Your title assertion is odd and probably ignorant.
I see you have not provided any proof whatsoever to back that up when it comes to size.
And you have no proof whatsoever when it comes to the EOS-M's low light performance. You're going by theory that the 22/2.0 pancake is going to be excellent and will generate enough contrast for the AF to work reliably in the dark. It is still a hybrid (CDAF + PDAF) AF system, BTW. You don't even know if the EOS-M's ISOs are accurate (as they are not in the OM-D). Or that the sensor will generate enough DR for images to be pushed. So being that your low-light assertion has no leg to stand on yet (if at all, we'll see when the camera actually gets reviewed), why am I shackled to your other assertion?
Besides, the EOS-M body is relatively deep and tall. No MILC is
that pocketable.
As of right now, the NEX's SEL50f18 is the lowest f-stop optically-stabilized lens,
period . Sony claims the stabilization gives a 4-stop advantage, realistically it's more like 3-2 stops.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/10/the-sony-50-1-8-oss-e-mount-nex-lens-review-on-the-nex-7/
I have no doubt that's true, but it doesn't change the gigantic size difference between that lens and the Canon one - or the m43rds one - or the Samsung version...
Again, the lens is only half the story. If you have to bring a flash for fill light (often necessary in social portraiture), then the 5N's folding flash is clearly more compact than the 90EX.
Sure, image stabilization is applicable for more-or-less static subjects... but as a social camera, you're probably not shooting midnight gymnastics. You're probably shooting your slightly happy, slightly drunk friends.
(pic)
Or oddly static cats.
(pic)
I would prefer image stabilization, but again it doesn't make the lens smaller.
It's kind of funny that you would post those particular pics, as the general rule of thumb is that you need 1/35mm-equivalent-mm's to get a sharp pic without IS - the 50mm lens is 75mm-equivalent, and both pics are taken at 1/80.
In other words - you didn't need IS for those particular pics either.
I think you're now confusing standard photography with the social photography I was pretty sure we were talking about. If people had all the time in the world to pose their subjects and get yourself set-up for a well-stanced, high-performance shot.. then hey. I can take hand-held pixel-sharp shots well below that rule-of thumb speed even without IS.
(hand-held, braced)
I mean, why not carry an all-out FF dSLR on a tripod then? If your social circumstances are totally okay with disrupting the camaraderie-at-hand for photography's sake, then by all means, who needs image stabilization? I'm sure you're staying totally sober too, right?
Those ladies popped out of a crowd walking opposite from where I was squeezing thought the crowd. Between when they realized I wanted to shoot them and the other lady squeezed in, that was more-or-less 3 seconds to take that shot. So damn right IS helped. And there are countless times where I have drunkenly shot beautiful images of my drunken friends having a ball.
That is the essence of social shooting, of catching the spontaneous moment with less-than-perfect technique and not "I can post-up and do a 1/FL s exposure". Seriously, IS helps at any long-ish exposure speed.
With a 35mm-equivalent lens, you should need 1/35 for sharp pics - it's difficult to take pics of people below 1/30 without them blurring. They basically have to be sitting or laying down and not moving for it to work.
I've seen lots of people claim about how-so-and-so works so great in low light, "proving" it with photos of dubious darkness where they've got the ISO jacked up to whatever and the EXIF stripped (or showing stopped down, high shutter speed shooting), LOL.
The pupils don't lie as indicators of ambient light. (Ok, the girls might be a little drunk, but we certainly didn't drug the cat.
)
Can the EOS-M grow into being a low-light monster? Sure. Canon would be stupid to ignore this usage of the MILC. And Canon is
not stupid. But the currently announced lens offerings certainly does not justify that conclusion.
They do because of the size.
I'm not saying there aren't other advantages to the NEX, but if size + low light are your top two priorities then the EOS-M wins (the Panasonic gx1 is up there to).
You would need to bias quite a bit toward the size side of the equation for that to work. And then you would need to contend with the RX100.
The lenses that make the NEX competitive (or let's say even beat the EOS-M for arguments sake) are just to big is size is a top priority.
That is a statement I won't argue with. But the rub is that if size is the top priority, neither MILC wins. The high-performance P&S wins.
P.S. Don't get me wrong - if Sony came out with a NEX lens that did f2.0 or better than was as compact as the Canon/m43rds/Samsung stuff, that would completely change the equation. And I would
love to see direct competition there.
Seriously! But it's just not there right now.
Frankly, further compactness in a high-performance MILC is overrated, IMHO. Compactness generally runs counter to ergonomics and usability. For me, there is the class of cameras that will fit in my pocket, and everything else that won't. Within the everything-else-that-won't class of cameras, the way (and weight) that it hangs around my neck is a bigger consideration than outright compactness.
