New Canon EOS-M

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:48 pm

Well, new canon body; could be great as second body for macro for canon FF owners
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/23 ... on-preview

I thought there was no remote conection but seems to be an IR conection

Regards
Javier

Rylee Isitt · Post by **Rylee Isitt** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:17 pm

I am a little disappointed that the decision for ultra-compactness meant a smaller flange distance and a new mount. But I assume the adapter is just a hollow tube with no optics, so you should be able to mount regular EF lenses to it and get the full image quality you'd expect from an APS-C sensor.

I could see using such a camera for more contemplative type work, especially in manual focus situations where your subject is likely to sit still for long periods of time.

I might get something like this down the road, but I think I'll give Canon a few more generations of improvement in design before I do - I suspect the AF system and ergonomics of this new camera will pale in comparison to any DSLR.

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:36 am

I guess AF will be as bad as on the Fuji X100 and most other mirrorless; the thing that really anoyed me was that MF was even worse. I just hate focus by wire systems (well, I have only used Fuji's one)

If I bought such a camera would be to use it with pancake lenses when traveling (a 35/2 would be grate too) and as a second body for macro where the AF performance is not important but silent liveview is; I hope EFSC is well implemented on this camera

The smaller flange distance should be an advantage as is easyer to design wide angle lenses when flange distance is short; I red somewhere that tessar like designs are limited to focal length equal or greater than flange distance

I still think that mirrorless cameras are few generation away of being fully usable; specially because of the poor AF and poor MF with focus by wire

Regards
Javier

Rylee Isitt · Post by **Rylee Isitt** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:34 am

If you use EF lenses with the adapter, you can MF with the lens itself.

Is Canon not putting MF focus rings on the EF-M lenses? That would be a shame.

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:25 pm

seta666 wrote:I guess AF will be as bad as on the Fuji X100 and most other mirrorless; the thing that really anoyed me was that MF was even worse.

I really cannot agree that most mirrorless would have poor AF. Panasonic had very good AF already in the GF1. Olympus seems to have very good Af in the new E-m5 (I only handled it briefly, but the AF worked well and independent reviews have praised its AF). Sony has no problem with AF. The only major advantage with DSLRs is that pro-DSLRs have much better motion tracking, but this only for pro DSLR. Personally I hate the AF of entry level DSLRs, but that's of course a matter of setting expectations.

The EOS M would actually be a potentially very good macro camera, but it has no EVF option and the price is quite high.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:32 am

Another review:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/ph ... paign=2&ap

Harold

morfa · Post by **morfa** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:10 am

I still think that mirrorless cameras are few generation away of being fully usable; specially because of the poor AF and poor MF with focus by wire

AF, now who actually needs that gimmick?

Regarding focus by wire: I would have been inclined to agree with you but since using Canon's 40/2.8 STM for a few weeks I have to revise this opinion. Besides the fact that the lens won't focus unless it's connected to a power source I really can't tell the difference between this and a "regular" lens.

Besides, I can kind of see these focusing motors working for our team some day...

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:10 pm

morfa wrote: Besides, I can kind of see these focusing motors working on our team some day...

It's an interesting idea...IIRC, the Canon 40/2.8 had a stepper motor instead of an ultrasonic one? I didn't think about the distinction from a macro perspective before, but it obviously opens up pretty interesting possibilities for macro if it was programmable...

I still haven't got around to putting a diopter on my Olympus 45/1.8 lens, but will at some point...

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:24 am

Oskar O wrote: The EOS M would actually be a potentially very good macro camera, but it has no EVF option and the price is quite high.

Well, is supposed to be 600$ body only and the EF adapter is half the price of the metabones; moreover the compatibility with canon flashes is a plus

I never use the viewfinder when doing macro, apart from reviewing the pictures like John says in his NEX-7 review I do not see any extra benefits macro wise

morfa wrote: Regarding focus by wire: I would have been inclined to agree with you but since using Canon's 40/2.8 STM for a few weeks I have to revise this opinion. Besides the fact that the lens won't focus unless it's connected to a power source I really can't tell the difference between this and a "regular" lens.

Besides, I can kind of see these focusing motors working for our team some day...

The only "focus by wire" lens I have used is that on the Fuji X100 and that is plain terrible. You need more than 10 full turn to focus from minimum to infinity; in low light situations where MF is more needed it works even worst. That was tthe main reason I sold that camera few weeks after owning it

From a macro perspective AF is not needed and not even MF (MP-E) but for street photography fast and accurate MF is a must and that camera did not do the job

As you say those step motors could be in our side in the future, if via software you could change steps small enough to allow stacking

I would love this canon camera added the focus peaking feature, which can be pretty usefull

Still I will wait to see what offers the more advanced version of the EOS-M

Regards
Javier

Oskar O · Post by **Oskar O** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:35 pm

seta666 wrote: Well, is supposed to be 600$ body only and the EF adapter is half the price of the metabones; moreover the compatibility with canon flashes is a plus

I never use the viewfinder when doing macro, apart from reviewing the pictures like John says in his NEX-7 review I do not see any extra benefits macro wise

I haven't seen any body only offer, my evaluation of the price is based on the kit price. Canon compatibility is of course a plus if one uses Canon otherwise.

I use a viewfinder for hand held or when the screen might be hard to read due to the environment. Additionally modern EVFs tend to be of higher resolution than the screens. But the usefulness of a viewfinder obviously depends on working methods and subjects.

RogelioMoreno · Post by **RogelioMoreno** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:02 am

I am waiting for a Canon SLR mirroless and the EOS-M look like the right one. Anyone know about the following:

- I will be able to do remote shutter (with cable).
- I know the camera has a shorter flange to sensor distance (this is good to mount the camera on some trinocular head with direct projection); but I would like to know about the size of the EOS-M lens mount, it is the same as the current EOS or it is smaller?

Rogelio

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:46 am

RogelioMoreno wrote:... but I would like to know about the size of the EOS-M lens mount, it is the same as the current EOS or it is smaller?

It's smaller. Quote from dpreview.com:
"The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen."