Jogger: With touchscreen on real cameras, you either go all touch or no-touch. The in-between creates a lot of headaches in practical use.. esp. with a built-in EVF. Commenters crying about lack of touchscreen have no intention on buying Sony in the first place.
This "all or nothing" attitude is non-sense. Sometimes, you want to use touch, and sometimes you don't. What's the big deal? If I'm shooting video or shooting stills off the LCD, I like using touch focus to change the location of the AF point. That's so much easier and quicker than trying to do with with fiddly secondary physical controls. Then, when I want to use the EVF, I switch to using physical controls. Again, what's the big deal?
BigJ2013: Who wants or needs a touch screen! Dumb thought to think that one is actually required. Even Audi & Lexus has done away with that annoyance and use other means of navigating the menus.
Yeah, and I can't wait until smartphones and tablets get rid of touch, too! LOL.
Touch is definitely *not* dumb. Your thumb is already right there next to the screen. It's totally logical that you should simply be able to touch graphical buttons on the screen...just like you do on a smartphone. What's "dumb" is that you have to use secondary controls (like buttons or dials) to interact with the primary information on the screen, when it would be easier just to interact with the screen directly.
caravan: Seems like a good product.pleased that it does not have a touch screen,biggest con for me is the articulating LCD.
Thanks for the review.
I think every camera should have a touchscreen, and eventually I think every camera *will* have a touchscreen. Touchscreens are a totally logical progression in human interface. Why use a secondary control interface (like a button or dial) to interact with the screen when you can interact directly with the screen? It reminds me of when ATMs and electronic kiosks didn't have touch and you had to use a track ball and buttons to navigate around the screen. Annoying! Imagine if tablets and smartphones didn't have touch, and you had to use a trackball or buttons to navigate around their screens! Yes, at one time we didn't have touchscreen technology, so we had to rely on secondary buttons and dials to interact with a screen's information. But that is no longer the case. At least give us the option of touch.
As for an articulating screen, if you don't need it, leave it closed. And when you do need it, just flip it out. It's a proven and reliable feature, just like a pop-up flash.
It's just a lot harder to do street photography when you're lugging around a big honking DSLR. DSLRs really sticks out like a sore thumb. That's what's so wonderful about mirrorless cameras. They are so light, compact, and unintimidating. It makes you less of a target for theft, too.
justmeMN: For comparison, the Canon SL1 /100D DSLR is 8% narrower, 5% shorter, (20% thicker), and weighs 7% less than the Samsung NX30.
So much for the size advantage of mirrorless, at least in this case.
I'd recommend you take a look at the top-down comparison of these two bodies:
What mirrorless does is get rid of the large "dead space" of a DSLR. i.e. that large central volume of space required for the reflex mirror and mirror box. As a result, the flange focal distance is only 25.50mm on the mirrorless NX, while it's a whopping 44mm on the Canon SL1. That's why, once you mount a lens, a mirrorless body feels so much more compact. That's because the midsection of a mirrorless body is so much narrower than that of a DSLR. So your numbers are a bit misleading. A mirrorless body can give still give you a fairly beefy grip, but still offer a slimmer body because the slimness is at the midsection (i.e. at the lens mount). The SL1 downsizes by sacrificing grip size, but you still have the fat central portion of the body required for the mirror box. As a result, once you mount a lens, DSLR ends up being so much larger than comparable mirrorless.
Robert Wise: Wonder why Sony have deleted the Mark 2 hot shoe on the Mark 3 version? I know the Mark 3 has a EVF but that is not the only reason for using the hot shoe.
It's not difficult to understand. Just look at the top-plate real estate!
The pop-up viewfinder takes up space. The pop-up flash takes up space. That doesn't leave any space for a hot shoe. There's just not enough room for the viewfinder, flash, and hotshoe on such a compact body. And of these three items, I think Sony realized that the hot shoe is the least used item amongst people who buy a compact camera. After all, the whole point of having a compact all-in-one camera is to have it all in a single compact camera. A hotshoe flash tends to be incongruent with this all-in-one-body ethos.
RichRMA: With ISO capabilities what they are today, why would you need a tripod collar on a lens with a maximum 200mm focal length and stabilization? Night shots?
Comfort. For long spans of shooting, I like putting my Canon 70-200/4L on a monopod, using its tripod collar (which is an optional extra, just like on this Tokina). No need to hold the weight of the lens and camera. The monopod does it for you. And the tripod collar allows you to easily switch between vertical and horizontal orientations, which you wouldn't be able to do if you mounted the monopod to the camera's tripod socket. Plus, the tripod collar puts the monopod at a more balanced center-of-gravity location, which improves handling. I love having a tripod collar for my 70-200/4L. It was definitely worth the extra cost.
viking79: Pop up viewfinder is nice, but how does one hold onto that camera? It looks like it has no comfortable way to hold it.
If you need instructions on how to hold a compact camera, try looking at photos:
These are not heavy cameras, so you don't need much to hold them. If you think the camera needs more support, put your left hand under the camera.
Ian SS: The cheaper 10-18mm EFS I see the point, but why 16-35mm IS? Wide angle lenses will not be affected as much due to hand shaking, I would rather have bigger f-stop.
Photographers tend to forget that their beloved DSLRs and DSLR lenses aren't just for taking photos anymore. These products have become the workhorses of the video industry now. And IS comes in very handy for video shooting. But obviously, it can be quite handy for stills shooting too. Just because wide angle lenses aren't effected "as much" due to handshake doesn't mean they aren't effected at all. Why do you think a tripod is standard equipment for landscape photographers, even though most landscapes are shot with wide angles? It's because stability matters, even with wide angles.
Olgierd: For $300 I'll buy 10-18 for my little EOS-M. Small and fairly light, cheaper than EFM 11-22 and available in US. Good option to take while I'm hiking.
@GKN - but you can't put the 11-22 EF-M on a Canon DSLR body. The 11-22 EF-M will, forever, be limited to Canon's mirrorless system. With the 10-18 EF-S, you can use it on both a Canon DSLR body (APS-C) and a Canon EOS M body. So it depends on what your priorities are: maximum compactness, or maximum versatility. For maximum compactness, go with the 11-22 EF-M. For maximum versatility so you can use it on both EOS and EOS M bodies, go with the 10-18 EF-S.
ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.
But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?
What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)
If you're a working wedding photographer or photojournalist, you're not going to be buying this lens. This isn't meant to be a pro lens. Pros generally want constant f/2.8 with more robust build. This is an affordably-priced, light, variable-aperture zoom that will be perfect for most consumers.
ChrisKramer1: Canon 10 - 18 looks like a plastic mount. Yuk. I find that is one cost-cutting measure too far.
It's not a big deal. I've found plastic mounts surprisingly resilient and durable. A lot more durable than people think. Mated with the right lens, it's a perfectly fine material. For example, it wouldn't be so good for longer, larger, faster, heavier lens. But for a short, compact wide-angle zoom that only weighs 240g like the 10-18mm, it'll be perfectly fine.
Hombre de Maiz: I am all over the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. Regrettably the EFS 10-18 IS larger, heavier, slower and has a smaller focal range than the existing EFM 11-22 IS STM lens. Nice try, but no cigar.
As far as I know, the 11-22 EF-M is not retro focus, because there's no need for it to be. The purpose of retro focus lens design is to overcome the wide gap necessitated by a reflex mirror. The EOS M has no reflex mirror, therefore no need for long back focus, thus no retro focus lens design is needed. Or at the very least, a minimal and more simple retrofocus formula. As a result, the 11-22 EF-M can be made much smaller than the 10-18 EF-M. Plus, simply the ability to position a lens closer to the sensor plane can result in reductions in lens size. Ultimately, you would have been delusional to think that a lens requiring a long back focus (like the 10-18mm EF-S) would have ever been able to get as small as one not requiring a very short back focus (like the 11-22mm EF-M).
Lawrencew: A $299 launch price sounds a bit of a bargain for a UWA. That said, Canon's recent STM lenses like the 55-250mm have taken a long time to fall significantly in street price.
That's a pretty good starter line up now though from 10-250mm all IS and STM, if matches the decent (for their price) IQ of the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses.
It isn't clear how closely it matches, but the EF-M 11-22mm IS STM is an amazing lens, so that bodes well for the 10-18
@Hombre de Maiz - this may come as news to you, but you can't put the 11-22 EF-M on a Canon DSLR body (APS-C). So it really doesn't matter how much better you think the 11-22 EF-M is compared to the 10-18 EF-S. It's a pointless comparison if you're talking about using it on a Canon DSLR because the 10-18 EF-S can go on a Canon DSLR, but the 11-22 EF-M can't.
There was no way the 10-18 EF-S was ever going to be the same size as the 11-22 EF-M. The 10-18 EF-S is, like most wide-angle lenses made for SLR cameras, a "retrofocus" or "reverse telephoto" lens positioned much further from the sensor plane, resulting in a much larger lens. But when you don't have to put the lens so far from the sensor plane (because there's no reflex mirror in the way), you can design a lens to be much more simple and smaller. That's why the 11-22 EF-M is able to be so much smaller: it's made for the very short lens registration distance of a mirrorless camera.
EDWARD ARTISTE: the 10-18 would be great on am eos M. heck, the existing 10-22 is well balanced on it.
IS? yes plesase. i wish the 22f2 had it
@abortabort - unfortunately, Canon doesn't offer the 11-22 EF-M IS in all parts of the world. For example, the don't sell it in the US. You can order one from overseas (like on ebay), but they usually sell for about $450-500. So for an EOS M user who already has an adapter, the 10-18mm EF-S might be a really nice option, especially for only $299. And its an even better deal if you use both a Canon APS-C DSLR and a Canon EOS M. It certainly won't be as compact as the native EOS M lens, but it might be a viable compromise. Better than nothing.
Boss of Sony: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people only use these UWA angle lenses at the extreme wide angle end (e.g. 10mm), and almost nobody uses them at the long end. Therefore, why doesn't the manufacturer just make a UWA prime (e.g. 10mm prime) and be done with it. It would be easier and cheaper to make, and would be faster and have better image quality.
People like versatility. Zooms offer versatility. That's why zooms sell better than primes. A 10mm prime would be a niche seller because its use case is limited to 10mm shooting, and people have to really wonder, "Is it really worth it to buy this lens for that one focal length?" A 10-18mm IS STM for only $299, on the other hand, is practically a no-brainer for someone to add to their kit. It's versatile and cheap.
On compact cameras, I almost always keep the lens at its extreme wide angle simply because motorized zooming on a compact camera is annoying and imprecise. But on a DSLR, I zoom my 10-22 EF-S all the time because manual zooming is very precise and easy. So I don't know how much validity your unscientific assertion is.
Bjorn_L: Except for battery life it seems to be a well specified camera. But given Sony's recent support for a different mount it is a little confusing to see a camera maker competing with itself with two incompatible mounts.
Nothing wrong with "competing with itself". Because either way, you're still buying from them. As Steve Jobs astutely said, "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." He wasn't afraid to let one Apple product cannibalize another. iPod was a big seller. But Jobs had no problem releasing the iPhone, which cannibalized the iPod. Then he introduced the iPad which cannibalized Macbook sales.
Conversely, look at Kodak's big mistake: they were afraid to let digital cameras "compete" with their film sales, even though they were one of the early pioneers of digital cameras! They didn't cannibalize themselves, but everyone else did. It killed them.
Look at Samsung, which has a smartphone and tablet in just about every screen size imaginable:http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/86727-thumb/Does-Samsung-make-too-many-phones.png
You could say one Samsung screen size will "compete" with another, but you're still be buying a Samsung, whichever size you pick!
xMichaelx: My first Android phone - the OG Droid - had a dedicated camera button that (unlike this one) was actually located in the right place: about 3/4 of the way down the right side. You could snap a pic just like using a camera.
It's a damn shame all phone's don't have those.
I think the real advantage of a physical camera button is if it allows a half-press to lock focus, lock exposure, or both, like the shutter button on a real camera. But if all a physical button does is just take the photo, with no half-press capability, then I'm fine with just using the virtual shutter button on the touchscreen.
simon62: Nice little camera but what a waist! The camera body is actually made as if it was a prototype. And they are pround of this! I bet lenses are perfect but the fact that they have no optical or in-shutter stabilization tells me one thing: They can't make one! Shutter is reported to vibrate at around 1/3 of a second.(perhaps they too buy from Copal...) Japanese manufacturers are ages ahead
@Rage Joe- when you said "neo-nazi", were you inadvertently describing yourself? Sounds like a Freudian slip, hahaha! Clearly, you've got a lot of hate in you, a lot of "rage", and with a very narrow, militant, and autocratic ideology of what to like or hate, who to like or hate...all the makings of a good neo-nazi! You need to chill out, man. Not everyone and not everything needs to fit into your narrow ideology. Frankly, I think there's a place for a camera like this, and I think it's great that there are people who can appreciate a camera like this. Sounds more like you'd rather round these people up and ship them to a camp somewhere!