tkbslc: If it's going to be the size of a D750 with the lenses included, then just get the D750!
Its still going to be a lot smaller than a D750. Besides, it's not as if you have to keep these lenses on the Sony body all the time. Stick on a more compact lens, and you're back to having an ultra compact FF camera! A compact lens on a D750 still leaves you with a very large camera.
Photoman: Can I adapt these big lenses to my CanNik camera?!
These lenses are built for a lens register distance of 18mm, but Canon and Nikon's lens register distances are much great than that (44mm and 46.5mm, respectively). It's not a problem adapting Canon and Nikon lenses to Sony mirrorless cameras. You just need a spacer/adapter to position these Canon and Nikon lenses at 44mm and 46.5mm. But there's no way you can place any of these Sony lenses at 18mm from the sensor on Canon and Nikon DSLR bodies, unless you're talking about Canon or Nikon mirrorless bodies.
Fuji is definitely a company that seems to appreciate the art and craft of photography. They make the bodies and lenses that photographers want, and they make them beautifully. That 35mm f/2 is a beauty.
User0802126383: I'va had Nikon cameras for over 40 years. I choose Canon as my preferred small camera for years upgrading regurlarly with the mew generations as they came. The last one I bought was the s95 and I have to say it was a let down: to slow, to slippery, no viewfinder. I always follow what's coming, have watched and been tempted by the models offered by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Fuji, after all having used and owned 12+ small digital cameras i know what I'm looking for. I almost bought the FUJI X, the Panasonic GM. Well I just got a SONY a6000 (as a smaller body vs. DSLR) and am just thrilled. As a long time slr user I won't buy a camera without a viewfinder. Too bad for Canon and Nikon I was tired of waiting.
@HowaboutRAW - I used to think the same about Sony NEX lenses, until I took a deeper look. Actually, I'd have to say that Sony NEX glass is pretty nice. The selection could be greater, and the prices could be lower, but the glass is very nice. I've taken a look at the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS. What a great lens! Sharp, fast, compact, OSS, great build quality, for just under $400. When is Canon ever going to make a lens like that for the EOS M system? Who the heck knows?
Markintosh: The author probably never had and used EOS-M:) This is the main mistake to look on this small camera as on closed-circle eco-system. This is not Oly, Panasonic, Sony or Fuji — companies who dedicate their entire production to mirrorless cameras and lenses. Stop looking on four native M lenses — with adapter you have access to a tons of fantastic Canon glass and third party lenses. If you need small speedy camera — you have SL1 with real viewfinder and all advantages of DSLR in very compact package. EOS-M is great little camera with amazing IQ and ability ti use same lenses as my 5D. M3 is fantastic improvement of original M, and it's a shame it will not be available in retailers in NA. But there is always online shopping:)))
Also, very nice to see so many comments on such a "bad" product, and so much attention from other brands advocates.
A mirrorless system that has to rely so heavily on DSLR lenses isn't much of a mirrorless system. As for the "tons of fantastic Canon glass", the reality is that there are only a tiny fraction of that Canon glass that you'd actually really want to use on a small mirrorless body such as the EOS M. I say this as an EOS M user with lots of Canon DSLR glass! I tried using my Canon 35/1.4L on it...for a day, but that's all. I would MUCH rather have a 35mm f/1.4 EF-M lens made and sized specifically for mirrorless. It would be so much smaller. Look how compact the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 is! Very compact! And no clunky, thick adapter needed!
BTW, most Canon DSLR glass focuses very slowly when adapted to the EOS M.
Eugeniu Sofroni: The author mentions the "XF 56mm f/1.2" and the "Leica 42.5mm f/1.2" and goes on to say "Canon doesn't have anything to compare with these fine optics" … yeah great lenses to put on 2x crop sensors.
If anyone wants to do that with a EOS M there is Mitakon, there is SLR Magic, there is Handevision …. for all the f/0.9x retardidness anyone wants to play with their tiny sensors.
The XF 56mm f/1.2 isn't for a 2X crop sensor. The Fuji X system is an APS-C system. Plus, both the XF 56 f/1.2 and Leica 42.5 f/1.2 are modern AF lenses with full electronic communication with their respective bodies, which make them much more practical to use. That's not the case with Mitakon, SLR Magic, or Handevision manual lenses for the EOS M. These are all manual lenses with no electronic communication with the body. They simply aren't as practical or enjoyable or convenient or easy to use as a fully compatible AF lens that has full electronic communication with the camera body. Also, I don't think the Mitakon, SLR Magic or Handevision lenses offer the same level of optical performance as the superb XF 56mm f/1.2 and Leica 42.5 f/1.2 lenses.
cr2shooter: Fully agree with you Damien. I'm attracted to the M3 body from what I've read so far but the range of lenses is hopeless. Only the 22mm is really compact to match the body. I just hope that Zeiss will see the opportunity to release their Touit range in EOS M fitting.
I can't imagine Zeiss releasing EOS M versions of their Touit lenses, for two reasons. Firstly, the overwhelming majority of EOS M users are either casual user (such as Japanese females, with whom the EOS M is apparently quite popular). And secondly, many EOS M users are bargain hunters aiming to spend as little money as possible (such as the many US buyers of the EOS M who snatched it up on fire sale). Lenses such as the Zeiss Touits are a better fit for Fuji X-system users, who tend to be photo enthusiasts who are really into lenses and are willing to spend extra for high quality glass. I don't think that's the case for EOS M users. EOS M users generally like it because it's cheap.
justmeMN: The lack of a built-in EVF means that the eventual street price will be lower. (People who don't want an EVF, won't have to pay for one.)
People who do want an (optional) EVF, get the additional feature of one that "pivots up to 90 degrees".
Among others, I suspect that people who started photography with a smartphone don't care about the lack of an EVF. Over time, I suspect that fewer and fewer people will be interested in viewfinders.
My experience is that if you like an EVF, and buy an add-on EVF, then that add-on EVF basically becomes a permanent attachment to the camera. You just don't take it off. That being the case, you're going to end up with a larger camera with a big EVF sticking off the top of it, increasing the size of the body considerably. You're better off buying a camera with a built-in EVF, because it'll give you that full-time EVF, and keep the size of the body down. I'm sharing this from personal experience. If you're a viewfinder shooter, go straight for a camera with a built-in EVF. You'll ultimately have a smaller camera, and you'll have a hotshoe that is always going to be free to use with a flash. That's my experience.
Donnie G: My guess is that Canon's research into the MILC camera market is showing that not only aren't there enough customers entering that market, but of those who do enter, not enough of them will buy a lens other than the one the camera came with. Canon makes the majority of their imaging profits from lens purchases, so there's not a lot of incentive to produce a gaggle of MILC bodies or lenses that are mostly destined to be a collection of warehouse orphans. That's why the highly successful large sensor, fixed lens PowerShot line of cameras exist and is still growing. They are the compact camera and lens combo that sells, and there's not an orphan in the bunch. :))
And Canon definitely wants it to be that way! The last thing Canon wants is to do anything that might shift the US market towards mirrorless. Case in point, I have a friend who just bought her first ILC, a DSLR. She immediately went for the most popular and most ubiquitous camera in the market, a Canon Rebel. She had never heard of a Canon EOS M, and had no knowledge of mirrorless cameras. There are millions of American consumers just like her. But after I told her about mirrorless, and specifically the Canon M3, she had that had she known about and if it were available, she would have definitely considered looking at the M3 and other mirrorless cameras. That's exactly what Canon is worried about. They don't want an M3 drawing attention to the mirrorless market. They want consumers to go straight for a popular Canon Rebel like they've been doing for the last couple of decades with the popular Rebel. For Canon, it's all about protecting the Rebel in the US market.
Marty4650: Except for that 28mm prime, those are some really big lenses!
They probably are pretty good lenses, but it defeats the purpose of buying the "smallest FF body" when you need to attach a big honking lens to it.
Of course, everything is relative. I'd say these kits are still a lot more compact than any Nikon D810 with similar lenses....
It defeats it only part of the time. The rest of the time, you can still put smaller lenses on it. I think that's what people are missing about mirrorless. These lenses aren't permanently attached to these bodies! The beauty of mirrorless is that you can go bigger, or go smaller, all with the same body.
Plus, a lot of people like mirrorless for the EVF. There's a lot of cool things that an EVF can do, and allow the user to do, that an OVF simply can't do.
R Stacy: It looks remarkably similar to Sony's A6000 except it's only half as fast.
I strongly suggest you take a look at the various youtube tests of the A6000's AF performance even when shooting fast moving subjects. It handles it quite well, far better than you're imagining. And at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight of a 1 series Canon. If you want to lug around a 1 series all day long, go right ahead. But I think there's a huge upside to being able to travel lighter, and still have high performance shooting speeds.
I can control both cameras from my Samsung Galaxy tab, the 1DMKIV with a third-party app (DSLR Controller) via a USB cable, the EOSM2 via Wi-Fi with the Canon Remote Control app.
I could go, on and on and on...
People REALLY have to understand (...and Canon needs to get better at conveying this, specially to the press...) what this camera really brings along. It's not a fad format, it's a differentiated complementary tool.
The fact that it is a mirrorless is subsidiary, in this context.
What this is, is an extremely useful and apt piece from a more vast and rewarding photographic puzzle.
Thank you, Canon Marketing. Too bad your bosses have decided that to do such a poor job of supporting this product.
@srados - but if you get a 1 series Canon, you're paying a very large price, size, and weight penalty. Meanwhile, an A6000 costs less than $550, is only 344g with battery, shoots at 11fps up to 21 RAW, and is small enough you hardly even notice you have it with you until you need it.
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!
@intruder61 - even so, the lens selection is still too limited. I was expecting Canon to introduce new EF-M lenses along with the M3, or at least give us a lens road map like other manufacturers do. But Canon did neither. Disappointing. At this point, I don't think I want to invest any more money into the EOS M system.
@Vignes - Sony A6000 does 11 fps. Canon M3 does 4.2 fps. So technically the M3 is worse than half as fast. Also, the M3 has terrible buffering capacity. The M3's RAW buffer maxes out at 5 shots, while the A6000 can buffer 21 RAW shots. So the M3 is definitely a slower camera. Not a good camera for burst shooting.
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.