The Online Photographer

This first step into the mirrorless world seems designed to sell lots of cameras to mainstream / occasional photogs. No surprise there. I hope they follow it up later with a slightly larger body incorporating at least an EVF (preferably a hybrid VF à la Fuji) on the left top rear of the camera (please!) and much more accessible / ergonomic manual controls.

Sorry, but I'll stick with my EM-5 (especially having having spent a chunk of change for the camera and lenses). Once an Olympus fanboi, always an Olympus fanboi. We like rooting for the underdogs....

Despite the continuing prevalence of prints among photographers, I would argue for the general populace the modern analog of negatives to print is now on your computer to online. In both cases the goal is to present the capture to an audience.

This is one of the major reasons for the popularity of smartphone cameras. They have achieved "good enough" quality with massive improvements in ease-of-use, and connectivity. There are inevitable sacrifices in ease-of-use as one moves up the hardware chain, but the elimination of connectivity features 5 years after the release of the first iPhone is becoming inexcusable.

It seems silly to judge it either on being late or coming from an established competitor. Surely it should be judged on the merits of the system itself?

To my mind, it's slightly better than expected. The technology looks good, and the size looks particularly good. Lack of physical controls kills it though (although physical controls + touch screen could be killer).

If Canon add a higher end model (although really they're already pushing the price), then they might be on to something. Until then, it just seems to be another boring product from Canon. Where is their innovation these days??

Canon made this camera to stop the trickle of EOS owners who buy a mirrorless walk-around cam, fall for the 'good enough' ethic and sell their EOS gear, from becoming a flood. Now EOS owners (1) have a choice from Canon if they want an EVIL cam, and (2) will have an incentive to keep their EOS gear off the used market (where it depresses new sales) when they decide to go all-mirrorless.

The system makes less marketing sense as a first upgrade for point-n-shooters. Once they have EOS-M, why upgrade further to EOS? The lenses don't match. It cannibalizes from entry DSLR sales and creates little brand loyalty.

If I am right, expect: (1) a limited lens lineup that focuses on the SMALL advantage of mirrorless, (2) bodies that emphatically do not compete with SLRs (i.e., no competitor for the GH2 or OM-D) and (3) limited investment in innovation or new product development. Nikon tried to finesse the DSLR-mirrorless product line conflict and misfired badly; I suspect that with this Canon is just saying screw it, here's your damn mirrorless, now stop putting those red-band lenses on ebay.

This looks to me like Canon's answer to the Nikon 1 cameras. And they are going with the bigger sensor for differentiation. Not as nice a design by a wide margin.

It will only get interesting once Canon shows off a "pro" version. Lot of good tech there but in a package that is either a no-go for the pro crowd or only a good sidekick to a future better Canon MILC.

I really believe we are the point of meh! now. Once the novelty wears off (which happens faster and faster) you realize the new toy is not going to do anything for you that can't already be done by what you've got.

The big failing, of course, is no viewfinder, nor the ability to add one. Although it looks wierd with the white lenses (size wise), it would be hard to hand hold and shoot with the LCD screen. It woud work on a tripod probably. I just went from Caon to Panasonic (gh2).

The lack of in-camera stabilization makes it hard for me to get excited by this new little Canon. I think the Oly EM-5 comes in at close to the same price point and offers too many advantages over this Canon, one of the chief ones being the 5-way IBIS. (Especially for us aging photographers with increasingly less steady hands!)

Rod Graham

For a simple camera, just see what Canon did :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canon-ef-m-three-quarter.jpg
Two dials, one for shutter, the other for aperture. And a rather large viewfinder.
Who needs more than that?

The new little 90EX flash they introduced for the EOS-M would have been a great addition to a DSLR (especially the 5D, which has no built-in flash) if only Canon had given it the ability to swivel and rotate.

@ NikoJorj: I see that the 2006 EF-M had a film door. Talk about retro styling!

It's probably gong to be a killer, since just last week I ordered a Sony RX100.

Nice of them to come out with it the day after I sold my last Canon DSLR body.

So that's a 35mm-equivalent f2.0 lens - and a hot shoe to add an accessory viewfinder.

Might be a good Leica-m type street camera if the focus is fast enough.

Mike said "The camera is said to be simple, which causes me to perk up—we need simpler cameras, especially in this category. Simple means streamlined, refined, made more efficient, easier and more intutive to use."

Unfortunately, "simple" usually means "the camera does all the thinking." That's great if you don't know anything about photography and you want to make reasonably good photographs. It's a disaster if you know something about photography and prefer to do some of the thinking yourself.

With these "simple" cameras the knowledgable photographer ends up in a frustrating game of wits with the camera, because you're never really sure what it's thinking. You know what you're thinking, and you want the camera to think the same way, BUT NO! Instead you get beeps and chirps and a mass of incomprehensible green squares flashing all over the screen (which one of those means "in focus?") or a tangle of cascading conditions on every setting, such as:
- If in A mode, B, C, or D will happen, depending on E.

- If in B mode, C and D will happens but E will never happen.

- If in C mode, A and B cannot happen, but D and E can happen and F is available if G is enabled (but if G is not enabled, then H).

Seriously, that's what most "simple" cameras feel like to me. And I'm no simpleton; I write software instructions for a living, so I'm used to being around user interfaces and explaining how things work.

No. "Simple" would be the basic controls that all knowledgable photographers always want (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure comp.) on easy to see and use dials. It assumes you know what those things do. That's what makes it simple.

The inventor of Canikon did it right. They do seem to be a company or brothers.

As has been pointed out above, Canon looked at Nikon and said, hey, they did that, I can do that also.

And they swaped the sensor with their bigger one and showed us a Nikon J1 (or less or more). (Do you hear Nikon is laughing?)

Disappointed.

Every single Canon owner with something other than a low end DSLR will buy this camera and the lens adapter as a carry around camera, and for family.

Early previews around the web on EOS-M seem to be concerned about:

- Sub-par AF performance
- Inadequate user interface (for enthusiasts at least)
- No EVF
- Expensive (at least at launch)

Canon marketing materials seem to indicate this camera is for the 'Soccer Mom' market. IMHO Nikon got it right for this market with the J1 with its 'good enough up to mid-size enlargements' sensor size, fast autofocus, blistering burst rate, and huge inherent depth of field. Basically it's probably difficult for said Soccer Mom to take a bad picture with a J1. Smart move on Nikon's part (although the small sensor doesn't float my boat).

Sadly if the previews of the EOS-M are to be believed, then there's going to be an awful lot of unhappy 'Soccer Moms' who buy on the basis of the Canon brand name, and find they can only get shots of their children when they're stationary.

Man, I'd like to have that 22mm lens in an EF-S mount.

@Rob - you ask who is this camera for?

I can only think of a few "who" (unlike "you-hoo").

First, if someone is a total Canon fanboi and has a ton of EF-format lenses, maybe. But why punish a loyal customer by charging them for an adapter to their existing lenses? Unless those Canon fans have more disposable income than they know what to do with, it's certainly not compelling.

Also, consider that using regular Canon DSLR lenses will make it about as well balanced as the Sony NEX series with its adapter using Alpha mount DSLR lenses; there's no EVF, NO articulating LCD, and there's no built-in flash.

I think it's no obvious who the camera is for... the sales managers of their Rebel entry level DSLR line who want their sales numbers protected.

Assuming your price estimates are within a reasonable range, your thoughts plus those of Tim F. are probably what's driving Canon. They certainly never felt the need to offer in-body stabilization, they still don't offer a MLU (mirror lockup) although they could easily add it to firmware, and they don't want to cannabilize their Rebel sales.

Hi Mike, I expect a finder will follow. But more important, have you gotten your OM-D yet?

"But more important, have you gotten your OM-D yet?"

Oh yes. The shots in several recent posts were made with it. I'm now shooting with the OMD and a Leica 25mm f/1.4, the latter on loan from a TOP reader.

Mike

Posted by: Michael G: "The mystery to me is the timing of any company's announcements for their new cameras. I'm not clued into the industry's PR campaign calendar, but I'm sure there must be seasonal events and reasons for talking up an October camera (November and Christmas, really) in July."

For many years, principally during photography's Polyester Age, Canon timed its major announcements to coincide with Olympics years. But the much more frantic pace of photography's current Consumer Electronics Era makes that geological cycle impossible. Nevertheless I think Canon oldsters in marketing might continue to hold to the (dated) belief in the value of Olympics to help sell cameras.

Having a rare type of strap mount is daft.

The hot shoe is centered over the lens, so an OVF could be added.

If the user interface is workable this might appeal to street photographers, because you've got a small body and a small 35mm-e f/2. Some people might like this combination as a carry-everywhere.

However, it is aimed at the point-and-shoot market and I can't see much that would appeal to serious photographers.

For me the massive limitation with mirrorless cameras is their AF: great with static subjects, hopeless otherwise (I use DSLRs and m4/3). It will be interesting to see if PDAF-on-sensor overcomes this. Sony cameras don't appeal to me, but their SLT system gives a great blend of benefits if you can live with an EVF.

I suppose that by not having a built in high quality EVF they calculate they can get the dedicated Canon customer to spend two or three times as much when the 'pro' version comes out, about three versions from now. With good EVF technology available now why didn't they just apply it to this camera? It is not like a person couldn't use the back screen if that is their preferred viewing and framing method.

I don't think anyone asked this question yet, so I will: might there be an adapter to finally be able to use FD mount lenses on an EOS camera?

Look and learn Mr Pentax!!.....See how it's done?.....New canera, new lens mount but FIRST lens is an f2 moderate wide....so WHY has it taken YOU 10 YEARS and people are still waiting?.......

"here comes the biggest dog in the pack, with the most muscle, and they've been able to watch everybody else's mistakes"

But not, it seems, to learn that much from them.
My judgement, FWIW, is that this is intended as Canon's equivalent to the (as yet under-developed)Nikon CX format as much as the NEX series. However as sensors continue to improve the Nikon format will still have small lenses...
Roy

Personally I'm disappointed. I'm a long term EOS user, but I can't see any of my chunky L lenses being very usuable with this, simply due to ergonomics - without being able to use my nose as a stabliser, those lenses become so much less handholdable. So IMHO the only thing Canon brought to the party was undrinkable wine.

Now what would have been REALLY cool is if Canon had gone the micro 4/3 route. I'd say that would have been (ultimately) game over for proprietry mirrorless lens mounts.

I read in a blog that Canon plan on distributing the camera in the US via specialty stores like B & H where they can guide the photographer/buyer. If this is true it won't get in the hands of 'soccer moms' (I hate that term) easily. And--there and other stores like it photographers will have competing systems of mirrorless to compare to and I would think this wouldn't appeal at this point. I'm a longtime Canon shooter but I've been there, done that with converter for EOS and big lenses. Even if I could use the lenses with electronic contact I still would not choose to use them on a small mirrorless body. I've had m4/3 since G1 and now have an EM5 which will satisfy me for a good long while. I won't even consider this camera.

So many comments here of the "no EVF is a deal-breaker" persuasion. Somebody should speak for the "LCD is better" crowd. (If it is a crowd - perhaps it's just me.)

Actually, I've nothing against viewfinders themselves (who doesn't love a good OVF?), but with non-DSLRs, one either gets a cramped window or a compressed electronic image. Neither works for me.

I'd heard that EVFs had come of age with the Sony NEX-7 . I'd also heard the Fuji hybrid system was the cat's meow. So I tried out both last winter at my favorite camera store and came away disliking both. The NEX-7's EVF, despite the hype, had the same flat, static-y look as the Lumix G1 I'd owned, then sold, in 2009 - an odd feeling of remoteness, like a fighter pilot on a sortie. The Fuji X100's hybrid approach was just too busy; frame lines and numbers dancing in front of my eye.

Eye-level viewfinders are also a problem for the spectacle-bound. Sure, you can dial the diopter to fit your naked eye, but then you have to throw your glasses back on to review the image - a lot of bother and rough handling for the specs if you're a resolute chimper like myself. Or you can try looking through the VF with glasses on. Annoying, right?

So I've trained myself to shoot with the screen. It's very relaxing. No need to be at arm's length. Eight inches out is good; close enough for the elbows to lock against the ribcage for stability. Or I can be adventurous with my camera angles, getting perspectives other than the ubiquitous 60-to-68-inches-high, perpendicular-to-the-world views that eye-level viewfinders dictate.

And what about glare and shooting in bright light? Okay, you've got me there. It can be a pain. But, really, it's just a problem to work through. It doesn't make shooting impossible. Point and pray, you might be rewarded.

Now I wish ALL these cameras would have some kind of adjustable screen that allows waist-level shooting. Pentax, Nikon and, now, Canon have all dropped the ball here. I hope they're listening to the clamor.

1. The price IS high for the targeted market, but note that the Nikon V1 has dropped to 75% of its original price after only 6 months. Whether that's by design or a response to slow sales is anybody's guess.

2. Hadn't noticed on the first look, but that strap lug is just weird.

3. I NEED that 22mm f2. If the camera were more interesting, I'd buy it for the lens.

Somehow I can hear Mr. Scott saying "How many times do I have to tell you-- the right tool for the right job!".

Isn't it a matter of what kind of image "floats your boat"?

If you want an image that everything is in focus, a smaller m4/3 will do it in spades. If you want an image where the subject "pops out" then a full size sensor will do it (much ... no way, way, way better).

I have a Panasonic GF-1, a bunch of APS-C Canons, and old 5D and personally I just "like" the look of an image that just "pops". That GF-1 just doesn't do it for me (believe me I tried) and in spite of it's small size rarely comes out and the 5D is simply too much to lug around.

Now an APS-C kit with a big F/2 lens ... and not a pain to lug around ...

The three essentials for any camera are: the ability to compose accurately; the ability to focus accurately, and a shutter which can be tripped smoothly and quietly. All else is convenience, luxury or mere frippery. Too many new offerings seem to concentrate on the "all else" and I really hope this trend can be reversed some day soon.

Meh.

I have a Micro 4/3s which has proven quite useful, even though I never bought another lens but the 20mm Panny, which still turns out to be a very competent little shooter.

I have to say though, as far as mirrorless goes? Fuji got me with their X series. I have ended up with three now. An X100, an X10 and the X-Pro1.... Fuji seems to be the company that'll turn me into a digital shooter instead of film, if for no other reason than that Fuji seems to get "still photography", while everybody else tries to be hellbent on squeezing a video camera into a still cameras body.