it.
Understanding how photography works does not involve any difficult concepts or skills but the short attention span of the current generation rules out reading a book on the subject that was always the way of learning anything new for my generation.
Yeah, that's why the Box Brownie and Instamatic were the most popular cameras of past generations.
mrgooch2008: If you could eliminate the " Selfie " you would eliminate most phone photography.
Not even close. Most phone photography is the same as most digital PnS photography.
Steve in GA: Let's say you're on vacation, as I was recently in New Mexico. And, you have your wife, daughter and granddaughter with you. And, you're visiting one of the absolutely spectacular sights that NM has to offer, such as El Malpais National Monument.
At the natural bridge in the national monument, the clouds are moving across the sun, periodically changing the lighting. You want to get photos not only of the natural bridge itself, but also photos of your family enjoying the experience of being in such an exotic location.
That's going to mean that you're going to need to focus and expose on different elements in the scene. Sometimes people, sometimes the sky, sometimes the rocks.
Making your DSLR go through its paces to get all this done, and done well, is fun to me. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old nerd that enjoys making a complicated machine like a DSLR do what I want.
I don't think the point was being made in reference to people like us.
Hardly. You can get a very good compact for $99, an outstanding one for $300, and it's not hard to find clearance/refurb SLR and mirrorless starting at $300-400. It costs probably 1/2 or even 1/3 as much to get into a nice camera today as it did when sales were at their peak.
If you ask me, for the snapshotter, it has always been about the ease of sharing. People rushed to digital because it let you skip the process of having to run to the one-hour photo booth. You just had to go down to your PC and plug in a cable, download, run them through some editing software if you want, and then you could email, print or whatever right at home! Well now the cell phone camera makes it even easier. Now you don't even have to put them on your PC -ever! You just take pictures, run simple and free apps and then you can share them within minutes with no intermediary devices required.
I don't think it has anything to do with the camera device. 95/100 people you see with a camera never take it out of Auto mode. It's point and click no matter if it is a phone or an SLR. The menus are irrelevant because most people don't even change anything. The "fun factor" is not having the complexity and delay of requiring a computer or film developer.
BorisK1: Part of the problem is the intended use. In most common scenarios, if the image is purely for the web, a dedicated camera is overkill.
If you're making a 400x320 thumbnail, a $2000 lens will not do any better than a $20 software-corrected chunk of plexiglass. And it will be heavy and clunky.
I don't think that is a new problem. If anything, most web consumption devices have a larger display and more resolution than the average film era snapshot printed at 3" square or 3.5x5" as the fotomat.
Can you imagine what the mirrorless landscape would look like today if Canon had released an E-M5 or NEX-6 type camera back in 2012 instead of the horribly mediocre EOS M? 3 Years later and they still aren't really trying.
BLongborough: Sorry to be cynical, but for me that says "M4 in 1st half of 2016"
Cynical? I think that is ridiculous optimism.
PVCdroid: Excellent! Canons answer to Sony.
Canon's answer to the NEX-5T.
batmatty: Nice! Got my mom the first M and it's a fantastic little camera! That 22mm lens is a gem and makes for a great day camera!
Bet you didn't pay $700 for it. The EOS M + 22mm kits were fantastic because they gave them away. If this was a $399 camera, the praise would be through the roof. At $700 there is a lot of REALLY good competition. A6000, GX7, E-M10, NX500, etc.
skysi: Useless junk!
Despite it being a poor product offering competitively, I'm quite positive that anyone with a modicum of skill as a photographer could do quite well with an M3 kit. It is far from useless.
Is is good value? Would I buy it? More appropriate questions for sure.
tkbslc: Pretty embarrassing a day after the EM10 II launch.
I was a long time Canon shooter. Even owned the EOS M and 22mm f2. m4/3 is as good as Canon APS-C at high ISO and better daytime IQ thanks to the DR. Comparing to the EOS M, the faster lenses (And sheer magnitude available) easily trumps the 1.25x crop factor difference. In short, the only differences I notice in my images are positives.
Pretty embarrassing a day after the EM10 II launch.
HaroldC3: I dont understand how Canon is still trying to sell this camera at a premium price. May be a good sign of things to come though in the US market.
G1x mk2 comes with a lens that would cost $800 alone for an EOS m3.
joe6pack: What is the difference between the old and new 22mm? The old one is less than half of the price.
Looks like IS was added. Hopefully faster AF.
tkbslc: Darn, I was hoping for a 4th X100 with the same sensor and lens.
Should have said "similar".
kevin_r: Please make it a 12-45mm f/2 lens......and call it the XT120
12-45mm f2 on APS-C? Have you seen the 18-35 f1.8 from Sigma? You want a fixed lens camera larger than that?
Physics is hard for some, I suppose
Or at least 1 of the 2.