Canon finally joins the Mirrorless crowd

[Tippster]

Didn't see any threads on this yet. Here it is - the EOS-M http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

Canon EOS M key features

New EF-M lens mount (optimized for APS-C sensor size)
18MP APS-C 'Hybrid CMOS' sensor
Continuous autofocus in movie mode with subject tracking
14-bit DIGIC5 processor
ISO 100-12800 standard, 25600 expanded
4.3 fps continuous shooting, 3 fps with autofocus tracking
1080p30 video recording, stereo sound (with 25p or 24p options)
External microphone socket and adjustable sound recording level
1040k dot 3:2 touch-sensitive ClearView II LCD (capacitative type, multi-touch support)
Standard EOS hot-shoe for external flash (no built-in flash)
'Creative Filters' image-processing controls, previewed live on-screen

First Impressions

We've waited a long time for Canon to finally reveal its hand on mirrorless cameras, but now it's finally arrived the EOS M offers few surprises. It's a predictably solid offering that makes full use of the technologies unveiled with the EOS 650D, including the Hybrid CMOS sensor, STM lenses and touchscreen controls. Canon tells us that it's designed to appeal to buyers looking for the image quality of an SLR in a smaller camera that's as unthreatening as a compact, and while this isn't new idea, the EOS M looks to be a well-judged offering in this sector.

The flipside of this, of course, is that the EOS M may not set pulses racing for enthusiast users looking for a more compact camera to use alongside their Canon SLRs (but then again, it's not really supposed to - that's the Powershot G1 X's job). However its highly-developed touchscreen interface does go a long way towards making it much more fluid to use than its simplified external controls might lead you to expect. But it still lacks enthusiast-friendly features such as a tilting screen and plug-in electronic viewfinder option that can be found on relatively inexpensive models such as the Olympus PEN E-PL3 or Sony Alpha NEX-5N.

Of course the really big question is how well the EOS M will fare against established competitors from the likes of Olympus, Panasonic and Sony. We're not expecting any surprises in terms of image quality; Canon says the EOS M's stills and video output will be identical to the EOS 650D, which means it should be a close match to anything else in its class. In terms of features the EOS M looks reasonably competitive, although without perhaps an obvious standout selling point against its peers. As always, we're looking forward to getting our hands on a fully-working example for an in-depth evaluation.

[Kai]

Not exciting to me. No viewfinder, touch screen controls, poor choice of dedicated lenses.

Will likely appeal to simple point and shooters who want something smaller than a dSLR. Not for me.

[smmokan]

$800 for the camera and an overpriced prime kit lens... and then another $200 for an EF adapter.


Awesome.

[systemoverblow'd]

Color me unimpressed.

[Lonnie]

Good:
- Wireless flash control, although the add-on flash is awkward in shape
- Audio level control and stereo mic input!
- Pancake! Ummm, Pancakes...
- APS-C sensor
- EF mount adapter
- touch screen

Not so good:
- Only two native lenses
- No 60p
- No Peaking (really bad)
- No EVF option
- Fixed screen
- 230 shot battery life
- $800 price point with only a fixed prime. $300 more for the zoom lens.

[systemoverblow'd]

Dumbest picture ever?

[smmokan]

$300 for the 18-55mm IS in an "M" mount? That's just retarded.

I'm waiting for this new "entry-level full frame" camera I keep hearing rumors about. For the right price point there, I'll pull the trigger in a heart beat.

[Hugh Conway]

Good:
- Pancake!

Bad
- Ummm, no Pancakes...

So is this dumber than the Nikon mirrorless? Or is it a draw?

[Lonnie]

So is this dumber than the Nikon mirrorless? Or is it a draw?

This is WAY better than Nikon's mirrorless, basically because of the APS-C sized sensor in the Canon. I have no doubt that Nikon will now do a another mirrorless camera system utilizing a large (APS-C sized) sensor. Then everyone will be back to square.

[jm2e]

Nikon and Canon have done a really nice favor for Sony/Pany/Oly with their choices in this category.

I know they would never consider it out of pride and arrogance, but imagine if Canon, Nikon, Sony went with MFT or at least went that route with non proprietary lens mounts. Imagine chosing your body based on its merits and then chose any available lens based on its merits; the options would be astounding.

[Hugh Conway]

Imagine chosing your body based on its merits and then chose any available lens based on its merits; the options would be astounding.

There are adapters for most of the mirrorless cameras that allow limited use with pretty much any other lens - the main constraint is flange back distance. You can do Leica to Nikon mirrorless, Leica to m43 and Leica to Sony NEX.

The reason they don't really do care though is they make more $$ on the lenses

big sensor + shitty lens selection + shitty AF = wash lonnie; it's like everything else these days you get the feeling things are held back because "the next level" ain't that great and they gotta milk shit

[summit]

This scores a giant "meh" from me for reasons already stated

[Lonnie]

big sensor + shitty lens selection + shitty AF = wash lonnie;

Optics trumps AF every day of the week. Go the legacy lens route, and the possibilities are endless, and range from super cheap to super expensive. It's why canon leaving off the peaking feature is such a big deal. FWIW, they could add that via firmware at a later date.

[systemoverblow'd]

Optics trumps AF every day of the week.

So an OOF image of an athlete through a $10,000 lens is better than an in focus image shot with a $700 lens?

Such a stupid statement.

[Lonnie]

So an OOF image of an athlete through a $10,000 lens is better than an in focus image shot with a $700 lens?

Such a stupid statement.

I'll grant you sports/action folks would disagree with that statement (Which I thought about after I posted.) As you have pointed out, there are exceptions to every "rule" and every situation depending on ones need. However, in my defense, not many folks are going to be using CDAF mirrorless cams for serious sports/action work. The point I was trying to make was, given a choice, I'd choose optical quality over AF every time. Your mileage may vary...

[kalisto]

So an OOF image of an athlete through a $10,000 lens is better than an in focus image shot with a $700 lens?

Such a stupid statement.

derp. derp.

Since when does not having AF mean focusing is not possible?

[systemoverblow'd]

derp. derp.

Since when does not having AF mean focusing is not possible?

Yeah, because someone on the sidelines of a football game with an 600mm f/4 lens is manually focusing. Stop being an idiot. You understood my point... even Lonnie who I was arguing with understood it. What's the Number 1 issue people bitch about with the Canon 5D mkII? It's the shit autofocus (and it isn't even a sports camera).

Now can we get back to what a lame duck this EOS-M is?

[Lonnie]

Now can we get back to what a lame duck this EOS-M is?

Regardless on the +/-'s of this particular offering, at least the EOS-M has a large sensor and as a system, it's a starting point that can be easily be built upon. It was a wise decision by Canon, even if this first offering is somewhat conservative/vanilla.

This is in contrast to the Nikon1, which because of the 2.7 crop factor 1" sensor, is basically stuck with dedicated system lenses.

[Hugh Conway]

FWIW, they could add that via firmware at a later date.

but then that'd take away the opportunity for a new and improved model. I doubt either Canon or Nikon want to be a serious player in the mirrorless realm, now or maybe ever. it'd kill their business. nice to get back to the photo vid dickswinging about sensor size and "good optics" though

[Todds]

Can someone explain why the lenses for this and the m43s are almost as big as regular DSLR lenses? Leica 35mm lenses were smaller (especially the diameter). I thought that was because they didn't have the mirror box to deal with. Does lack of AF have something to do with it?

[Lonnie]

but then that'd take away the opportunity for a new and improved model. I doubt either Canon or Nikon want to be a serious player in the mirrorless realm, now or maybe ever. it'd kill their business.

OMG, I'm agreeing with HC? I still view these mirrorless ICL's as a bridge to the next technology. As I stated the last time we were dickwaving on this subject that in the future "all" cameras will be mirrorless. But they'll look like our current DSLR's. We're waiting on some sort of faster AF be it phased detect modules located on the sensor, or ultra fast contrast detect (due to the availability of faster computer processing and algorithms). The other thing we're waiting on is EVF technology. These little cams are the test platforms for that technology, which will then be scaled up to current size.

When they get those bugs worked out, we'll be using full sized mirrorless cams that look like today's DSLR's, and Canon/Nikon won't have to worry about cannibalizing their DSLR sales...

[Tippster]

Can someone explain why the lenses for this and the m43s are almost as big as regular DSLR lenses? Leica 35mm lenses were smaller (especially the diameter). I thought that was because they didn't have the mirror box to deal with. Does lack of AF have something to do with it?

Sure - USM motors are gonna add to the bulk, but I think the flange to focal plane distance may be the factor. Those old Leicas had the film all the way in the back of the camera body with only the pressure plate between the FP and the back plate.

I think that's why the M8 didn't have a full-frame sensor, even tho the film bodies with the same dimensions (some, like the Minolta CL were actually smaller) were 35mm. Don't know how they changed that for the M9, but I'm assuming the body is thicker or they repositioned the sensor farther back.

[Lonnie]

Tippster is right on the money. It all has to do with the flange to focal plane distance.



Long story short, you can make smaller and more compact lenses that focus on a shorter focal plane, but when you do, you are going to introduce distortion, diffraction, chromatic aberration and other unwanted optical oddities....

[hitek79]

I don't really have an opinion on this camera in particular, but after just having our first kid, I am curious to see where this technology goes. Pulling out the 5Dmk2 and the 24-105 to take snap shots sucks, but a quick pic with my phone leaves a ton to be desired. I picked up a Pany Lumix a month ago, and it's pretty decent image wise as long as you stay at ISO 200 and below. Not ideal either.

[Hugh Conway]

OMG, I'm agreeing with HC? I still view these mirrorless ICL's as a bridge to the next technology. As I stated the last time we were dickwaving on this subject that in the future "all" cameras will be mirrorless. But they'll look like our current DSLR's. We're waiting on some sort of faster AF be it phased detect modules located on the sensor, or ultra fast contrast detect (due to the availability of faster computer processing and algorithms). The other thing we're waiting on is EVF technology. These little cams are the test platforms for that technology, which will then be scaled up to current size.

When they get those bugs worked out, we'll be using full sized mirrorless cams that look like today's DSLR's, and Canon/Nikon won't have to worry about cannibalizing their DSLR sales...

I agree we're waiting on technology, but the market drivers in Asia want things small and portable. I wouldn't expect the current "big dSLR" craze to last - I'm sure there'll be something at the end, but I don't expect the low-end dSLRs to last.