T3: You don't buy a Rolex because it tells time better than other watches. The same goes for the Leica T. It's not pixel peepers and price comparison shoppers who are going to be looking at the Leica T. This is for the people who regularly fly business or first class, not for the rest of the people sitting in coach or economy class.
For people who think that the Leica T is "just another mirrorless camera in a crowded market", I would argue that the Leica T definitely does not compete in the same general market as all the other mirrorless cameras. It's a luxury item catering to luxury customers who don't want a cheao Sony or Fuji, they want a Leica hewn from a solid billet of aluminum. It's a different market entirely.
I think people here just need to broaden their perspective and understand that there are quite a lot of very rich people in the world. If you ever go to places like Dubai, Qatar, Hong kong, Singapore, etc, you'll see that the level of wealth in these places is simply astounding, and Leica is smartly going after this market rather than trying to compete for the middle-income market that is already crowded and extremely price sensitive. Unfortunately, a lot of people here can't see beyond their own neighborhoods, their own economic circumstances, or even their own country. The world is a big place.
You don't buy a Rolex because it tells time better than other watches. The same goes for the Leica T. It's not pixel peepers and price comparison shoppers who are going to be looking at the Leica T. This is for the people who regularly fly business or first class, not for the rest of the people sitting in coach or economy class.
Michael Piziak: I was unaware that the strap that came with my camera was inadequate until now.
I've always used the OEM straps that came with my DSLRs too. I've just never bothered to change them. They work fine, certainly aren't "shoddy", and it's not as if changing the strap is suddenly going to make your DSLR any less obvious.
Sad Joe: WELL DONE FUJI ! As a Canon & Nikon user I do wonder how many of the 'improvements' newer cameras have could come via clever software updates….Ps - I love my two EOS-M's (no really - forget the negative reviews its a GREAT pocket DSLR) but I tried out a Fuji TX-1 at a wedding recently - superb. The pro I was working with is seriously considering selling off his FF Nikon kit he's that impressed with his TX-1. Perhaps Nikon & Canon should consider what this means to their business rather than half baked upgrades such as the D610 & D810 or a Canon 5d4 ????
I think you mean XT-1, not TX-1.
As for the EOS M, I have one too. But I'm not so in love with it. For me, it's a "meh" camera: no articulating LCD, poor grip, poor ergonomics, no built-in flash, no wifi, out-dated sensor. I think I'm going to switch to a Fuji X-A1, which gives me all the things that the EOS M is lacking. Plus, Fuji seems like they are doing a better job of listening to their users and supporting their users. I don't know what's going on with Canon. They don't seem to care.
The Name is Bond: Do the X-pro1 and XE-1 firmwares introduce the XE2 and XT1 plastic skin at high ISO 'feature'?
Conversely, do the Xe2 and xt-1 firmwares fix the plastic skin issue?
Also, I was wondering if the XP1 lockup bug was ever fixed; where you have to switch off and then on again every now and then.
Ignore the lowly, whiney JPEG shooter.
Michael Piziak: It's still good to see the Kodak name
@GodSpeaks - it actually might be better if it's "not really Kodak". Kodak of Rochester was a poorly run mess when it came to digital. Kodak under JK Imaging might very well have a better chance of taking the Kodak name into the digital era. Asian entities seem to have a better knack for this.
justmeMN: A bankrupt brand with no credibility in the current digital camera marketplace.
How much "credibility" do you need? As long as a camera does what people want, at the right price, that's what really matters to most consumers.
G1Houston: The mirrorless market is small and the one for m4/3 is even smaller which now already has two players. Adding a third player will first compete with the two existing ones, which means even less profits for everyone. Less profit means even more difficult time to survive and to invest in R&D. Kodak does not bring anything really new to the market but may only chip away the profit from the BIG two. If any one of the big two decides to quit, can Kodak take its place? Kodak has neither the expertise in optics nor videos. Without true innovation in the products, how can it compete with SONY? I don't see this as a good thing at all.
The m4/3 market is actually quite large, because it extends well beyond just consumer photo cameras. Right now, there are probably more manufacturers making lenses and camera bodies (both still, video, and cinema) than any other lens mount. So even if one of the m4/3 consumer photo camera brands were to drop out, the m4/3 mount will definite go on.
You are woefully uninformed if you think that m4/3 is only supported by Olympus and Panasonic. Companies like Blackmagic, JVCKenwook, Photron, SVS-Vistek are all making cameras for commercial and industrial applications that use the m4/3 mount. There are also companies like Zeiss that are making very high end cine lenses for m4/3. And, of course, there are many other companies that are making lenses for m4/3 (Leica, Panny, Oly, Kowa, Tamron, Sigma, etc).
As for Kodak entering the m4/3 camp, I definitely see that as a good thing because it increases the user pool for m4/3 even more. More support is better. Think about Android OS.
SushiEater: How do you get same exact crops on three different resolution cameras?
It doesn't invalidate the test, because in real world use you'd be downsampling for print or screen display anyways. So, how the Sony image looks when downsampled to the Canon's level is perfectly valid, and gives you a far more *practical* comparison than to compare them only at their native resolutions.
BillGarrett: I don't understand the effort put in to producing lenses like this for FF. Why (would a customer) spend all the money on FF and carry the weight and size of FF -- presumably all for the image quality of FF -- and then throw away so much of that IQ with the compromises inherent in a convenience lens?
Casual photographers who want an all-in-one lens should buy a well specified compact at 1/4 or 1/5 the price of a FF body + convenience lens. Or reevaluate the impressive IQ delivered by the latest generation of smartphones they may well already have in their pockets!
Just because you use FF doesn't mean you need *ultimate* image quality *all the time*! It's nice to have a compact superzoom in your gear bag, alongside all your fast primes or short zooms. Sometimes you want *ultimate* pixel peeping image quality (that's when you use the primes), and other times you just want to slap on a lens that gives you the convenience of a 28-300 zoom. And the IQ can still be quite good. Can a smartphone give you such a zoom range? And for the size of carrying a compact camera with a decent sized sensor with a comparable zoom range, you might as well just have this 28-300 zoom in your DSLR bag. Are you really proposing that FF DSLR users also carry "a well specified compact at 1/4 or 1/5 the price of a FF body" in their bag that sits alongside their DSLR, rather than having this lens that they can mount on their DSLR?
Keep in mind FF DSLR users also enjoy being "casual photographers", too. It's not as if ever shot we're taking is for a high end client.
Rooru S: fifth af lens for eos-m in two years? it's hard to believe people are complaining about lack of lenses in sony e-mount (both fullframe and aps-c)
@67gtonr - no, the adapter is not the a solution for mirrorless. People who go mirrorless want lenses for mirrorless. Besides, there's only a tiny fraction of those 100 EF lenses that you'd ever realistically want to use on an EOS M that has no grip, no EVF, no external controls. The vast majority of EF lenses are way oversized and overweighted to stick on Canon's small soap-bar camera, the EOS M. So people who brag about how awesome the EOS M is because it can make "full use of the Canon catalog of over 100 EF and EF-s lenses of a variety unmatched by any other system" are really just desperately grasping at straws trying to puff up the EOS M image with something that ends up being a hollow boast when you attempt to put it into practical application.
Besides, did we really buy an EOS M so that we could negate its size by adding an adapter, then putting big DSLR lenses onto it, to have a camera that handles poorly due to the drastic mismatch between body and lens?
Dennis: Watch out micro 4/3 ! The juggernaut is coming at you !
Coming next year: the EF-M 18-55mm II
67gtonr - You keep clinging to the false notion that the EOS M is very successful. In Japan, it's mainly being bought by young Japanese women who care more about the color of their camera than its viability is a system. The same thing happened with Nikon's 1 system. Nikon 1 was also very popular for a time, but it was due to the fact that the lowest model, the J1, was being very aggressively priced, and it was popular amongst young Japanese women. Very similar to what is happening with the EOS M. These are temporary surges in popularity. And these buyers don't really support a broader system. These buyers are mainly just casual users. It's not really a usership you can build a whole system on. Buyers of Oly, Sony, and Fuji's mirrorless systems are more serious users, and that type of user is much better for the long-term success of these systems. The temporary surge in sales of the EOS M is very misleading. It's not a serious, dedicated usership. It's almost more like a fashion fad.
Donnie G: I think that any new or updated EOS M body that Canon decides to sell in the U.S. will be offered in several different body + lens and body + lens + EVF kits. A typical 2 lens kit might consist of a prime lens + a convenience wide to telephoto zoom + body + camera bag for under $1000. I doubt that there will be a body only option. I believe the cameras will be P&S simple, with few external controls, but with excellent image quality and very easy to use video capture. Body and lenses will likely continue to be housed in handsome metal exteriors. This new EF-M 55-200mm lens would be a perfect fit for a compact kit like that. I also think that these kits will be sold mostly through the Canon direct sales website. It just makes sense.
OK, Donnie, let's wait and see if Canon is going to go the "custom kit sales" route through their direct sales website. Plus, what is this "more complex or custom kits that one might want to purchase" non-sense you are talking about? You act as if buying an EOS M is like configuring a Dell PC! LOL. And it's pretty hard to out together a "complex custom kit" when there is so little in the EOS M system to choose from. Ultimately, if Canon has invested so little in the EOS M thus far, what makes you think they would be interested in custom kit fulfillment for the EOS M!?!? I don't think Canon is interested in doing anything more for the EOS M system than the bare minimum. If you want a *real* mirrorless system, everyone should just go to Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, or even Nikon. After all, why should consumers enthusiastically support Canon's EOS M system when Canon isn't even enthusiastically supporting the EOS M system? There's just not much of anything to be enthusiastic about.
Lab D: F/4.5-F/6.3 awesome.
@EvokeEmotion- "Thought you guys would be scrambling to find some kind of bandage fix for your EVFs getting burnt by the sun."
Wow, seriously? You actually think that EVF's are "getting burnt by the sun." LOLOL. How, in your warped thinking, is that even possible? Sunlight never has any contact with the EVF screen. The EVF is merely showing an image of what the image sensor sees. If the sun were to burn anything, it would be the image sensor, because that's the light-sensitive component that is being exposed to the sun. And last time I checked, all digital cameras have image sensors. And yet, I don't see an epidemic of sensors being "burnt by the sun"!
If you think EVF's are getting burnt by the sun, then wouldn't that also apply to rear LCD screens, too? I guess you also think that when you see a picture of the sun on your television screen or computer screen, you think that it's going to burn those screens. And give you a sun tan, too! Hahaha.
@EvokeEmotion - "Oh by the way, now I know why people with poor math skills go for m43."
Ahahahaha. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be because m4/3 offers such a broad selection of mirrorless bodies and lenses to choose from! And it couldn't possibly be because m4/3 offers in-body image stabilization so that any lens you put on an IBIS body is stabilized. And it couldn't possibly be because m4/3 offers a system that can be quite compact compared to APS-C mirrorless systems. No, it's merely because 2X is easy to multiply than 1.5/1.6X! Yeah, sure, pal.Frankly, the only "math" that really matters is that Canon still only offers four lenses in the entire EF-M system, two of which aren't even available in the US, leaving the few existing US users with a whopping two-lens EOS M mirrorless system.
"At least you don't have to times two to arrive at the effective aperture. Unlike what you're shooting with."
At least these "times two" systems offer a much broader lens selection to choose from, including lenses with much faster apertures. That's why these "times two" systems are being used to serious users. Because it's an actual serious system that you can take seriously and use seriously. That's a much stronger and more significant "at least" than what you've been able to come up with. Here's a wedding photographer who went from Nikon FF to m4/3:
I don't think anyone is going to be switching to EOS M for their wedding photography any time soon.
"I also think that these kits will be sold mostly through the Canon direct sales website. It just makes sense."
Wishful thinking. Canon doesn't even sell EOS M kits on their direct sales website right now. Besides, only a very small fraction of sales are ever done through manufacturers direct sales website. It's very optimistic to predict that "these kits will be sold *mostly* through the Canon direct sales website." So it doesn't make much sense, if they were really serious about selling EOS M. What would make sense would be to stick these kits in every Costco in the world. That kind of visibility, combined with the Canon name, would sell kits. But I just don't think Canon is really that interested in selling mirrorless at all. EOS M is like the b@stard stepchild of the Canon family. They don't seem very enthusiastic about it. Just listen to what Canon execs say when they talk about it. It's as if they are only selling it begrudgingly.
Other sites have reported that this lens will have a plastic lens mount. I'm okay with shorter lenses having plastic lens mounts, because those lenses don't stick out as much. But I don't think it's a good idea for a long, narrow telephoto lens to have a plastic lens mount. A long, narrow cylinder sticking out from your camera needs something more re-assuring than a plastic lens mount.
It really seems like Canon is only doing the bare minimum to keep the EOS M system going. I think it's time to sell my EOS M gear.
CameraLabTester: Canon should replace the EOS M disaster with a newer body model instead on newer lenses.
New lenses, no matter how brilliant they are, are just bricks when mounted on the quagmire designed EOS M.
Come out with an upgrade for EOS M, then maybe consumers will call on the deal.
It is also your responsibility, Canon, to issue relevant and important FIRMWARE UPDATES to those who have been suckered into buying the EOS M incomplete camera. They deserve your support.
@Q67gtonr - "Except the M2 is smaller, has a better sensor, focuses faster and has wifi!"
Except no one asked for a *smaller* EOS M. And the sensor is only "better" because the initial sensor wasn't exactly cutting edge. Plus, saying that the M2 "focuses faster" isn't exactly high praise considering the bar was set pretty low from the beginning. As for wifi, I really wish Canon's implementation was as good as their mirrorless competitors. Just compare it to, say, Fuji's implementation of wifi and you'll quickly see how weak Canon's is. I think the M2 really should have been the M1 to begin with. Then maybe we'd have an even better M by now.
*Sigh*, I miss the days when Canon was actually a leading, innovative company.
Dr111968: I wonder why mirrorless camera body should be small while the lenses are huge! what is the point!
@tkbslc - but you're forgetting that the X-T1 is the largest mirrorless body Fuji makes. When Fuji's *largest* body is the same size as the *smallest* DSLRs, that's still saying something about the size advantage of mirrorless. But the 20mm reduction in mount depth counts for a lot, especially in real world usage. Visually, a mirrorless body, even a "big" mirrorless body like the X-T1, produces a very slim visual footprint when you're out and about with it. It makes even small DSLRs look downright fat. Plus, the slim profile of mirrorless bodies means they take up very little room in a camera bag. You can slip a mirrorless body into a side pocket of a camera bag that a DSLR body-- even a small DSLR body-- would never fit into. Even better if you carry two bodies. And even better still if the second body is one of Fuji's smaller mirrorless bodies.