Mike FL: I like Canon's NEW policy: "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy.".
@Donnie G - well, then Maeda's statement should have been, "We select the MOST COST EFFECTIVE sensor, regardless of quality. That’s our policy", rather than "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy."
Or maybe by saying "best sensor", what he really meant was "best sensor for our bottom line." Not exactly high praise. Cost over quality?
Donnie G: Even though Canon doesn't bother calling these cameras by the stupid new marketing buzzword, "mirrorless", Canon has always had one of the largest collections of best selling mirrorless cameras in the marketplace. Everything from high end PowerShots, including their DSLR styled superzooms, to digital Elphs, D series, N series, and low end A series compacts. Now that Canon has added new 1" (G7 X) and 1.5" (G1 X II) sensor models to their fixed lens mirrorless lineup, all that remains is to freshen up their one APS-C (EOS M2) interchangeable lens mirrorless offering once they identify a genuine demand outside of Japan for such a camera. "Waste not, want not". This is how profitable camera companies stay profitable. Any questions?
@Donnie G - like I said, you're just trying to finagle the meaning of "mirrorless", just like some people attempt to finagle the meaning of "full frame". Fixed lens digital cameras are not called "mirrorless" because "mirrorless" is a counterpoint to "mirrored" digital interchangable lens cameras (aka DSLRs). That's the whole point of using the word "mirror" in the term "mirrorless"! It's meant to indicate that a camera has interchangeble lenses just like a DSLR, but without the need for a reflex mirror!
I strongly suggest you Google the words "mirrorless meaning" and you'll quickly realize who foolish and wrong your definition of "mirrorless" is! For example, the top listing I got is from Wikipedia: "The mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (MILC) is a class of digital system cameras. This type of camera provides an interchangeable lens mount."
It's not about a camera being "worthy". It simply has to meet the minimum requirement of having an interchangeable lens mount sans mirror!
@Donnie G - you're forgetting that Nikon widely uses Sony's sensors in their DSLRs, with Nikon's own processors. Plus, Nikon develops their own sensors, too. Meanwhile, Canon has *never* used any sensor other than their own sensor in their DSLRs-- with the single exception being the 1D MK1 which had a sensor sourced from Panasonic. So the irony is that Maeda's statement, "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy" actually applies less to Canon, but more to Nikon. Heck, it doesn't apply at all to Canon if you're talking about their DSLRs. I think the more accurate statement would be: "We only use our own sensors, regardless of quality, in our DSLRs. That's our policy."
It's like if a CEO said, "We are an equal opportunity employer, and we hire the best people, regardless of race or gender", but when you looked at his company, you found that 100% of the company's employees were white males. That's basically how it is with Canon's DSLR sensors.
ProfHankD: Yes, Canon has been serious about mirrorless in that the EOS-M is grossly inferior to their DSLRs only in AF speed and ergonomics. The problem is that it isn't compelling against models from Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Samsung, etc. Canon was once an innovator, but not lately, and they have a long way to go to make a compelling mirrorless. For example, I don't think a 7D Mark II with an EF-M mount would be a very compelling mirrorless, and it has been years since Canon's sensors gave them an real edge over those made by Sony.
I buy lots of Canon cameras, mostly PowerShots to use with CHDK, but also an occasional higher model to use with Magic Lantern. Ironically, both those environments are conspicuously not aided or supported by Canon. I think it is long overdue that Canon should encourage, and actively leverage, this type of external innovation.
It's not just the slow focus that's bad about the EOS M. It's also the poor handling and almost total lack of ergonomics, poor battery life, lack of controls, and lack of features. Canon really gave the EOS M body the bare minimum. The lenses are the bright spot in the M mirrorless system, but the body is barely more than a Powershot point-and-shoot with an old hand-me-down APS-C sesor and a lens mount. In any other mirrorless system, the EOS M would be considered low entry-level, at best. Sure, Maeda might claim that Canon has been "serious about [mirrorless] since the very beginning", but EOS M seems to indicate otherwise. The best thing you can say about EOS M is that it's super cheap (at least now it is). But its current price is far, far below what Canon originally tried to price it at.
srados: MR. Maeda world of cameras is moving in lighting speed.Slow and steady is not name of the game...Canon is lacking a vision to be a leader.(or is it to slow to show it).
@monkeybrain - I don't think the "professional market" filters down to the amateur market as much as it used to. The camera market has changed significantly. We're not in the heyday of SLR cameras anymore. Back then, SLR cameras were the only way to go, and so when it came to choosing an SLR system, people looked to what the pros used. These days, people have a lot more options when it comes to cameras. Most people's camera is a smartphone. Not nearly as many people are opting for DSLRs anymore. All of this means that the influence of the pro market is not nearly as powerful as it once was. It has been greatly diluted.
mpgxsvcd: I don’t think this guy has ever actually seen any camera other than a Canon.
He lives in a Canon echo chamber. Or he's living in the past, bathing in past glories.
cgarrard: "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy."
I think that is mostly true, Canon have bought sensors from Sony (etal) for a long time (mostly with the powershot division, but early DSLR's from Canon had Sony built sensors, correct?). The only thing new here is that the sensor is larger than usual for Powershot cameras.
No, the very earliest Canon DSLRs, the EOS D2000 and EOS D6000, used Kodak sensors. But Canon's first official consumer DSLR, the 3mp Canon D30, had a Canon-built CMOS sensor. And all their DSLRs ever since then, with the exception of the Canon 1D MK I which had a 1.3X sensor sourced from Panasonic, have had Canon-built sensors. Canon has never used a Sony sensor in any of their DSLRs. So when it comes to their DSLRs, I don't think the statement "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy" is really true. If it were true, Canon would be using Sony sensors in their DSLRs. But they never have.
I don't think Canon wants to use Sony sensors in their DSLRs, because then it would be the same sensors that their arch nemesis Nikon uses in their DSLRs! That would be a black eye for Canon, which has prided itself on making its own DSLR sensors for so long. Sony's current DSLR sensors may be better, but Canon's DSLR division would be too proud to use them.
justmeMN: Canon estimates that, this year, they will sell 9.5 million compact cameras, and 7.0 million DSLRs. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
I wouldn't take future "estimates" as gospel. They are simply forecasts, and forecasts can often be quite wrong. It's not unusual of these "estimates" to get "downward revisions"...i.e. the company realizes that their estimates were wrong, so they have to cut those estimates. I wouldn't be so quick to congratulate Canon for future "estimates". Last year, Canon made some really solid, heavily-researched, data-driven "estimates" that they ended up having to cut:
Just Ed: For years I have been hearing about the pending demise of Apple, now the demise of Canon is predicted by the opinionated DP nerds. I should buy some Canon stock, my Apple shares over the last six years have allowed me to by a 27" iMac, two iPads , pay off my SUV and buy a Canon 6D with 24-70 f/4 and I still have more money than the original stock investment. Starbucks is doing fine also, but unfortunately I sold their stock when they came out with VIA, silly me!!!
Yes, my dear DP nerds:
Canon is deadApple is deadNikon is deadStarbuck's has instant coffee
Somehow I think they know how to run their own businesses.
I think it's a bit generous to compare Canon to Apple. Way too generous. Apple is a much more innovative, creative, and game-changing company than Canon is. Apple is willing to create new products, even at the expense of cannibalizing itself. Canon is the total opposite. For example, Canon have dragged their feet on mirrorless, putting out the very weak EOS M, because they don't want to make anything better that might cannibalize their DSLR sales. As Steve Jobs famously said, ""If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will."
Besides, let's not forget that Apple almost went bankrupt because it failed to innovate: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/19/steve-jobs-apple-almost-went-bankrupt-because-it-failed-to-innovate/
But it was only thanks to a $150 million bail out from Microsoft that Jobs was able to save Apple! Yes, companies can fail by becoming too slow and conservative! Don't think Canon is immune to this.
I don't think any reasonable person would count fixed-lens compact cameras as being part of the "mirrorless" category. That's because "mirrorless" is generally understood to mean "mirrorless interchangeable lens camera", just like "full frame" is generally understood to mean "35mm full frame". It's not "mirrorless" if you cant change the lens, just like it's not "full frame" if it's not 35mm. Or to put it another way, if you walked into B&H and asked to buy a "mirrorless" camera, and the salesperson handed you a G7 X, you'd say, "What the heck is this? I said I wanted a mirrorless camera!" Why would you say that? It's because we all know a G7 X is not a "mirrorless" camera...because it doesn't offer interchangeable lenses. That would be as silly as saying that m4/3 is "full frame". A G7 X is not a "mirrorless" camera any more than an Oly E-M1 is a "full frame" camera. You're finagling the meanings of these words.
SLOOPB: Why would I prefer this camera over the Sony RX100?
Only you know you and what you want. It's a bit difficult for people to answer this question for you without knowing you and what you prefer.
hexie9: the silver one have black lens? it's not cool.I will choose black version.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of it until I saw the youtube video you linked to, but that black internal lens barrel does not look cool either! It's too much of a jarring contrast to the silver body. I think I would choose the black one instead.
Juck: The Canon 70-200 F/4 non-IS deserves a mention here,,,, one of the sharpest zooms out there,,, lightweight at 705g and 'only' $700.
No, all I'm saying is that there's a downside to the 70-200/4L that doesn't necessarily show up on paper. Yes, on paper it's very light, and one might think that that's a good thing. But in use out in the real world, its light weight, combined with its long skinny proportions, makes it less then ideal for steady handholding. It's even worse when you add the deep lens hood and you're shooting in a breeze. I actually prefer my 4L with the tripod collar attached, to give it a bit more stabilizing weight.
Yes, I have the "skills" to hold the lens steady. But we all know that IS gives you an advantage when it comes to steady shots. Especially for a long, skinny, lightweight lens like the 70-200/4L. There's nothing "funny" about that. That's just reality.
Serious Sam: IMO the design is still base on m43 sensor, and seriously even the latest M43 sensor on EM1 and em10 isn't doing so well in high iso.
It is well designed and priced ok. Good for people who want a pro point and shoot. if you need good low light/high ISO performance, you are still better with Fuji or if your budget stretch, get the A7S.
You're making a serious and egotistical error if you think that every camera needs to be made for you and your specific needs. Obviously, a compact fixed lens camera with an m4/3 sensor isn't meant to go head-to-head with much larger cameras with much larger sensors.
Also, high ISO is not the end-all and be-all of photography. It's only one consideration. Another consideration is how large of a camera you want to carry for any given situation. Many of us may end up with the LX100 as a supplement to our FF and APS-C bodies that are much larger.
PedroMZ: would be simpler and more effective for the lens to have a thread allowing a "lens protector filter" screwed on just as on SLRs. Fit it and forget it and can be wiped clean without fear of damaging that precious lens coating. An example of how not to do it is the Fuji x20, huge adapter to take a filter which could have been much more simply and compactly screwed on the front of the lens. I believe Panasonic FZ200 superzoom does have a thread so why not this one?
First of all, the camera does take a filter. If that's the route you want to go, just remove the self-closing cap. However, I would think that the self-closing cap is the true "fit it and forget it" solution. Or at least its just as "fit it and forget it" as using a protector filter.
CuriousExistence: I have a Sony RX100, and I use the built-in flash in two cases: for a very effective bounce flash for indoor portraits, and a fill flash at the beach. In both scenarios it works wonderfully.
I'm big into target demographics for devices, and I'm confused on Panasonic's approach to the LX100. The audience for a compact all-in-one camera like this are people who don't want to carry around extra gear that they would have to with an ILC. Are they even going to use a hot shoe? Will they want to carry around a detachable flash?
It seems like Panasonic determined that the only way they could stand apart from Sony in this market segment was to have a larger sensor and brighter lens, but they were forced to leave out features that are important to compact users - a flash and potentially an ND filter.
The G7X seems like it has more of the features that single-camera compact users want integrated.
The lack of a built-in flash is not the end of the world. And I say this as someone who really hates the fact that my Oly PEN doesn't have a built-in flash. However, I use an EVF that slots into the hotshoe, so that takes away the ability to use the add-on flash. At least the LX100 as a built-in EVF, so that the hotshoe location remains free. Plus, it also helps that the LX100 is not pockatable, because that means I'm likely to either having it hanging from a strap, or in a small camera bag. Either way, I'll have room to carry a hotshoe flash, either on the camera or in the bag. It'd be a different story if the LX100 were a truly pocketable camera.
I just with that the included accessory flash could be tilted up for bounce.
John McMillin: The best reason to buy a mirror less is to get a smaller and lighter camera. So doesn't it make sense to provide smaller and lighter lenses for it? That hardly seems worth arguing about. And bring on the f4 lenses, too. If they were useful in the days of !SO 200 films, they certainly have a use now. Recently I used a Minolta 70-210/4 Beercan with my a850 FF for a portrait shoot, and the results delighted me, and my customer. How fuzzy a background do you want, anyhow?
I think people have to keep in mind that mirrorless systems are still very young and new. SLR systems have had decades to build up their lens selection.
But it's a lens that desperately needs IS. I have the non-IS 4L.. It's fine as a bright-light lens, or as a tripod lens (I have a tripod collar on mine). However, as a walk-around lens, I think it's greatly hampered by the lack of IS because of a combination of lack of weight and its shape (long and skinny) which both contribute to it being a lens that can be a bit challenging to hold steady. I would advice people to add some weight and some cost by going with other lenses that offer image stabilization, or a faster aperture, or both.
After adding the tripod collar, I find my 4L easier to hand hold steady. But obviously, in doing so I've added weight, size, and a bit of cost to it.
Boky: Is anyone going to miss the truly pocketable size of S - series cameras...? Is Canon going to kill S series? This camera looks good, but I do like S size a lot, purely because I forget I have the camera in my pocket...
The S series is already being killed by smartphones. So Canon and other manufacturers need to move their point-and-shoots up a notch or two.
perry rhodan: All wifi enabled cams have a perfect and free and flexible second screen nowadays. It's called the smartphone. Time for a new perspective?
Being able to connect to a smartphone is definitely a great feature. But it's still not nearly as convenient as having a camera with its own articulating screen. First of all, it's obviously more difficult to be holding a smartphone in one hand, while holding your camera in another hand, let alone trying to manipulate any controls while doing this. And secondly, it's more work to connect your camera to your smartphone than it is to simply flip out the camera's screen. Just watch this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un8fA0JvtwU