Print 39 comment(s) - last by ritualm.. on Jul 25 at 3:03 AM

Canon's EOS M will come bundled with a 22mm lens

We all got a sneak peek at Canon's new EOS M mirrorless, interchangeable lens late last week, and as expected, the company today official revealed its entry into a segment that has blossomed in the past few years.
At the heart of the EOS M is the 18MP APS-C CMOS sensor and DIGIC 5 image processor that is found in the larger Canon T4i D-SLR. Unfortunately, the EOS M doesn't come with a viewfinder, and unlike many of its competitors on the market, an add-on digital viewfinder is not available. In-body image stabilization is also MIA on the magnesium alloy bodied EOS M.
However, the EOS M does feature a multi-touch-enabled 3.0" Clear View monitor (fixed, not articulating), external hot-shoe, 4.3 FPS continuous shooting (3 FPS autofocus tracking), 1080p30 movie capabilities, stereo microphones, ISO ranges from 100 to 12,800 (ISO 25,600 expanded), Hybrid CMOS AF, Multi-shot Noise Reduction, multiple scene modes and plenty of creative filters.

"The EOS M includes a unique feature set making it an ideal movie-making tool, while also offering incredible still image quality on its APS-C-sized CMOS sensor. The camera's size, image quality, advanced video capabilities and the versatility of Canon's full lineup of lenses make the EOS M another great option to help our customers record and capture their creative vision," said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A.
The EOS M will be available this October in multiple colors (black, silver, white, and red) and will only be available as a kit bundled with the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens for a price of $799. The EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens retails for $299.
If you'd like to use existing Canon EF D-SLR lenses, you're going to have to cough up an additional $199 for the EF-EOS M mount adapter. And since the EOS M doesn't come with a built-in flash, the new AAA battery-powered Speedlite 90EX is available for purchase at a cost of $149.
You can check out Digital Photography Review's hands-on preview of the EOS-M here.

Sources: Canon, DP Review

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...on the flash
By nafhan on 7/23/2012 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 3
No built in flash: not a big deal. This thing should have great low light sensitivity, and built in flashes usually make pictures look awful and have extremely limited range. Still, I'm betting this will turn some people off from buying the camera. ...I think it's interesting that Canon went with function over marketing bullet point.

RE: ...on the flash
By Brandon Hill on 7/23/2012 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
They could have just taken the approach that Olympus did. I have a micro 4/3 E-PM1 and included in the box was a small, popup flash that attaches to the hotsh** it gets power through the accessory port.

I've only used it a few times, but it's small enough that it fits into my camera bag (just in case) and it can't cost more than a few dollars to make. It was a nice gesture by Olympus IMHO for those that can't live without a flash (mainly consumer-oriented folks).

**over agressive spam filter is overagressive ;)

RE: ...on the flash
By nafhan on 7/23/2012 12:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. It would have been nice if they included some kind of flash. I'm just saying it's not that big of a loss - even from consumer oriented perspective. No flash might also explain why they included the lens they did, instead of a zoom, as f/2 + good sensor probably means indoor photos in normal lighting will not be a problem. Based on my experience with a slightly worse camera (T3) paired to a slightly better lens (f/1.8, 50mm): if there's enough light in a room to read by, you won't need a flash with this camera.

The only thing an integrated flash is going to give you is the ability to take a horrible picture instead of no picture at all, and, yes, there are definitely a few occasions when taking a horrible picture is better than nothing.

RE: ...on the flash
By SeeManRun on 7/23/2012 12:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Flash is included in the EU but not US. You can use any existing EOS flash on it if you want one, or buy their small flash made for this camera.

I think they are faced with a dilemma. A flash that is too powerful will drain battery too quickly, while a flash that is too big (to make room for batteries) will be too bulky. The accessory flash looks reasonable for this level of camera and the intended audience. If you have EOS flashes already, then you can use those and it will be a superior experience and you maintain the small size of the camera.

RE: ...on the flash
By Jedi2155 on 7/23/2012 4:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on that I'd rather have a horrible picture than no picture at all. I could see this to be especially useful in those in the dark moments with almost NO lighting.

I just purchased my Fuji X10 a few months ago found as I wanted a high quality camera that I could still pocket in cargo pants or normal jacket. No DSLR is pocketible. I'm still very much an amateur at this point but I love the new series of camera's that combine DSLR quality imaging with smaller form factors than the previous generation of prosumer cameras.

RE: ...on the flash
By MightyAA on 7/23/2012 6:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
With my wintercoat, I pocket my four-thirds Panasonic all the time with the 20mm lens. It also has a flash, but it rather sucks. Another feature is I can get a viewfinder that uses the digital signal and isn't just a dumb optic.

The cool things about these sized camera's is that you get a lot of the features and lens choices of a real SLR in a package small enough that you can just tote it along. I use a basic sachel (man I've also put it in my camelback just fine. It doesn't replace the SLR, but is a tweener camera.

Also, from a marketing standpoint and the smartphone killing the point and shoot market, this is a good viable niche to close a gap. Someone who wants more than a phone pic, but doesn't want a large camera bag.

Perfect Camera
By bildan on 7/23/2012 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 1
For me, the best camera would be nothing but a lens and sensor linked to an iPad with Bluetooth. The viewfinder image and all camera controls would be available on the iPad.

Then, I could mount the camera on a tripod and sit in the shade while fiddling with the image until it was exactly what I wanted. (I don't shoot action.)

RE: Perfect Camera
By aebiv on 7/23/2012 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 3
Grab an Android tablet (or phone) with USB Host functionality, and an application called DSLR Controller. It will do just as you're talking about with almost any Canon DSLR.

Glad I didn't wait...
By aebiv on 7/23/2012 2:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have a few Canon DSLR's around, and quite a few lenses. I was in the market though for something small enough that I would actually take it with me everywhere. I ended up getting a Sony NEX-7 and have been absolutely happy with the purchase.

When the rumors of Canon getting into this market as well surfaced, I started to have that pit of the stomach feeling that I had bought my NEX-7 too soon, and that Canon would come out with something competitive that I wouldn't need all new lenses for (of course some I would get, but the ability to use some of my EF lenses is great).

This? Is not competition for the NEX-7. Looks like a nice camera, but needless to say I don't think Canon risked enough. I'll be interested to hear how it compares to the new NEX-5.

No viewfinder
By FITCamaro on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: No viewfinder
By DanNeely on 7/23/2012 10:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
When you're trying to cram all the guts of an SLR into a point and shoot sized body, something has to give...

RE: No viewfinder
By SeeManRun on 7/23/2012 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
The lack of the viewfinder is the exact reason for this camera. If you want a viewfinder you use an SLR. The viewfinders on point and shoots do not look through the lens which is why they suck so much. For a viewfinder on this price of camera, it would have to be a little LCD screen that displays the same image as the back screen, which is pretty redundant.

RE: No viewfinder
By AnnihilatorX on 7/23/2012 11:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly as SeeManRun says. It is called a mirrorless camera because such design eliminates the mirror --- the crucial piece for view finder in an SLR to function. In an SLR, light from lens is reflected by the mirror to the view finder, and only when you press the shutter the mirror is flipped momentarily to allow 100% light to hit the sensor.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/23/2012 6:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
For a viewfinder on this price of camera, it would have to be a little LCD screen that displays the same image as the back screen, which is pretty redundant.

Not redundant. Competing mirrorless cameras have higher-res screens, and being encased in a viewfinder box gives better contrast in bright sunny situations. Completely different usage models.

RE: No viewfinder
By ritualm on 7/23/2012 11:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the lack of viewfinder on this EOS-M that makes it look bad, it's the lack of ANY ability to add an external viewfinder that gets me. Consider the LVF unit that you can attach to the Panasonic GF1 is also compatible with both the Lumix LX3 and the new LX5, both of those being NOT mirrorless SLRs but more conventional digital cameras. The GX1 uses a different version of the GF1's LVF.

Why a viewfinder on these mirrorless SLRs? How are you going to use the onboard LCD display under bright sunlight outdoors? It's next to impossible because you can barely see anything. Having an external VF allows you to continue taking pictures. It's not redundant, it does serve a purpose.

RE: No viewfinder
By melgross on 7/23/2012 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't a high priced camera. Look at the competition. Considering this comes with an interchangeable lens mount, and an f:2 lens, a list price of $799 is very reasonable. It's actually less than most of its competitors. The Nikon 1 series, for example, starts at around the same price (actually, a bit higher), but has a much smaller sensor. This is a full aps c sensor.

RE: No viewfinder
By AssBall on 7/23/2012 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the adapter is 200 bucks. Seems pretty steep. Without it looks like you get your choice of kit lens or the bigger one for an extra 300.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/23/2012 6:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a high priced camera. Look at the competition.

Too true. I got my GH2 for $800, and that was when it'd been out for a year. Let's see what happens to Canon's mirrorless prices when A: they have more than one body out and B: their system has been on the market for at least a FEW seconds. :)

RE: No viewfinder
By michael2k on 7/23/2012 8:47:43 PM , Rating: 2

The E-PM1, another capable competitor, is $499, though with a slower yet more general use 14-42mm lens.

So, yes, it is high priced, but no, it's not really overpriced.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/24/2012 4:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Selective sampling. Try comparing this instead to a NEX-7n and the Canon offering looks CHEAP.

RE: No viewfinder
By michael2k on 7/24/2012 6:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I said it wasn't overpriced.

It's got a reasonable price.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/24/2012 7:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I see. I was confused when you stated it has a "high price". I guess technically it does, compared to, say, cereal. But in the world of brand new mirrorless cameras to flagship a line, it's right about par for the course.

RE: No viewfinder
By nafhan on 7/23/2012 11:11:49 AM , Rating: 3
That's a non-issue since viewfinders are arguably a feature that point and shoot users ignore altogether, and MILC's are marketed at people who want a point and shoot with SLR quality optics and sensors. Anyone who wants or needs a viewfinder can just buy an SLR for about the same amount of money.

RE: No viewfinder
By Nortel on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: No viewfinder
By AssBall on 7/23/2012 12:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know any professionals who wouldn't agree with you (out of the 3-4 I do know).

RE: No viewfinder
By SeeManRun on 7/23/2012 12:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
If hire a professional and he shows up with one of these cameras, fire him. This is not a professional camera.

RE: No viewfinder
By weskurtz0081 on 7/23/2012 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Is it being marketed as a "professional" camera?

RE: No viewfinder
By SeeManRun on 7/23/2012 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, and that was the point. The above posters are claiming that professionals want a view finder. Well, professionals should be using SLR's and not MILC's in my opinion.

RE: No viewfinder
By weskurtz0081 on 7/23/2012 7:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, that's what I thought. People using this camera aren't "professionals", it's not being marketed as a "professional" camera, therefore it's just people coming up with reasons to nitpick and more of a personal problem.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/23/2012 7:29:42 PM , Rating: 3
There's absolutely no reason a "professional" photographer couldn't use this camera to make absolutely amazing "professional" images.

I don't think most of these people commenting on "professional" photographers know anything about it.

RE: No viewfinder
By weskurtz0081 on 7/23/2012 10:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
That may very well be true, I don't know enough to comment on the quality of the camera either way, I just didn't see "professional" mentioned by anyone other than the people posting in the forum. It seemed to me that the people that were complaining were doing so for the sake of complaining and not because it was being marketed as a "professional" camera.

RE: No viewfinder
By Stuka on 7/23/2012 4:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Liveview is actually a godsend, but until we have displays with 100% color and brightness in sunlight, it is useless.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/23/2012 7:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
You mean... like a screen inside a viewfinder?

RE: No viewfinder
By EricMartello on 7/24/2012 1:53:39 AM , Rating: 1
People who voted this comment down are morons. A viewfinder is essential if you want to get proper framing, especially outdoors in the sun. If you're content to just take snapshots, save yourself $799 and keep using your idiotPhone. It's more than enough for people like you.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/24/2012 4:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
"Useful" is not spelt "e-s-s-e-n-t-i-a-l". It is spelt "u-s-e-f-u-l". Learn how to spell words before trying to use them.

RE: No viewfinder
By EricMartello on 7/24/2012 6:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's essential and if you think otherwise you probably don't know what you're doing. Why do you always jump into digicam discussions and make moronic comments? You're obviously not very good at photography to even suggest that an LCD screen alone is sufficient on a camera that is aimed at a higher end audience. Moe Ron.

RE: No viewfinder
By SPOOFE on 7/24/2012 7:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can't properly frame a picture using an LCD screen?

EricMartello = Hack.

RE: No viewfinder
By EricMartello on 7/25/2012 12:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
People who make comments like that generally wouldn't understand why a viewfinder > screen and should not be optional or not included on an $800 camera.

RE: No viewfinder
By ritualm on 7/25/2012 3:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
No reason you can't, but it's a lot less susceptible to camera shake if you use a viewfinder.

Can't do this at all on this Canon mirrorless.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki