larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)
BTW, you act as if the RX100 III is the first comapct camera to ever come into existence, and that heretofore we've NEVER had a compact camera that could ever possibly compete with the size and convenience of a smartphone! Hahahaha. The RX100 III changes nothing. There have always been compact cameras. This camera does not make smartphone photography any less valid, attractive, or convenient. If anything, the RX100 III is a greater danger to much larger and more "ultimate quality" devices.
Ultimately, there are going to be conservative folks like yourself who are always going to attempt to define how things "should" be done based on their own extremely narrow ideologies. We see it throughout history, from conservative ideas on painting, to sculpture, to equal rights and marriage, to whatever, you name it, some narrow-minded dictatorial "standards" protector is going to try to keep things narrowly defined in his own vision. You're just following a long tradition of such people.
@larrytusaz- the failing of your anal, narrow vision of "photography" is that it is predicated on old standards, such as how an image will look when printed. Today, photography encompasses a much broader world, one which includes social sharing and immediacy. How an image looks as a print or in Photoshop at 100% magnification is completely beside the point. That's where your notion of "ultimate quality" is so far off the tracks. Today, there are billions of images that exist exclusively in the digital realm. And there's nothing wrong with that, especially if they reach millions more eyeballs than an "ultimate quality" print or file would. Plus, you're way off base if "defining excellence" in photography can't be defined as seeing an image on your phone or tablet that moves you. No, your "defining excellence" is based on tangential criteria far removed from simply being able to see and emotionally respond to an image. That's why you're so obsessed with the "device" used to take a photo.
larrytusaz, photography really doesn't need anal, judgmental, dictators like you dictating what is worthy of fitting into your narrow world view. But hearing your "Get off my lawn, you crazy kids" rants is quite humorous. LOL.
BubbaHotepUK: Oh no! No touchscreen!Why not Sony, why not? I've been using the Panasonic GM1 recently and touchscreens on small cameras is definitely the way to go.
Still, it looks to be a super camera nonetheless, addressing most of my complaints about the RX100 I & II. Now that summer is here in the UK, that EVF may just swing it my way :)
@leno - so I guess you use a cell phone with a rotary dial? LOL. Touchscreens are very valuable, across a huge range of devices these days. A well designed touch interface can add a huge degree of usability to a camera that can supplement the tiny buttons, knobs, and wheels on a camera. Plus, touch focus and touch shutter is hugely useful in certain situations. It works a lot faster than other methods of manually selecting the focus point, or the focus-lock-recompose method of shooting. Besides, there are countless features and interface designs that camera designers put into cameras that greatly add to the usability of a camera but do NOTHING to improve IQ. It doesn't mean these features and designs aren't still quite useful and valuable.
What's "lame" is that you seem so hung up on the DEVICE used to take a photo. I see a lot of great photos that just *happen* to be shot with a camera that is integrated into a phone. Does it matter to me that the camera was in a phone? No. Besides, as compact as the RX100 III is, it's still quite a chunk of camera. 290g is still a chunk of weight. So this camera certainly isn't going to make smartphone photography go away. Not by a long shot. Smartphone photography is here to stay, is only getting better with every passing year, and will be here long after you're gone. And shaking your cane at it like an angry old man who can't accept change is really "lame". People are now able to do photography on a much broader range of devices than what the old conservatives are able to accept, and it drives them crazy. Get over it. Nothing "lame" about using whatever you want to create images.
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.
zubs: I don't care for GPS data on a photo. Not a show stopper. Main thing is image quality.
Yeah, well, people like yourself used to say the same thing about EXIF data in digital photos. "I don't need no stinking digital photos that have all the image data embedded in it! My film photos ain't got it, so I don't see the point of it!" LOL.
maxeythecat: Sorry but GPS belongs in your car, not your camera. ' Nuff said.
"Sorry but GPS belongs in your car, not your camera"...so says the guy who doesn't own a smart phone, and who still lives in the year 2005, LOL!
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!
Clint009: Some people here prefer 24MP Full Frame Leica Max CMOS Sensor Leica Maestro Image Processor 3.0" LCD with 920,000 pixels Full HD 1080p VideoWell there is a Leica that seem to fit your need. But the price goes with quality.
$6950 (body only) " Leica M Digital Rangefinder Camera Body" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893170-USA/Leica_10770_M_Digital_Camera_Black.html
That's mean, this "Leica T" is a cheap price.
No, no, I'm not rich at all for the M model, but the "T" look fine with me!
@Rage Joe- Jeez, dude, chill out. You're going to break a blood vessel. LOL! As for the German + Japanese combination that comes together in this camera, think of it this way: it's the best of both worlds. The good stuff from this place, the good stuff from that place, put together really well, to produce something beautiful that you can be proud of. And as for CNC milling and hand polishing a camera body, ask yourself this: who else is doing it? If you can find another CNC milled, hand-polished camera for less money, feel free to buy it! Haha.