mosc: I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?
I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?
Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.
I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?
" No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?"
I use the Oly 45/1.8, which is a beautiful m4/3 lens that gives me a portrait length of 90mm (equivalent). The Oly 45/1.8 looks great on the GM1.
I have the Panasonic 14/2.5, Panasonic 20/1.7, and Oly 45/1.8. Each of these lenses is tiny, and I would love to use all these lenses on the GM1. So *that* is why it's an ILC! Time to get a clue, pal.
Treeshade: "Canon has the largest market share right now."So did Internet Explorer.
"Many people actually own the EOS M."So did Internet Explorer.
"It is simple and friendly to use, fulfilling basic needs."So did Internet Explorer.
"And the new version got a speed boost"So did Internet Explorer.
@Avobanana - "Complacency leads to downfall."
So are you yet *another* person who is predicting Canon's downfall?!?! Hahaha. I've heard people like you making the same prediction about Canon every year since the late 80's.
Canon is developing their mirrorless product. They are building a good foundation. They picked a good sensor size. They continue to iterate. In the meantime, the mirrorless market isn't exactly burning up the sales charts yet. Just look at Amazon's "Best Sellers in DSLRs" list (which also included MILCs, since MILCs isn't big enough to warrant its own list yet). In this heavy buying season, DSLRs occupy the first 40 spots (!) on the list. The first MILC to appear on the list is the Panasonic GH3 at #41, followed by the Sony A3000 at #45.
So your notion of "complacency" is ill-founded. Canon are working on MILC, and the market is still in its infancy.
T3: Even though I use m4/3, in the long run I know I'd still rather have APS-C...just like in the 4/3 vs APS-C DSLR battle. That's why I bought an EOS M, 22mm EF-M, 18-55mm EF-M, and 90EX flash last week...all for $379. I'm getting in while it's cheap. Canon is taking its time in mirrorless, but it'll get there. But at least they have the larger APS-C format, which is something that m4/3 obviously won't ever have. So I'm just planning long term for the future. Plus, I consider m4/3 to be a stop-gap system to tide me over while Canon slowly eases into mirrorless.
@Resom - no, I haven't invested "too much money" in m4/3. I got my worth out of it, and then some. I could sell it off, or I could just keep it, it's all fine with me. But it has certainly served its intended purpose as an interim MILC system for me. I got my return on my "investment."
As for Canon, I think they'll do just fine with mirrorless. After all, mirrorless still isn't burning up the sales charts just yet. Go look at Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR's list (which also includes MILC, since MILC isn't big enough to warrant its own list yet). Last time I checked, the first 40 spots were occupied by various DSLR bodies, kits, and packages. The first MILC's to show up on the list were the Panny GH3 (#41) and the Sony A3000 (#45).
So by the time mirrorless really takes off, Canon will be ready. Until then, mirrorless is a continued work-in-progress for Canon. Canon is a big, smart, methodical company. They didn't get to their position by accident.
Anastigmat: I am glad Canon uses the APS-C format for its mirrorless cameras. Pentax and Nikon are making huge mistakes using sensors smaller even than M4/3. Moving in the other direction is Sony, with its full frame mirrorless camera. In a few years, you will find that the only M4/3, and the Nikon and Pentax mirrorless cameras for sale are found inside glass cases in your local pawnshop.
I totally agree. I use m4/3, but I recently bought an EOS M kit because 1) it was super cheap, and 2) because I still prefer a larger sensor format. m4/3 is still pretty good, though. It would be the smallest ILC format I would settle for. Anything smaller is a no-go for me. That means Nikon and Pentax MILC are out.
James Qi: Is there a point to the EOS M line? Maybe Canon decided reduce the amount of tax they would have to pay on their profits.
I think EOS M is a continued work in progress. Canon doesn't need to make much money off of it. But they can continually re-iterate and improve the product until they will make fools of all those who doubted what Canon was doing. Canon has a long history of people doubting what they were doing.
vroger1: The only point seems to be an attempt to be on the mirrorless bandwagon. The camera was badly thought out- had terrible handling (somewaht improved with the firmware upgrade). A digicam of which Canon should be thoroughly ashamed. Nikon with its "1" series and Canon with its M- its as though they were someone who thinks they are "above the law". The law in this case being a reasonable consumer's wishes.
The problem with the "1" series is that it will ALWAYS have that tiny sensor. Meanwhile, Canon will continue to steadily improve their EOS M system, and they were smart enough to build it around a much larger APS-C sensor. I think Canon is taking it slow and steady with EOS M...which is fine right now since mirrorless doesn't have a very serious adoption rate yet.
"It must be a pain, to be a Canonian?"
Not really. Most Canonians are still happily shooting away with their Canon DSLR's. Others, like myself, are using m4/3 mirrorless to fulfill their mirrorless kicks. And now that I'll soon have an EOS M, I'll enjoy that, too. I just don't see that many Canonians in a mad rush to go all-in with a full Canon mirrorless system.
I think it would be a bigger pain to have invested too much money in m4/3 if what I really want is APS-C. For me, sensor size still matters, just as much as it did when we were comparing 4/3 DSLRs vs APS-C DSLRs. I just don't think that such a consideration should be ignored just because we're talking about mirrorless.
I should point out that I am also a Canon DSLR user, so obviosly I would prefer to stay within the Canon EOS family, as opposed to going with Sony mirrorless. Thats why I eventually want to have EOS M as my sole compact mirrorless system. I can be patient. In the meantime, I'm enjoying m4/3, and will hopefully soon take delivery of my EOS M kit.
Even though I use m4/3, in the long run I know I'd still rather have APS-C...just like in the 4/3 vs APS-C DSLR battle. That's why I bought an EOS M, 22mm EF-M, 18-55mm EF-M, and 90EX flash last week...all for $379. I'm getting in while it's cheap. Canon is taking its time in mirrorless, but it'll get there. But at least they have the larger APS-C format, which is something that m4/3 obviously won't ever have. So I'm just planning long term for the future. Plus, I consider m4/3 to be a stop-gap system to tide me over while Canon slowly eases into mirrorless.
That has got to be the lamest comparison I've ever heard. IE came pre-installed on Windows. You didn't go out and get it by choice, and you certainly didn't pay for it. So the comparison to Canon is ridiculous because Canon doesn't come "pre-installed". You gotta buy Canon by choice, and you have to pay money for it. And Canon has been doing it quite successfully for a long time.
backayonder: I saw one in a shop in Sydney yesterday and it sure is big and clunky.
@HowaboutRAW - Your Contax N film camera is lightweight because it is a film body. Film bodies don't have much of anything inside of them. And they didn't have big 3.2" color LCD panels on the back, either. That's why your big Contax N film body is so light! If you ripped out all the electronic guts out of a D800 (all that stuff that makes it "digital"), a D800 would be pretty light too!
As for the D4 being big, I don't see why Nikon couldn't put the D4 on a diet and make it about the size of a Df. Plus, with smoother contours and a more modern sculpted body, it won't look as clunky as the Df. A lot of that clunkiness comes from the overwrought "retro" aesthetics of the Df.
Der Steppenwolf: Great sensor, poor camera with it's artificial 1/4000s shutter limit and wheels from 1970s. And those who still own those "legacy lenses" should really be shopping for caskets instead of new camera.
@HowaboutRAW - What's wrong with wheels? They went overboard with them! Look at how many wheels, switches, and dials the Df has on top, compared to a *real* classic like the Nikon F3:
Nikon made the mistake of thinking that if some dials were good (like on cameras from the past), more dials must be even better! Instead of making a more refined and more simple user experience, they made it a more cluttered one. More isn't always better.
Francis Carver: Not sure what the actual purpose behind these shots is? I mean, there are plenty of available photos of 1950s era automobiles available that were taken in the 1950s. These are different (better?) -- how? Not trying to be difficult, mind you, I am just really "not getting" these ones here.
Ignore him. Francis is just trying to be difficult, as always. He doesn't "get" a lot of things. LOL.
His comment is like asking why people get into model railroads, when there are plenty of perfectly fine real railroads out in the world! LOL.
And yes, there are people who are into model railroad photography, too.http://www.modelrailroadphotography.com/
He probably doesn't "get" that either. What, exactly, is there to "get" about any hobby that gives people pleasure and enjoyment?
Or lets take it even closer to home: what's the point of any of us doing photography when a bazillion photos already exist? ("These are different (better?) -- how?") What's the point of taking a picture of a flower if there are already countless great flower photos available, and many of them probably look a heck of a lot "better"? It's simply because we just enjoy doing it. What else is there to "get" about that? Anyone who is "not getting" it is either being difficult, or just weird.
concert photographer: Why is it not possible to use most Olympus lenses on Panasonic cameras? (and vice-versa). I thought they did work together since 7 years to achieve this goal?I shot some pictures with the 9-18mm on the GX7: horrible! It simply doesn't WORK. Strange that nobody ever tried to do that before! before replying, please TRY yourself.One issue will be soon the non waterproof tilted viewfinder: five minutes of rain on it in its upwards position and the whole camera is ruined.Marc
Not too smart, are you? Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "non waterproof"!!! LOL. That's like complaining that you ruined your non waterproof watch because you wore it while swimming in your pool or taking a shower!!! Duh! It wasn't waterproof, fool!
Gekopaca: It seems I'm alone, but I think Panasonic made a big design mistake with the GX7. I recently put my hands on it in a shop (I'm waiting for a Leica-type silent M43 since years!) and was really disapointed where they put the release button - not a classic slightly cambered one in the corner, but a flat profile AFTER the speed dial !!!!Result : impossible to shoot precisely, and, most of all, impossible to shoot with the second phalanx of the finger which is - all leicaists will confirm that - the best "oneself image stabilization" invented in the history of photography.Japanese ingineers aren't human or what?!?! What's sure, that they aren't photographers… Too bad! IMHO without this default - unacceptable for my use - the GX7 should be the best camera of the year.
You made the very common mistake of making a handling assessment based on very short experience, while comparing it to your own pre-conceived notions and biases. The result was inevitable: you were dissatisfied.
I've used so many different cameras over my life time, it's ridiculous. And every single one seems a bit awkward at first, especially when you approach it with a pre-conceived notion, or are comparing it with something you are more familiar with. Big mistake! Long story short, I got used to every camera I used, and ended up enjoying each one of them!
As for what "all leicaists will confirm", that's a bunch of baloney. Leica rangefinders are very non-ergonomic (their design basically pre-dates the science of ergonomics, which is why Leicas have practically no ergonomic body design considerations), and yet "leicaists" will yap endlessly about how wonderfully ergonomic those cameras are. LOL.
Get over your pre-conceived biases. That's the only problem here. Not the camera.
I don't mind the $10/month fee, but I'm worried about what they'll do to the price after your 12 months is up. I just don't trust Adobe anymore. They'll jack up the price, and you'll be jacked in the process.
Neodp: One day perhaps the m43 sensor will be better than the best APS-C sensors today. That day, is not today. I can not abide the water color smeary noise at 1:1, at real world lighting (including shadows in any contrasting light) high IOS's. I'd say the goal is zero noise; at ISO 3200. This camera is way over priced. It's fine lenses are also way overpriced, comparatively (think 35mm Nikkor AF-S). I'm all for better carry sizes(and pocket camera progression); but it's just not worth it, now.
"I can not abide the water color smeary noise at 1:1"
Well, ask yourself how often you view a photo "at 1:1" in the real world? Real photos are not viewed at 1:1. In fact, the best photos in the world, the most iconic ones, the great ones, aren't going to look very good "at 1:1" either, especially the ones that were shot on film! So I really think people should just get away from obsessive pixel peeping and get back to what real photography is about: being there, with a camera, to capture a moment. Real photography isn't about sitting in front of a computer anally pixel peeping images "at 1:1". Well, ok, maybe that's what photography is to *you*. But I think a lot of people are finally getting past that distorted notion of photography.
I think pixel peeping at 1:1 was very valuable in the earlier days of digital cameras. But these days, that obsessive practice has diminishing returns, and is less of an indicator of how an image will look when viewed normally than ever before.
rfsIII: I find it very interesting that so many people now say they need to buy two camera systems, one for "serious" shooting and one for casual shooting as though you could split the two.
But my real question is whether this is a genuine need or something that we've been coaxed into believing by the camera industry. And why? Isn't one system enough? Presuming you're not a full-time professional, what is the unfulfilled psychological need we're addressing by owning two camera systems rather than one? I love new gear, and love that we have so many choices, but this seems excessive.
Do you just have one pair of shoes? (Okay, maybe you do. But a lot of us do have different pairs of shoes for different occasions.)
I really don't think there's anything wrong with having different cameras for different applications or different scenarios. For example, if you're just going around town, do you really want to lug around a big DSLR? What's wrong with having a lighter, more compact alternative?
And frankly, I started realizing this "need" years ago. But it's only fairly recently that camera manufacturers have finally introduced products that fit the need. So, no, I don't think it's a case of the camera industry coaxing us into believing we need these cameras. I think it's the other way around: the camera industry finally listening to consumers, rather than flooding the market with more me-too DSLRs (or more tiny-sensored P&S cameras) and shoving those cameras down our throats.
inorogNL: The grip design is simply brilliant!
Now I just want someone to make a third-party knock-off for half the price. $100 for the grip is a bit steep. But that's OEM for you.
Looks like a great camera for those of us who don't want to lug around a DSLR everywhere, but still want the flexibility of a decent sized sensor and some lens options/interchangeability. There's definitely a time and place for a DSLR, but come on people, you don't need to take your DSLR everywhere. These days, seeing someone lug a DSLR into a restaurant or at a party just looks silly and dorky, especially when there are good alternatives now available.