Canon announces EOS M2 in Japan

I have the 18-55 and the 22mm f2. I find myself using the 22mm most of the time, it is small and super sharp wide open.

I found the 11-22 to be too expensive (for me it was about the same price as the kit body+18-55+90EX flash). I bought a third party EF-S adapter (meke), a sigma 70-300, a canon 50mm f1.8 and just ordered a samyang 8mm fisheye which is due to arrive.

So I'm pretty much covered on all focal lenghts, but I would have liked smaller EF-M lenses.

we should be able to mirror f/0.7 lenses for mirrorless,
about f/1.1 equiv. for APS-C and f/1.4 equiv. for 4/3" sensors.

so 4/3" isn't too small a sensor format.
the low quality of 4/3" mostly comes from the small lenses.

True, but a great percentage of professional photographers sold 16x20 prints to clients from 6x4.5 cameras, myself included, more than anything because of the economics of shooting 6x7 for things like weddings, portraits, etc., and those clients were perfectly happy with the results. 35mm could do acceptable 16x20s, but IMO only under the best of circumstances, such as 25-50 speed slide film enlarged directly on positive to paper prints, like Cibichrome, otherwsie I never thought much of it. My point was that fewer and fewer people are printing large these days. Unfortunately, if it's good enough for Facebook, or the Apple TV, it's good enough for most people.

Well, engineers look to the future and clearly sensors are getting higher and higher SNR over time. The M4/3 images are much cleaner than my old Canon Rebel 450/Xsi, which was the best sensor at the time (and the last time Canon had the lead - arg!).

While M4/3 (and all other sensor sizes) will get better and better over time, nothing will make a large camera small. Buying a full frame camera and lenses is already overkill for most people by far, and even more so as better full frame (and smaller) sensors are released.

The improvement in technology has allowed the size of the m4/3rds cameras (which were pretty poor at first) to become sufficient (they already beat Canon APC in my opinion). The 16MP sensor in the latest m4/3rds cameras are amazing - it's even Roger's favorite camera apparently. Or is he just an amateur?

It isn't a pain to defend a brand but with all due respect, it is awfully stupid. They have marketing departments where people are paid to do that.

My guess is that Canon isn't particularly enthusiastic about mirrorless because even the "exciting" mirrorless cameras don't sell well in the US. You can see the stats on Thom Hogan's site.

@Resom - no, I haven't invested "too much money" in m4/3. I got my worth out of it, and then some. I could sell it off, or I could just keep it, it's all fine with me. But it has certainly served its intended purpose as an interim MILC system for me. I got my return on my "investment."

As for Canon, I think they'll do just fine with mirrorless. After all, mirrorless still isn't burning up the sales charts just yet. Go look at Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR's list (which also includes MILC, since MILC isn't big enough to warrant its own list yet). Last time I checked, the first 40 spots were occupied by various DSLR bodies, kits, and packages. The first MILC's to show up on the list were the Panny GH3 (#41) and the Sony A3000 (#45).

So by the time mirrorless really takes off, Canon will be ready. Until then, mirrorless is a continued work-in-progress for Canon. Canon is a big, smart, methodical company. They didn't get to their position by accident.

Previous poster got it right.

Complacency leads to downfall. Blackberry and Nokia are prime examples. Many people who owned shares of those companies after iphone was launched said the same thing "we have the biggest market share". This really means nothing in the tech world. People can switch in the blink of an eye, although it maybe harder for people heavily invested in lenses and other support accessories.

As of now nothing as disruptive as the iphone as yet appeared on the camera market, but if rivals keep innovating boldly and canon keep churning out these "AF 50% faster and body 5% smaller" nonsense they will lose market eventually.

The nikon DF got 2000+ comments a large majority negative... so its got a long way to go there

Sony's imaging division, while smaller revenue than Canon, is on MUCH more stable financial ground. They're getting a nice chunk of profit for every Pentax and Nikon body sold, plus their own business. The A7/A7R is a game changer in the price/performance/size arena, and Sony is going to bring the pain to Canikon.

"Canon is wisely selling the camera in Japan and Asia only, since those are the only places where mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have had any kind of sales success."

Well, even in the US market, still dominated by the DSLR tradition, you can sell mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras IF YOU HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT! The proof is the Sony A7r that in this moment outsells the D800E by a large margin:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank in Camera & Photo
A7r: #826
D800E: #1558

Donnie, no doubt a "small three lens system should prove to be extremely appealing"... my point is that the appeal is likely to be much greater if customers can tailor the system to their needs/preferences by having a variety of bodies and lenses to choose from.

Look at a competing system such as m43, and you can build a compact system with or without EVF, with or without IBIS, with or without silent electronic shutter, with or without articulating screen, with or without battery-grip capability, etc. etc., and you can do it all with pancake primes, or all zooms, or whatever mix you like.

There's no attempt at a one-size-fits-all solution, because one size does not fit all. Canon surely knows this from its SLR business.

And that is why Canon's mirrorless system is lacking. I'm sure the lenses are fine and the body is not bad if it happens to meet your needs, but it's only slightly more of a "system" than the G1-X is.

Well...
Then I don't understand why the first model was introduced world wide.
This sounds more like an afterthought to me, leaving out some facts.

thsoe girls pursue IQ over beauty touch up and easy operations so don't count them in. the majority of asian girls just want simple operation, slim design and app that touches up their skin.

look at the success of casio tryx....

If it's designed to be as small as possible, why is it still the mirrorless system camera with the largest kitzoom? Samsung, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc., they all offer considerable smaller collapsable kitzooms too.

@ mattmtl,
I get your point about multi-choice selection within a system, and for companies like Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, who don't do DSLRs, that kind of variety within their mirrorless ILC offerings is absolutely critical as a means of expanding their customer base. However, that kind of massive financial commitment has already been invested by Canon into their highly successful EOS DSLR system. The EOS system is so successful that Canon continually finds ways to expand its customer base in ways that its competitors can only dream of. (Think Cinema EOS). Ask yourself, why would Canon create a massive and expensive mirrorless ILC system without first testing the waters to see if there's any long term profit in it? The competition may not have any choice but to chase the hoped for mirrorless revolution. Canon is in an entirely different position altogether. Canon has lots of options.

Sure, focusing on the successful SLR business while only testing the waters in mirrorless makes sense for Canon. I'm with you that far.

However, this seems to me to be testing the waters in such a minimal, timid way as to be almost guaranteed to fail.

It wouldn't take any expensive innovation to provide the option of a second, more capable body:

- accessory port + EVF: can be done with off-the-shelf parts (AFAIK both Olympus and Leica use the same Epson accessory here).

- on-sensor PDAF for better performance with adapted lenses: Canon has this.

- articulated or tilting LCD panel: Canon has done this many times.

I bet that with just those three things, the balance of posts here would swing solidly to praise rather than criticism, assuming a price competitive with comparable m43, NEX, etc. models.

As for lenses, I suppose three after a year isn't a terrible pace. Is there a roadmap? (Honest question)

marike6:

That's spelled Otus, but other, cheaper, Zeiss lenses are a good bit optically better than anything from Canikon--say the 85mm 1.4.

Good Fuji, Samsung, and Olympus lenses are optically better than anything from Canikon too.

Yes, I can see how Nikon's best high ISO sensor, presumably the one in the D4, is significantly better than Canon's, the one in the 6D. If, by significantly better, we mean maybe half a stop. So, for all of us who absolutely have to shoot our black cats in coal cellars illuminated by one candle thirty feet away, the Canon at ISO thirty gazzillion does have that smidgen more noise than the Nikon at thirty gazzillion. As for the idea that Canon and Nikon lenses aren't optically good enough for your purposes, I can only assume that you are the CIA overlord in charge of reading all our credit card numbers from shots taken from spy satellites several hundred miles up in space. You're right. Neither Canon's Ls nor whatever the Nikon equivalents are are good enough for those purposes.

mjls,

Clearly you've never used a D3s, D700, or D4, now an optically better Zeiss lens helps with high ISOs on those Nikon bodies. But so too with a Canon body. And it's not like the 5D or 1D X are bad at higher ISOs. (Don't have 6D raws to look at, so can't comment on that newish body.)

Alastair:

First Canon's good high ISO body is the 1D X.

Then yep, good Zeiss lenses are significantly better optically than anything from Canikon. So maybe you don't have a good monitor or don't bother to print well. Olympus, Fuji and Samsung all have some optically excellent lenses that shame Canikon too.

I think the NSA has other means of reading CC numbers than wasting resources on a KH satellite.

It's kind of sad to see so many defenders of the optical quality of Nikon and Canon lenses--albeit the optical quality of many Canikon lenses is pretty good and that 1 series 32mm F1.2 is good, not excellent though.

@ mattmtl,
I get your point about multi-choice selection within a system, and for companies like Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic, who don't do DSLRs, that kind of variety within their mirrorless ILC offerings is absolutely critical as a means of expanding their customer base. However, that kind of massive financial commitment has already been invested by Canon into their highly successful EOS DSLR system. The EOS system is so successful that Canon continually finds ways to expand its customer base in ways that its competitors can only dream of. (Think Cinema EOS). Ask yourself, why would Canon create a massive and expensive mirrorless ILC system without first testing the waters to see if there's any long term profit in it? The competition may not have any choice but to chase the hoped for mirrorless revolution. Canon is in an entirely different position altogether. Canon has lots of options.

marike6:

The best Fuji, Samsung, and Olympus easily best Canikon.

I've used the Nikon 1.4 85mm it's optically crap compared to the Zeiss 85mm 1.4.

You can pretty much skip DXO lens scoring; it's not quite as bad as the sensor scoring but it's down there next to useless.

I don't for a second dispute that Canikon makes a greater range of lens sizes. Who cares that's got nothing to do with optical quality.

Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 lenses corrected? Um you need to look into things. Good Olympus lenses easily shame Canikon and the best Samsung NX lens plays in Leica M and Zeiss territory. Fuji and Olympus should feel real threatened by the optical quality of that Samsung 85mm F1.4.

So I believe my eyes, and my results.

> I've used the Nikon 1.4 85mm it's optically crap compared to the Zeiss 85mm 1.4.

Sure you have. Photos?

Check DxOMark, Photozone, or Lenstip. You'll see that the Nikon 85 f/1.4G is a much better lens than the Zeiss ZF 85 f/1.4. The ZF 85 softer corners and center than the Nikkor and doesn't get sharp across the frame until f/2.8. Photozone MTFs tell it all.

> Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 lenses corrected?

Olympus m43 lenses use software correction. Fact. They are also designed for the significantly smaller m43 sensor. How hard is it to get sharp borders and corners with that tiny sensor? Let them try designing some optically corrected FF lens. They don't even compete with Canikon with their software corrected lenses for the smaller m43 sensor. They aren't shaming anybody.

> So I believe my eyes, and my results.
What results? Where's your gear list, your gallery photos? If Samsung, Olympus images are embarrassing Canikon, let's see your photos to prove it.

dual12:

There's "nothing special" about the Canon 5D series DSLRs. Are you not familiar with still digital photography?

I guess I shouldn't have expected Canon fanboys to recognize that Canon has been selling them old, obsolete sensor technology for the last 5 years.

dual12:

I neither own nor use a Canon 5D. Canikon lenses aren't optically good enough for my purposes and I don't care about shooting sports so don't need fast AF. Then none of the 5D bodies can match the best Nikon's best high ISO DSLRs.

However the Canon 5D bodies are still a big deal.

> I guess I shouldn't have expected Canon fanboys

Pulling out the "fanboy" card because you have no answers aside, I'm not a Canon user but it's just foolish to think that they make lack luster gear when they are a market leader. You cannot name one vendor other than Nikon who has anywhere near the SLR system that Canon offers. Their sensor technology is far from obsolete, in fact it's good enough to have a number of cameras near the top of DxOMark's sensor ratings. Sensor technology does not make us better photographer or help us book more weddings or portraits. Professionals and amateurs all over the world use Canon gear to create all kinds of award winning work. Who is kidding who?

It may not be much of an innovation but I happen to think my 17TS lens is the best one on the market. It's even better than Nikon's 17mm PC-E.