Why backups? Yesterday technology is old technology, plus if is so important, tomorrow will have half the price.
My moto is "if you don't use it, you don't need it".
+1 to that
That's a good rule for hobby.
The concept of backup is for professional photograhers who cannot afford a camera/lens failure during a paid shoot.
I can justify my camera collection, but everyone is different. I've been on the Canon consumer train for a number of years now. Its seemed worth it to upgrade each numbered 5D. I've upgraded XXDs and G series at less frequent intervals. At first I gave old models to relatives, then I sold a few getting back half or less their purchase price. I didn't sell my 5D3 after getting the 5D4 because it was nice having a wide angle and macro both mounted out in the field. I eventually traded my 5D3 for a 6D2 to get a smaller body and newer features. So both backups and alternatives.
I'm still using the 24-105 f4 L lens I purchased with my original 5D in 2006. Still works fine, but its out of its service period so I purchased a 24-70 f4 L with the 6D2 because its smaller and lighter and has a nice macro feature. Its also an immediate replacement if my 24-105 dies and I search to replace it. The 6D2 + 24-70 was more portable in my pack, hiking in the Grand Canyon than my 5D4 + 24-105. It all gets used. Likewise I still have both my original 100-400 from 2004 and the Mk II purchased in 2015. And I'm keeping my 80D after upgrading to the 90D. So backups accumulate.
I don't believe any of this gear is old technology. Yes I still have my G3 and 10D, and Elan IIe and two Pentax Spotmatics, and my Dad's '40s Leica that are museum pieces. But so far the R tech hasn't come far enough to justify the steep cost of upgrades. I don't believe I can get better images than those from my 5D4 or even 80D if I do my job properly. When they feel obsolete, I'll upgrade. I'm not expecting that very soon. YMMV
Why backups? Yesterday technology is old technology, plus if is so important, tomorrow will have half the price.
My moto is "if you don't use it, you don't need it".
+1 to that
That's a good rule for hobby.
The concept of backup is for professional photograhers who cannot afford a camera/lens failure during a paid shoot.
I can justify my camera collection, but everyone is different.
You don't have to. It's personal. It is not the same as a true 'backup' but may be that's not what you meant. I contemplated for a while to get a 'backup' for my D810 but then decided that it will last a while. If it dies sooner, I can replace with a used D850.
I got caught up in gear 'gathering' for a while and had stuff that was lying around, getting in the way. Last week I organized all my stuff into three or four 'kits' and got rid of the rest.... 4 Nikon lenses and 3 Canon lenses. Even a couple of nifty-fifties. They are cheap and small to carry around but if I am not using, they're not staying.
I now have (1) Nikon film SLR with a couple of lenses, (2) Canon film SLR with one lens and (3) Rebel DSLR with one lens. They all work well and are used rarely. The 2-body Nikon DSLR kit is the primary one actively used.
-- hide signature --
My posts/comments are just my opinion. I try to quote my experience to support my opinion, where appropriate. My disagreement with others' opinion is not a personal attack against the person, their knowledge or integrity. I politely explain why I disagree. If my comment is not clear, please ask. I expect the same from others. And I hope to learn something from them. If they are attacking me as opposed to disagreeing with my opinion, I usually block them.
Why backups? Yesterday technology is old technology, plus if is so important, tomorrow will have half the price.
My moto is "if you don't use it, you don't need it".
+1 to that
That's a good rule for hobby.
The concept of backup is for professional photograhers who cannot afford a camera/lens failure during a paid shoot.
I can justify my camera collection, but everyone is different. I've been on the Canon consumer train for a number of years now. Its seemed worth it to upgrade each numbered 5D. I've upgraded XXDs and G series at less frequent intervals. At first I gave old models to relatives, then I sold a few getting back half or less their purchase price. I didn't sell my 5D3 after getting the 5D4 because it was nice having a wide angle and macro both mounted out in the field. I eventually traded my 5D3 for a 6D2 to get a smaller body and newer features. So both backups and alternatives.
I'm still using the 24-105 f4 L lens I purchased with my original 5D in 2006. Still works fine, but its out of its service period so I purchased a 24-70 f4 L with the 6D2 because its smaller and lighter and has a nice macro feature. Its also an immediate replacement if my 24-105 dies and I search to replace it. The 6D2 + 24-70 was more portable in my pack, hiking in the Grand Canyon than my 5D4 + 24-105. It all gets used. Likewise I still have both my original 100-400 from 2004 and the Mk II purchased in 2015. And I'm keeping my 80D after upgrading to the 90D. So backups accumulate.
I don't believe any of this gear is old technology. Yes I still have my G3 and 10D, and Elan IIe and two Pentax Spotmatics, and my Dad's '40s Leica that are museum pieces. But so far the R tech hasn't come far enough to justify the steep cost of upgrades. I don't believe I can get better images than those from my 5D4 or even 80D if I do my job properly. When they feel obsolete, I'll upgrade. I'm not expecting that very soon. YMMV
I love the “when they feel obsolete, I’ll upgrade.” And you’ve hit the nail on the head about what’s holding me back about going R. It’s a huge investment for all new lenses and I don’t feel like the improvement is going to make it worth it. Eventually it will, but not yet.
This site can be quite distracting! Just look at the title of this very thread.
There are plenty of “new gear” and “bargain find” posts. It’s mostly about shopping and comparing and buying and selling and trading...
I scan quickly through the first two pages of, say, the Sony Full-Frame E-Mount forum and there is not one post regarding the older but excellent (definitely better than most users) models — most posts are about the very latest A1, A7R IV... Are those posters “pros” who spend like $5000 on a body and $3000 on a lens? Doubt it. Pros are busy making money (with real clients), not spending money on upgrading (and arguing with virtual strangers).
Bill Cunningham, a noted New York fashion photographer, was using a Nikon D5200 — just the one.
It can be quite funny. A friend, the other night, said it is so easy to create good-looking photos with a phone camera while it is so complex to do so with a real camera. I reminded him that he could always use his real, expensive, heavy camera in Intelligent Auto mode. And he said, “But I paid for all those professional features.”
. My post here started out as a reply to Ben Herrmannn's post ( dpreview.com/forums/post/61593564 ) about the Size factor of the Mirrorless Canons and why the M-series was once about size. But I didn't want to distract from the content of his thread and I feel that it's worth raising some comparisons in what would otherwise have become a lengthy reply. . We've come a long way from Film cameras. The transition to digital was initially cautious. Fuji used the opportunity to jump in feet-first and came up with some great and somewhat expensive cameras in the early 2000s. Memory cards were unreliable and cost AUD $1000 per megabyte. A 4MB card was a big deal for a while. Then Sony bought up a few companies and absorbed their patents and lens technology ...and the race was really on. .
What on earth?
. Over a decade and a half later, Sony almost bankrupted themselves (literally) while pursuing mirrorless and punching out one unfinished model after another. They abandoned their proprietary Sony Memory Sticks in the mid 2000s so we can at least thank them for that. But here we are in 2018 and there are people sticking $15,000 lenses onto Mobile Cell Phones for some reason. I agree... it's sad and funny at the same time. Heck, Sony were even producing zoom lenses to clip directly onto your cell-phone just the other day. This is why they burn through money. .
Do we really need to be headed in this direction?
. Mirrorless Cameras... I think that mirrorless APS-C should have always been a smaller, lighter system. The EOS M series certainly is. It's a scaled down APS-C DSLR with a nice big APS-C sensor inside. The whole point of mirrorless cameras was to cut down on the pentaprism design of the DSLR to produce a hybrid with Live View but interchangeable lenses and no need for a mirror-system. In fact the ICL factor is the main thing that defines mirrorless from Compact cameras. It wasn't long before we saw Sony advertising their huge lenses on mirrorless bodies and that in turn led to jokes and internet memes - all of which mocked mirrorless for becoming the very thing it was meant to avoid. .
My first mirrorless camera alongside my first digital camera. (EOSM (18MP) mirrorless on left, Digital IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact on the right).
. People migrated to mirrorless because they like it more than DSLRs. It's just like using a Compact Camera... or at least that's how it started out. My first Compact Digital camera was the first IXUS Digital Camera from Canon. It was a stainless steel, robust, tiny thing in 2001. It was about the same size as my APS Elph cameras but it was much smaller than my SLR film cameras ...and I could immediately download and share pictures from it. I abandoned my 35mm film cameras and moved straight to Digital. At the time, this camera was "wondrous" and it won many awards. But by today's standards this was a very primitive camera with a very limited zoom, poor (non existent) DR, no manual control whatsoever (it was Full Auto). Yet it went places with me that I wasn't likely to take a film camera. I found myself taking pictures of food, animals, pictures of unusual clouds... the sort of thing that I wouldn't be wasting time photographing with a film camera since I had to pay for the development of each shot. .
IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact camera - image has recently been edited with noise reduction.The first day (and first time) that i met my wife 17 years ago. (posed). [September 2001].
EOS M6 (24MP) mirrorless - with an EF lens.The last picture i took of my wife on our last Anniversary dinner (candid). [December 2017].
. Being able to carry a small camera around with you in a time when nobody carried a mobile cell phone with a camera in it was a big deal. The quality of pictures from those early model Nokia Razor phones that came out a few years later were incredibly primitive. Plus they were too small to print and too ugly to want to show anyone. . When I adopted early PowerShot cameras that later became benchmark models (Pro1 and G1X), I found them very capable of decent photographs except in low light conditions. The EOS M with an APS-C sensor resolved this problem for me since I didn't enjoy lugging a DSLR around. It really surprises me how many people approach me when I'm holding a DSLR to ask me if I'm a "professional photographer" and how (almost) nobody ever asks me this when I'm holding an EOS M. It's nice to be anonymous. I enjoy being able to take pictures without having to answer questions or justify my equipment. .
IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact camera - inside of the dome on the Sydney Queen Victoria Building.
EOSM (18MP) mirrorless camera - inside of the dome on the Sydney Queen Victoria Building.
. Full Frame offers improved light-gathering ability alongside shallower DOF. Those are the two major motivators for purchasers aside from price. And unfortunately, Full Frame sensors are still expensive to make, even if the prices have come down somewhat in recent years. If you can ignore the prices and compare just the abilities and results, APS-C is better value by a long shot. The crop factor is often a benefit. The image quality, if the glass is good, is usually excellent. . When you buy a camera, you should realize that most modern electric devices have a 5-year life expectancy. You camera might live longer and so might your computer... but that's the standard life-expectancy before components, gears and especially plastic and rubber parts begin to perish. Surprisingly, the more often you use your devices, the longer they tend to last. A device that is suddenly unboxed after years of inactivity and an uncycled battery is more prone to failure.
. Using the EOSM alongside a DSLR I like to use the EOS M alongside a Full Frame DSLR. I like the results from FF with certain lenses but I enjoy using mirrorless cameras much more. It's just a shame about the weight and bulk. There's a couple of other members here who do the same. If I could avoid using a DSLR altogether I certainly would. When I'm working in the dark and trying to use two very different systems and trying to lock up a mirror or switch to "Live View" without a touch-screen it can be irritating. But more often than not, I get excellent results from the EOSM cameras and the image quality is usually superb. But it's not ideal to be carrying two cameras if you can get around with just one. Heck, even the act of carrying one camera and multiple lenses isn't always ideal. This is why so many consumers want a good compact camera with a fixed zoom lens. Selecting a lens based on your needs for the day seems to be the simplest way to operate. Stick it on your EOSM and away you go. But something I learned recently is that my EOS M6 takes as good a picture as my DSLRs, if not better, when it comes to landscapes. I even spent an evening under the stars last month and only used the M6 for a handful of shots... all of which were more appealing to me than those from one of my DSLRs. .
My EOS M (left) and EOS 6D (right).. in the hands of my wife. . I sometimes carry this kind of combo because I want shallow DOF but need a small Macro system with me. When/If Canon release their EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens (hopefully quite soon) I can leave the DSLR behind.
. Size Matters... The thing I like most about the EOS M series is that it produces superb DSLR-quality images with near-DSLR performance yet on a much smaller scale. I can carry the EOS M with a 22mm lens in the palm of my hand. I can't do that with a Full Frame systems, even if I strip off my preferred extended battery grip and use a smaller than preferred lens. If you travel anywhere, you'll know that large lenses get knocked about. They draw attention to you in cities and backstreets that can make you a target for robbery (and worse). If I use one of my favorite lenses (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) I always get better bokeh and performance by using it on a Full Frame DSLR but the weight of this system means I end up with almost 3+ Kilograms of weight to lug about. Forget that it takes a great picture... because it only does so at a considerable cost. Both financially and to my health. My arms hurt and my shoulder hurts for a couple of days if I have 3 kilos in gear supported while I climb hills and travel about the cities. A full day at the zoo results in pain. A full day in the Australian bush results in pain. I'm reasonably fit but if I find it difficult, then so must others. I've taken to using a monopod again so I can keep the camera raised for long periods. In the past I use a monopod because I needed more stabilization. This is why the EOS M series is so important. It takes the weight away. It takes a lot of risk away. I can get into venues with it when a DSLR would probably cause problems. I can carry that EOS M cameras strapped to my hip with both my hands free. I can carry extra lenses. I can shoot all day with a slightly larger 11-22mm or 28mm Macro lens from the EF-M family while I carry the tiny 22mm f/2 lens in my pocket. At the end of the day, as the sun sets, I can swap lenses over to the 22mm lens to enable me better performance at night. . But allowing a large EF lens designed for DSLRs to fit on an EOS M series camera (via an adapter) was something Canon did to try to prevent brand-migration and to encourage early adopters to think of the EOSM as a backup body for their larger DSLRs. The original EOSM made this a very viable solution, especially for the travelers. Those of you posting vacation shots taken with your M5 and M50s know what I'm talking about. Sometimes I'd use a large EF lens to capture the craters of the moon or a surfer out in the ocean. We use whatever we have on hand to achieve what we want to capture. The Adapters are what make the EF-M and RF camera mounts useful. . When I travel I don't want to worry about a massive loss if one of my more expensive lenses is damaged, lost or stolen. And when you travel by air, you really do face that risk unless you bring all that gear onboard with you. With luggage weight restrictions getting tougher, there's every chance I'll end up with a disaster on my hands, like so many journalists face regularly. Those big lenses we sometimes like to utilize require big, expensive protective filters and very expensive Circular Polarizers. But look at the EOS M series... those EF-M lenses have smaller diameter filter threads with smaller and less expensive filters. You can save money on bags for your lenses if your travel. You can more easily pack the camera and lenses in your luggage or simply carry them about with you in a pocket or in a pouch on your hip. I often carry the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM pancake lens in a sealed plastic bag in my pocket. The EF-M mount has only just reached its first window of ideal acceptance from the public due to the popularity of the M50 mount... which is probably why Canon pushed it out there a little ahead of time. .
Soon....
. The inevitable death of the Consumer DSLR.... Canon combined a number of surveys, sales statistics and consumer trends and determined that the DSLR is going to be dead within the decade. I'm sure DSLR will continue to be supported for another 5 years beyond that but the glory days of DSLR are now long gone. People just aren't buying them like they used to. No longer do the sales departments declare that DSLR is "king" because they know what such talk makes it much harder to sell non-DSLR cameras. By the way, that image above was captured some time ago. . With Consumer DSLRs fading from memory (soon), those with an interest in photography can be grateful of one thing: No more oil splattering across the sensor with the slap of the mirror and hopefully cameras can get smaller and lighter and much more responsive with Live View. And with Canon now moving forward with mirrorless, they can devote more time and energy towards this advancing format. And that's probably good news for APS-C mirrorless users in the EOS M crowd. . So far, I've seen anti-DSLR camera posters at concerts but I've been confronted entering a cinema with a camera bag and I've even been taken into custody for photographing the architecture outside of a Courthouse Building with my EOS M camera while using an EF lens. There's a very negative backlash aimed towards photographers these days. Even Sydney City has anti-photography laws around the harborside with the security and council rangers pouncing on any "professional looking camera". When questioned by the press, they defined a professional camera as being "a DSLR, especially when used on a tripod". It would seem that the UK is even worse... .
The UK setting the pace to deter DSLR owners from carrying their cameras in public.
. IBIS and why IBIS is unlikely to filter into Canon products... In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) was stated by both Canon and Nikon to be inferior to Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) or in-lens stabilization. With new generation OIS from Canon offering up to 5 stops of effective IS, the need for IBIS diminishes. You'll see no mention of IBIS on the early leaks about the EOS R. Here are the points that Canon and Nikon raised against IBIS and in favor of OIS. . 1) Each lens is optimally tuned to achieve reliable correction.. . 2) OIS allows faster and more accurate AF & exposure metering, because the image comes already stabilized to the camera sensor (and advantage you’ll notice especially in low light). . 3) OIS is more effective with long telephoto lenses" . Yes, IBIS works okay for video and there's a reasonable argument that it can be useful for longer lenses and video. I've seen how effective it is. But the difference isn't much more than one stop in still photography, despite the claims otherwise. Canon's in-body stabilizer is electronic and that's why it applies to video but not images. As another member here pointed out: IBIS isn't particularly suited to Full Frame sensors due to the larger size and weight. Those systems implementing IBIS with Full Frame have their own problems at the moment. .
. The IBIS mechanism can't be turned off... it's constantly shaking your sensor. The higher the resolution of the sensor, the greater the reduction of light. The more heat comes into play, the more the oil (that lubricates the mechanism) tends to migrate to the surface of the sensor. Then there's the dirty sensor issue from the IBIS enabled sensor generating electrostatic charges ...from the movement of the sensor on the guide rails. IBIS is not ideal for photographers. But it's not entirely useless for videographers.
. Why we won't see an EF-M to RF mount in the near future... Canon is pushing forward with production for a final release date. A narrow 2mm flange difference means we won't likely see a converter/adapter. Isn't the new EOS R a weather-sealed system? Why would anyone want to put unsealed EF-M lenses on the EOS R? Canon's EF lenses work fine on the EOS R via an adapter. EF and EF-S lenses also work fine on the EOS M system via an adapter. But since DSLR is dying and will be "dead in 5 years" according to Canon, it's good to see Canon forging forward with a new Mount. Remember when Canon launched their EF lenses, abandoning the old analogue FD lenses in 1988? Those FD lenses were launched in 1971 and were created and engineered in the late 1960s. By adopting EOS EF, Canon were able to leave their nearest rival (Nikon) in the dust with the new EF system. .
The EOS R is now an independent system that is quite separate from the EOS M series.
. Recent statements from Canon this year indicated that they knew they wanted to pursue a new mount because it would allow them to explore new lens physics. They said they didn't want to deter their EF lens customers and were looking to see if they could accommodate the EF lenses with a new mount (ie EOS R). It looks like they did. . The recent and upcoming EF lenses to be announced are expensive ones. But the cost for producing them is minimal to Canon due to re-engineering of existing parts, plus they were designed and approved before the EOS R was commenced in earnest. I'm not saying these are the last of the EF lenses but they will surely represent the now-past era that EF lenses represented. The new RF lenses have Control Dials on the end of the lenses and these smaller lens units (if you can ignore the RF 28-70mmL lens) clearly show how miniaturization is viable with the R mounts. If you own an EOSM camera, you'll likely own some EF-M lenses. These lenses aren't expensive. Your money wasn't wasted just because you can't stick it on a larger, more expensive camera. . The R and the M series are very different systems with different sensor sizes and different markets. I can assure you that there will be two EOS R cameras initially (the second yet to be announced) and Canon won't risk deterring early purchasers by winding down EF-M production. They need a continued cash flow and we know that the M50 is selling very well indeed. The evidence that Canon will continue to support the M-platform will be in the announcement of a serious new fast lens which has been leaked along with the EOS R from the very same source: 'Nokishita'. The EOS M platform is a relatively new one. It has only recently been embraced by reviewers and consumers after Canon added DPAF sensors to the latest four cameras to be released - the M100, M5, M6 and M50. If Canon were to discontinue the M-series, the lack in confidence from consumers and early adopters of the R system would be lost. They won't do it. And the departments that handle development are unrelated. . Canon managed to sustain the EOS M platform whilst continuing to make DSLRS with EF mounts and EF lenses. Now that the EOS M platform is closer to perfection with DPAF and the M50 is winning praise and awards (mostly due to Features Vs Price), we can feel confident that the new EOS R can co-exist alongside EF-M mount. In fact, I believe we'll see quite a few of the design and technology traits of the EOS R trickle down into future EOS M cameras and perhaps even lenses. It's going to make for a smart looking M model. . Just because the R can't accept the M lenses, it doesn't mean the end of the world for the M-series. Some here seem to think so. I don't see why. The DSLRs with EF couldn't accept M lenses either. Sure the EF lenses could be mounted to the M with an adapter but they can also be fitted to the R with an adapter. The two platforms (R & M) are mutually exclusive to one another. But they are both going to continue to make a lot of money for Canon. The only thing that it TRULY uncertain is the future of the beloved EF mount and especially the EF-S mount. Camera series like Sony Mirrorless are just as threatened by the creation of the EOS R. Perhaps even more because they have issues with their own lenses and the Metabones adapters aren't the solution. Sony mirrorless cameras are still unfavorable for Astrophotography (even though people shirk this) and overheating, banding in images and other concerns still plague their mirrorless cameras. Canon have so far managed to avoid many of these issues. I don't need to complain about Sony, I'm simply explaining why I've avoided switching to them. They do have a habit of not fixing a problem but simply release another model ASAP. Remember all those folks here who left the Canon and M forums to adopt Sony's mirrorless recently? I guess we might someday see them again. . The EF-M series fits a specific market that Canon needs to supply and fill. The demand for compact APS-C mirrorless cameras is worldwide and buyers are far more tech savvy these days than they were 15 years ago. Today they'll Google to see what the public opinions of users are before they buy. Most consumers want light, inexpensive cameras that are robust, look good and take nice photographs. Even the best camera phones can't yet match this... and those with the ability to fake Depth Of Field by blurring background regularly ruin the images they are supposed to enhance. Within a day or so we should have all the answers from Canon that we need after they make their anticipated announcement. . We'll need a new Board shortly... When the EOS R is formally announced, those threads covering the R platform ought to be quickly migrated to the new EOS R forum and hopefully we can clean up these boards and get back to M cameras and EF-M lenses again.
Nice post. While I was reading, it made me think back years to when Olympus brought out their revolutionary OM SLRs which were significantly smaller than the norm. Many photographers, myself included, as well as newspaper photo departments, jumped at the chance to lessen the weight of their camera systems.
But in the end, I think most of us went back to our heavy Nikon F1's and looking back, it was probably because of the range of professional lenses and accessories that were available. Not a great analogy to the Canon M system but I did acquire it because of the light weight and if I leave the system it might well be because the system is not providing me with the range of lenses I want in the future.
I think a camera company would do well bringing out a system tailored for lightness. Call it the "mountain" camera and advertise the heck out of it to a target audience of seniors and back country photographers.
Nice post. While I was reading, it made me think back years to when Olympus brought out their revolutionary OM SLRs which were significantly smaller than the norm. Many photographers, myself included, as well as newspaper photo departments, jumped at the chance to lessen the weight of their camera systems.
But in the end, I think most of us went back to our heavy Nikon F1's and looking back, it was probably because of the range of professional lenses and accessories that were available. Not a great analogy to the Canon M system but I did acquire it because of the light weight and if I leave the system it might well be because the system is not providing me with the range of lenses I want in the future.
I think a camera company would do well bringing out a system tailored for lightness. Call it the "mountain" camera and advertise the heck out of it to a target audience of seniors and back country photographers.
I'm not a pro and I don't think the M series was aimed at the pro photographer. I recently bought into the M system and several very nice ef-m lenses -both canon and third party. The only thing I could say I was missing is a longer zoom or longer prime. Otherwise I don't see anything that isn't covered either by canon or 3rd party lens makers. I have (had) boxes of lenses that stretched back to the sixties and discovered that being a lens junkie is a disease and the EF-M system is the perfect wonderful cure.
I love the “when they feel obsolete, I’ll upgrade.” And you’ve hit the nail on the head about what’s holding me back about going R. It’s a huge investment for all new lenses and I don’t feel like the improvement is going to make it worth it. Eventually it will, but not yet.
Yes, thanks for the validation! Â I have been a long follower of the Fred Miranda Canon forum except for the G and M forums here. Â But now there is hardly a thread that doesn't have R in the title. Â I think there is a huge future in sensor base autofocus technology but so far ... Â I'm leaning a lot more towards the M sized systems in consideration of my aging back anyway.
. My post here started out as a reply to Ben Herrmannn's post ( dpreview.com/forums/post/61593564 ) about the Size factor of the Mirrorless Canons and why the M-series was once about size. But I didn't want to distract from the content of his thread and I feel that it's worth raising some comparisons in what would otherwise have become a lengthy reply. . We've come a long way from Film cameras. The transition to digital was initially cautious. Fuji used the opportunity to jump in feet-first and came up with some great and somewhat expensive cameras in the early 2000s. Memory cards were unreliable and cost AUD $1000 per megabyte. A 4MB card was a big deal for a while. Then Sony bought up a few companies and absorbed their patents and lens technology ...and the race was really on. .
What on earth?
. Over a decade and a half later, Sony almost bankrupted themselves (literally) while pursuing mirrorless and punching out one unfinished model after another. They abandoned their proprietary Sony Memory Sticks in the mid 2000s so we can at least thank them for that. But here we are in 2018 and there are people sticking $15,000 lenses onto Mobile Cell Phones for some reason. I agree... it's sad and funny at the same time. Heck, Sony were even producing zoom lenses to clip directly onto your cell-phone just the other day. This is why they burn through money. .
Do we really need to be headed in this direction?
. Mirrorless Cameras... I think that mirrorless APS-C should have always been a smaller, lighter system. The EOS M series certainly is. It's a scaled down APS-C DSLR with a nice big APS-C sensor inside. The whole point of mirrorless cameras was to cut down on the pentaprism design of the DSLR to produce a hybrid with Live View but interchangeable lenses and no need for a mirror-system. In fact the ICL factor is the main thing that defines mirrorless from Compact cameras. It wasn't long before we saw Sony advertising their huge lenses on mirrorless bodies and that in turn led to jokes and internet memes - all of which mocked mirrorless for becoming the very thing it was meant to avoid. .
My first mirrorless camera alongside my first digital camera. (EOSM (18MP) mirrorless on left, Digital IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact on the right).
. People migrated to mirrorless because they like it more than DSLRs. It's just like using a Compact Camera... or at least that's how it started out. My first Compact Digital camera was the first IXUS Digital Camera from Canon. It was a stainless steel, robust, tiny thing in 2001. It was about the same size as my APS Elph cameras but it was much smaller than my SLR film cameras ...and I could immediately download and share pictures from it. I abandoned my 35mm film cameras and moved straight to Digital. At the time, this camera was "wondrous" and it won many awards. But by today's standards this was a very primitive camera with a very limited zoom, poor (non existent) DR, no manual control whatsoever (it was Full Auto). Yet it went places with me that I wasn't likely to take a film camera. I found myself taking pictures of food, animals, pictures of unusual clouds... the sort of thing that I wouldn't be wasting time photographing with a film camera since I had to pay for the development of each shot. .
IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact camera - image has recently been edited with noise reduction.The first day (and first time) that i met my wife 17 years ago. (posed). [September 2001].
EOS M6 (24MP) mirrorless - with an EF lens.The last picture i took of my wife on our last Anniversary dinner (candid). [December 2017].
. Being able to carry a small camera around with you in a time when nobody carried a mobile cell phone with a camera in it was a big deal. The quality of pictures from those early model Nokia Razor phones that came out a few years later were incredibly primitive. Plus they were too small to print and too ugly to want to show anyone. . When I adopted early PowerShot cameras that later became benchmark models (Pro1 and G1X), I found them very capable of decent photographs except in low light conditions. The EOS M with an APS-C sensor resolved this problem for me since I didn't enjoy lugging a DSLR around. It really surprises me how many people approach me when I'm holding a DSLR to ask me if I'm a "professional photographer" and how (almost) nobody ever asks me this when I'm holding an EOS M. It's nice to be anonymous. I enjoy being able to take pictures without having to answer questions or justify my equipment. .
IXUS (2.1MP) subcompact camera - inside of the dome on the Sydney Queen Victoria Building.
EOSM (18MP) mirrorless camera - inside of the dome on the Sydney Queen Victoria Building.
. Full Frame offers improved light-gathering ability alongside shallower DOF. Those are the two major motivators for purchasers aside from price. And unfortunately, Full Frame sensors are still expensive to make, even if the prices have come down somewhat in recent years. If you can ignore the prices and compare just the abilities and results, APS-C is better value by a long shot. The crop factor is often a benefit. The image quality, if the glass is good, is usually excellent. . When you buy a camera, you should realize that most modern electric devices have a 5-year life expectancy. You camera might live longer and so might your computer... but that's the standard life-expectancy before components, gears and especially plastic and rubber parts begin to perish. Surprisingly, the more often you use your devices, the longer they tend to last. A device that is suddenly unboxed after years of inactivity and an uncycled battery is more prone to failure.
. Using the EOSM alongside a DSLR I like to use the EOS M alongside a Full Frame DSLR. I like the results from FF with certain lenses but I enjoy using mirrorless cameras much more. It's just a shame about the weight and bulk. There's a couple of other members here who do the same. If I could avoid using a DSLR altogether I certainly would. When I'm working in the dark and trying to use two very different systems and trying to lock up a mirror or switch to "Live View" without a touch-screen it can be irritating. But more often than not, I get excellent results from the EOSM cameras and the image quality is usually superb. But it's not ideal to be carrying two cameras if you can get around with just one. Heck, even the act of carrying one camera and multiple lenses isn't always ideal. This is why so many consumers want a good compact camera with a fixed zoom lens. Selecting a lens based on your needs for the day seems to be the simplest way to operate. Stick it on your EOSM and away you go. But something I learned recently is that my EOS M6 takes as good a picture as my DSLRs, if not better, when it comes to landscapes. I even spent an evening under the stars last month and only used the M6 for a handful of shots... all of which were more appealing to me than those from one of my DSLRs. .
My EOS M (left) and EOS 6D (right).. in the hands of my wife. . I sometimes carry this kind of combo because I want shallow DOF but need a small Macro system with me. When/If Canon release their EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens (hopefully quite soon) I can leave the DSLR behind.
. Size Matters... The thing I like most about the EOS M series is that it produces superb DSLR-quality images with near-DSLR performance yet on a much smaller scale. I can carry the EOS M with a 22mm lens in the palm of my hand. I can't do that with a Full Frame systems, even if I strip off my preferred extended battery grip and use a smaller than preferred lens. If you travel anywhere, you'll know that large lenses get knocked about. They draw attention to you in cities and backstreets that can make you a target for robbery (and worse). If I use one of my favorite lenses (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM) I always get better bokeh and performance by using it on a Full Frame DSLR but the weight of this system means I end up with almost 3+ Kilograms of weight to lug about. Forget that it takes a great picture... because it only does so at a considerable cost. Both financially and to my health. My arms hurt and my shoulder hurts for a couple of days if I have 3 kilos in gear supported while I climb hills and travel about the cities. A full day at the zoo results in pain. A full day in the Australian bush results in pain. I'm reasonably fit but if I find it difficult, then so must others. I've taken to using a monopod again so I can keep the camera raised for long periods. In the past I use a monopod because I needed more stabilization. This is why the EOS M series is so important. It takes the weight away. It takes a lot of risk away. I can get into venues with it when a DSLR would probably cause problems. I can carry that EOS M cameras strapped to my hip with both my hands free. I can carry extra lenses. I can shoot all day with a slightly larger 11-22mm or 28mm Macro lens from the EF-M family while I carry the tiny 22mm f/2 lens in my pocket. At the end of the day, as the sun sets, I can swap lenses over to the 22mm lens to enable me better performance at night. . But allowing a large EF lens designed for DSLRs to fit on an EOS M series camera (via an adapter) was something Canon did to try to prevent brand-migration and to encourage early adopters to think of the EOSM as a backup body for their larger DSLRs. The original EOSM made this a very viable solution, especially for the travelers. Those of you posting vacation shots taken with your M5 and M50s know what I'm talking about. Sometimes I'd use a large EF lens to capture the craters of the moon or a surfer out in the ocean. We use whatever we have on hand to achieve what we want to capture. The Adapters are what make the EF-M and RF camera mounts useful. . When I travel I don't want to worry about a massive loss if one of my more expensive lenses is damaged, lost or stolen. And when you travel by air, you really do face that risk unless you bring all that gear onboard with you. With luggage weight restrictions getting tougher, there's every chance I'll end up with a disaster on my hands, like so many journalists face regularly. Those big lenses we sometimes like to utilize require big, expensive protective filters and very expensive Circular Polarizers. But look at the EOS M series... those EF-M lenses have smaller diameter filter threads with smaller and less expensive filters. You can save money on bags for your lenses if your travel. You can more easily pack the camera and lenses in your luggage or simply carry them about with you in a pocket or in a pouch on your hip. I often carry the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM pancake lens in a sealed plastic bag in my pocket. The EF-M mount has only just reached its first window of ideal acceptance from the public due to the popularity of the M50 mount... which is probably why Canon pushed it out there a little ahead of time. .
Soon....
. The inevitable death of the Consumer DSLR.... Canon combined a number of surveys, sales statistics and consumer trends and determined that the DSLR is going to be dead within the decade. I'm sure DSLR will continue to be supported for another 5 years beyond that but the glory days of DSLR are now long gone. People just aren't buying them like they used to. No longer do the sales departments declare that DSLR is "king" because they know what such talk makes it much harder to sell non-DSLR cameras. By the way, that image above was captured some time ago. . With Consumer DSLRs fading from memory (soon), those with an interest in photography can be grateful of one thing: No more oil splattering across the sensor with the slap of the mirror and hopefully cameras can get smaller and lighter and much more responsive with Live View. And with Canon now moving forward with mirrorless, they can devote more time and energy towards this advancing format. And that's probably good news for APS-C mirrorless users in the EOS M crowd. . So far, I've seen anti-DSLR camera posters at concerts but I've been confronted entering a cinema with a camera bag and I've even been taken into custody for photographing the architecture outside of a Courthouse Building with my EOS M camera while using an EF lens. There's a very negative backlash aimed towards photographers these days. Even Sydney City has anti-photography laws around the harborside with the security and council rangers pouncing on any "professional looking camera". When questioned by the press, they defined a professional camera as being "a DSLR, especially when used on a tripod". It would seem that the UK is even worse... .
The UK setting the pace to deter DSLR owners from carrying their cameras in public.
. IBIS and why IBIS is unlikely to filter into Canon products... In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) was stated by both Canon and Nikon to be inferior to Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) or in-lens stabilization. With new generation OIS from Canon offering up to 5 stops of effective IS, the need for IBIS diminishes. You'll see no mention of IBIS on the early leaks about the EOS R. Here are the points that Canon and Nikon raised against IBIS and in favor of OIS. . 1) Each lens is optimally tuned to achieve reliable correction.. . 2) OIS allows faster and more accurate AF & exposure metering, because the image comes already stabilized to the camera sensor (and advantage you’ll notice especially in low light). . 3) OIS is more effective with long telephoto lenses" . Yes, IBIS works okay for video and there's a reasonable argument that it can be useful for longer lenses and video. I've seen how effective it is. But the difference isn't much more than one stop in still photography, despite the claims otherwise. Canon's in-body stabilizer is electronic and that's why it applies to video but not images. As another member here pointed out: IBIS isn't particularly suited to Full Frame sensors due to the larger size and weight. Those systems implementing IBIS with Full Frame have their own problems at the moment. .
. The IBIS mechanism can't be turned off... it's constantly shaking your sensor. The higher the resolution of the sensor, the greater the reduction of light. The more heat comes into play, the more the oil (that lubricates the mechanism) tends to migrate to the surface of the sensor. Then there's the dirty sensor issue from the IBIS enabled sensor generating electrostatic charges ...from the movement of the sensor on the guide rails. IBIS is not ideal for photographers. But it's not entirely useless for videographers.
. Why we won't see an EF-M to RF mount in the near future... Canon is pushing forward with production for a final release date. A narrow 2mm flange difference means we won't likely see a converter/adapter. Isn't the new EOS R a weather-sealed system? Why would anyone want to put unsealed EF-M lenses on the EOS R? Canon's EF lenses work fine on the EOS R via an adapter. EF and EF-S lenses also work fine on the EOS M system via an adapter. But since DSLR is dying and will be "dead in 5 years" according to Canon, it's good to see Canon forging forward with a new Mount. Remember when Canon launched their EF lenses, abandoning the old analogue FD lenses in 1988? Those FD lenses were launched in 1971 and were created and engineered in the late 1960s. By adopting EOS EF, Canon were able to leave their nearest rival (Nikon) in the dust with the new EF system. .
The EOS R is now an independent system that is quite separate from the EOS M series.
. Recent statements from Canon this year indicated that they knew they wanted to pursue a new mount because it would allow them to explore new lens physics. They said they didn't want to deter their EF lens customers and were looking to see if they could accommodate the EF lenses with a new mount (ie EOS R). It looks like they did. . The recent and upcoming EF lenses to be announced are expensive ones. But the cost for producing them is minimal to Canon due to re-engineering of existing parts, plus they were designed and approved before the EOS R was commenced in earnest. I'm not saying these are the last of the EF lenses but they will surely represent the now-past era that EF lenses represented. The new RF lenses have Control Dials on the end of the lenses and these smaller lens units (if you can ignore the RF 28-70mmL lens) clearly show how miniaturization is viable with the R mounts. If you own an EOSM camera, you'll likely own some EF-M lenses. These lenses aren't expensive. Your money wasn't wasted just because you can't stick it on a larger, more expensive camera. . The R and the M series are very different systems with different sensor sizes and different markets. I can assure you that there will be two EOS R cameras initially (the second yet to be announced) and Canon won't risk deterring early purchasers by winding down EF-M production. They need a continued cash flow and we know that the M50 is selling very well indeed. The evidence that Canon will continue to support the M-platform will be in the announcement of a serious new fast lens which has been leaked along with the EOS R from the very same source: 'Nokishita'. The EOS M platform is a relatively new one. It has only recently been embraced by reviewers and consumers after Canon added DPAF sensors to the latest four cameras to be released - the M100, M5, M6 and M50. If Canon were to discontinue the M-series, the lack in confidence from consumers and early adopters of the R system would be lost. They won't do it. And the departments that handle development are unrelated. . Canon managed to sustain the EOS M platform whilst continuing to make DSLRS with EF mounts and EF lenses. Now that the EOS M platform is closer to perfection with DPAF and the M50 is winning praise and awards (mostly due to Features Vs Price), we can feel confident that the new EOS R can co-exist alongside EF-M mount. In fact, I believe we'll see quite a few of the design and technology traits of the EOS R trickle down into future EOS M cameras and perhaps even lenses. It's going to make for a smart looking M model. . Just because the R can't accept the M lenses, it doesn't mean the end of the world for the M-series. Some here seem to think so. I don't see why. The DSLRs with EF couldn't accept M lenses either. Sure the EF lenses could be mounted to the M with an adapter but they can also be fitted to the R with an adapter. The two platforms (R & M) are mutually exclusive to one another. But they are both going to continue to make a lot of money for Canon. The only thing that it TRULY uncertain is the future of the beloved EF mount and especially the EF-S mount. Camera series like Sony Mirrorless are just as threatened by the creation of the EOS R. Perhaps even more because they have issues with their own lenses and the Metabones adapters aren't the solution. Sony mirrorless cameras are still unfavorable for Astrophotography (even though people shirk this) and overheating, banding in images and other concerns still plague their mirrorless cameras. Canon have so far managed to avoid many of these issues. I don't need to complain about Sony, I'm simply explaining why I've avoided switching to them. They do have a habit of not fixing a problem but simply release another model ASAP. Remember all those folks here who left the Canon and M forums to adopt Sony's mirrorless recently? I guess we might someday see them again. . The EF-M series fits a specific market that Canon needs to supply and fill. The demand for compact APS-C mirrorless cameras is worldwide and buyers are far more tech savvy these days than they were 15 years ago. Today they'll Google to see what the public opinions of users are before they buy. Most consumers want light, inexpensive cameras that are robust, look good and take nice photographs. Even the best camera phones can't yet match this... and those with the ability to fake Depth Of Field by blurring background regularly ruin the images they are supposed to enhance. Within a day or so we should have all the answers from Canon that we need after they make their anticipated announcement. . We'll need a new Board shortly... When the EOS R is formally announced, those threads covering the R platform ought to be quickly migrated to the new EOS R forum and hopefully we can clean up these boards and get back to M cameras and EF-M lenses again.
As you enjoy his post, you can thank him every day, but may I ask that you not quote his post when you do so — especially when the post is long and contains many images.
I simply click “Reply” in replying to you to avoid re-posting his post that you included.
Fujifilm's X-H2 is a high-resolution stills and video camera, that sits alongside the high-speed X-H2S at the pinnacle of the company's range of X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. We dug into what it does and what it means.
Holy Stone produces dozens of low-cost drone models aimed at consumers. We look at the HS710 and HS175D to see if they stack up to other sub-250g offerings. Are these secretly great or more like toys?
The EOS R6 II arrives in one of the most competitive parts of the market, facing off against some very capable competition. We think it rises to the challenge.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
