ttran88: Olympus's new O-M EM-5II looks like a winner!! It does 40MP for $1100. Definitely a GOLD award camera.
@Zeisschen - actually, the benefit of the E-M5 MKII's high resolution sensor shift capture system is that it doesn't put extra high demands on the lens. It's taking four images with the 16mp sensor then combining them, so each image only requires the optical demands of a 16mp sensor. That's far less optically demanding than taking a single image with an ultra high resolution 50mp sensor! So you have it backwards. It's the 5Ds models that will require a very good lens.
tabloid: No viewfinder….therefore (in my opinion) can only be used indoors.
@tabloid - I hate to break it to you, but few if any of those shots on that sight are in direct bright sunlight. Why? Because harsh, bright, direct sunlight on a model is simply not very flattering. Any portrait, people, glamour photographer worth his salt knows this. But regardless, it's still a fact that millions of people are still able to take perfectly fine pictures with camera LCD's outdoors, so your comment that the EOS M3, or any other camera without a viewfinder, "can only be used indoors" is still ridiculous, and is disproven millions of times each day throughout the world.
Pythagoras: With the a6000 in existence for about a year now, i can't think of a reason for this camera to exist. And at this price, even less reason.
I think the "6X faster than original M" claim isn't saying much because the original M is pretty slow. So by using a slow reference point, Canon can claim a "6X faster" AF speed. And as far as I can tell, there've been no claims regarding its tracking speed. The M's are fine for static objects, but they do terrible with tracking moving subjects, unless the subject is moving across the screen (i.e. not much change in subject distance). Plus, AF performance still varies greatly with EF lenses using the adapter, so Canon definitely needs to introduce more native EF-M lenses. Besides, a mirrorless system that still needs to depend so heavily on adapted DSLR lenses isn't much of a mirrorless system.
There are millions of people doing just fine taking pictures outdoors with the LCD screens on their cameras. Not everyone shoots in bright mid-day light, first of all. Those conditions are often the worst conditions for photography. Images just don't look good when the light is that harsh and contrasty. But even when shooting in bright sunlight, it really depends on where the light is coming from. Usually, the sunlight has to hit the screen directly to wash it out. Other times, you can simply shade the screen with your body. For example, with a flip out screen, I often shooting from chest level, looking down at the screen with my head providing shade for it, like if I were shooting with an old Bronica or Rollei medium format camera with a waist-level finder. Sure, having a viewfinder is even better, but to say that the EOS M3 can only be used indoors is flat-put ridiculous. I've taken plenty of outdoor photos with my crummy old EOS M with its non-articulating LCD.
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.
@007peter - Ditto on the 90EX flash. It's so much more convenient to have a built-in flash. Just pop it up when you need it. Plus, the 90EX doesn't tilt up for bounce, while the M3's pop-up does. So with the M3, you get the best of both worlds: the convenience of a pop-up flash, or the power of a hotshoe flash. I just wish the M3's pop-up flash could be used as a wireless commander for Canon's E-TTL flash system. That was a dumb omission (which they probably did on purpose to force you to buy a 90EX or some other Canon EX flash so you could have wireless commander capability). All of Olympus's m4/3 mirrorless bodies, even their small PEN bodies, can use their tiny flashes to wirelessly command Oly remote flashes.
ericnon: At last a real contender in the ILC market!Taking all these improvements into account nobody can argue that Canon doesn't listento their customers!
They listened, except for the part about bringing the product to the US. Clearly, they didn't listen to those customers, nor do they seem to care.
Anastigmat: The 4/3 sensor was invented when sensors were very expensive. The smaller 4/3 sensor cost a lot less than APS-C sensors so it allowed 4/3 format manufacturers a much higher profit margin. Nowadays there is hardly any difference in cost between an APS-C and a 4/3 sensor. Even FF sensors are fast becoming commodity priced. That puts 4/3 format cameras at a disadvantage because they are destined to be low volume compared to the APS-C models, and the low volume forces the makers to raise prices above APS-C models. That means a smaller, noisier sensor must be sold at a higher price than a larger sensors with more pixels. For this reason, the 4/3 format is doomed, in much the same way that half frame 35mm film cameras were doomed.
I use m4/3 and APS-C mirrorless. There's a noticeable size difference between the two. m4/3 still has the advantage when it comes to size. And as for image quality, they all produce great image quality. It's only at the extremes of ISO that you notice a difference. So basically, the size differential of the equipment is something that you'll notice all the time (at least I do, since I use both), but the difference in IQ is something that you'll notice only occasionally.
I don't see how you can say that the M2 is "an absolute gem" while "the M3 is not", when the M3 adds so much more (it finally gets a decent grip with rubberization, a built-in flash so you don't have to carry around a hotshoe flash, a physical mode dial, a physical exposure comp dial, a front control dial, a multi-function button, an articulating LCD so you can shoot with the camera down low or overhead or selfies, the option to add an EVF, etc.) while barely increasing in size. The M3 is still "mini"...it's just a lot better, too. I think it's the M3 that's more like a gem (at least in the Canon mirrorless world), and the previous M/M2's are more like lumps of coal.
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!
@ Maverickmii -Actually, I think it's you who was looking for "bells and whistles." Features like an ergonomic grip, rubberization that makes the camera more comfortable to hold, a built-in flash, an EVF port, an articulating LCD, etc, are things that are of significant day-to-day value. These aren't "bells and whistles". Should these things have been included in the EOS M from the beginning? Sure, absolutely. But that wasn't the point of your original post. In your original post, you stated that " the only substantial difference i can see is 6MP more... and of course digic6". You missed these important basic additions to the M3 that add up to a considerable difference over the previous models. Keep looking for your "bells and whistles". But in doing so, you've ignored the added design features that make day-to-day use of a camera more effective. As Vladimir Vanek replied to you in an earlier post, "higher resolution is the least important thing..." that has been added to the M3.
dwill23: I LOVED the EOS M. The size, weight, and image quality were truly awesome. People put too much emphasis on the AF, sadly because review sites like this had a pre-hung-jury before it could get into consumer's hands.
It was a great camera. Period. It took excellent photos. Period.
But, AF and Video performance on other cameras eclipsed the EOS M.
I can only assume the EOS M did so poorly in the US, that's why Canon didn't bring the EOS M2 or M3 to the US.
Well Canon, you fixed the video and the focus, so I'll take one!
This hurts Canon so much in the mirrosless segment that there must be another reason. Maybe they know people in the US can shell out the money for a small compact and an SLR and don't want one that comes close to doing both.
This slew of cameras is not enough to save troubled Canon. This is good news; they'll have to do better soon.
I'm hanging on to a few lenses and a 70D... but maybe not for long. (I used to have EOS 1s and all L's).
Time will tell.
"It was a great camera. Period. It took excellent photos. Period."
I'm not sure what was so "great" about the camera. It has a lot of faults and weaknesses (slow AF, poor ergonomics, no built-in flash, long LCD black-out between shots, no EVF option, etc.). These things don't make for a "great" camera. And as for "excellent photos", I don't think the photos it produced were really any greater than so many other mirrorless cameras in the market. The M ultimately "did so poorly in the US" because it was NOT a great camera. If it were truly "great", I think it would have done great in the US. For example, if this new M3 was the model that was introduced a few years ago, instead of what we got back then with the M1, I think it would have been a lot more successful.
@Maverickmii - there are plenty of substantial differences. My gripes with the M were that it has poor ergonomics due to the lack of a grip, poor comfort due to the lack of rubberization anywhere on the body, no tilting LCD, hardly any physical controls, no EVF option, no built-in flash. The M3 addresses all these issues by finally adding a grip with rubberization, adds a tilting LCD, adds a lot of external physical controls (a mode dial, an exposure comp dial, a front control dial, a multi-function button), adds an EVF port, and adds a built-in flash. These are big improvements to the day-to-day usability of the M. None of these are "hidden features". They are quite obvious, especially to those of us who currently own an M. In spite of all these additions, the ONLY thing you noticed that was different was the bump in resolution and DIGIC 6? LOL.
Too bad it's not coming to the US.
whyamihere: Dear Canon,
Your PR material appears to be missing any mention of a lens worth giving a darn about.
Let us know when that happens.
PS: Ignore the angry Americans. We all know they just wanted the option for refusing to buy the camera.
"and tons of other Canon's glass via adapter:)"
Few of which you'd ever want to actually use on a small EOS M body. So, in reality, it's just a "tiny portion of other Canon glass via adapter." I say this as an EOS M owner with plenty of Canon DSLR glass and an adapter. Canon needs a lot more native EF-M glass. But based on Canon's track record, none of that would get distribution to the US either.
Vignes: not sure what's the issue with EVF. Oly pen series doesn't have one and people were happy to buy the VF2/3/4 EVF and using it for years. until EM5 come but then they omitted built in flash. Compact is compact plus cost is cost. Sony was smart to include a 1.4M EVF in a6000 but after using 2.3M EVF, the 1.4 M looks sub par. Serious photographers who wants EVF definitely wants the best. so either buy a body which has the best EVF or buy a good optional EVF.
That was then. This is now. EVFs are far more common now than they used to be. So expectations have changed.
Sdaniella: resorting to combining multiple exposures, albeit with a half-pixel shift in both X-Y axis ... compensating for shortcomings of its tiny m43 milc 16-mp sensor pixels ...
and restricting it severely to relatively good light ... and restriction to only medium ISOs (1600) ...
"and restricting it severely to relatively good light ... and restriction to only medium ISOs (1600) ..."
Yeah, because we all know how much everyone does product photography, architectural photography, still life photography, and landscape photography at ISO's higher than 1600! LOL. I don't think an upper limit of ISO 1600 is much of a "restriction" at all. Seems like a perfectly reasonable ISO range to me.
PerL: I think Samsung has chosen the wrong strategy. Few people see anything wrong with the performance or handling with top DSLRs. What people object to and what provides the opportunity for mirrorless is the form factor with the bulk and weight.Why mimic a concept that is almost perfected in its own way, instead of trying something different, like the other mirrorless companies.(I am talking about it as a still camera, the video part is something different)
If you think that the NX1 is merely a DSLR without a mirror, then you're not understanding the capabilities that mirrorless technology offers. There are a lot of things you can do with on-chip AF and metering and EVFs that you can't do with older mirror technologies. These capabilities continue to evolve and mature at a rapid rate, making mirror cameras and OVFs look increasingly primitive with every passing model generation.
BTW, the NX1 is more compact than a comparable DSLR. What's the smallest DSLR that can do 15 fps?
Shiranai: However, NX1 is still on a very low rank regarding sellings. Thats a thing you cannot fix with adding features. IMO they need to release more lenses or they need to adjust their price to other manufacturers mirrorless APS-C models (and not to fullframe).
I actually find the NX system's lens selection and lens pricing to be excellent! I think the selection and pricing is one of the best of all the mirrorless systems.
DomD: Can someone explains what is the difference between the GM-5 and the GF-7? Other than the flip screen, what else? And then the question becomes "why does panasonic offer both?"
The differences are pretty obvious. One has an EVF, one does not. One has a built-in flash, one does not. One has a hotshoe, one does not. One has an articulating LCD, one does not. One is $600, one is $900. Styling is also different between them. These are two cameras that each offer a very different set of features/specs from one another. Some people will like one, some will like the other. So the answer to the question "why does panasonic offer both" is obvious: to give consumers a choice.
dwl017: No thanks the Sony RX100 series will stay king in mind for many years to come. All this in my mind is just pointless trash. To each their own. Yes I am a Sony RX100 series owner so no Im not just talking out of my ass.
The GF7 is a system camera. The RX100 is not. A system camera is not "pointless trash". It allows you to mount various lenses on it. I think an Oly 45mm f/1.8 would look very nice on this camera: a fast, compact portrait lens. Or swap it out for a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 to have a fast street photography lens. Or stick on a Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 for some ultrawide fisheye photography.
caravan: Selfie screen and Zoom lens.
Apparently, caravan thinks that the selfie screen is permanently locked in its flipped-up position and the zoom lens is permanently attached to the camera! LOL.
yesint: Another stupid example of marketing :(1) Why on Earth they are making cameras with no grip? Even the smallest lens protrudes by 2-3 cm, so the size will not be any larger with a grip. 2) People, who are really interested in doing selfies will never change the lenses - they are mostly casual users, who don't care about the quality at all if their faces are recognizable in the Facebook post. They are happy with the smartphones.
I think people have this bizarre mis-conception that this camera is EXCLUSIVELY for the purpose of shooting selfies. LOL. The flip-up screen is merely an added feature, and even if you only use it once in a while to shoot a selfie, that's still a nice thing to have. Many people will find it to be an attractive feature to have, even just for occasional use. That sounds like perfectly good marketing to me. It's like having a pop-up flash; having a pop-up flash doesn't mean that you're going to use the pop-up flash ALL THE TIME. It's just a handy feature to have, even just for occasional use.