New Canon EOS M Specs

[thestereoeffect]

I think eventually professional dslr's will be mirror-less and will have touch screens. Touch screens will be probably coming out a lot sooner.

Doesn't the T4i have a touch screen?

 

[TheFantasticG]

Yes, yes it does.

 

[TheKenTurner]

This is one of the biggest complaints from people who think mirrorless cameras are a, "to be ignored" fad. Yet most of them who complain have never actually looked through a good EVF. I've heard many say, "Live view on a DSLR is sluggish, so these mirrorless cameras must be bad too." The thing is, the EVF on the better mirrorless cameras (I'm thinking the EP-3 specifically) is actually quite good, and has several benefits over an OVF. Of course, I have no insight into this new Canon camera, but it certainly intrigues me. The only thing that was holding me back from purchasing a mirrorless camera was the fact that I'd have to give up my lens collection. Since this will mount EF and EF-S lenses, as long as it's a solid camera, I don't see any reason I won't be purchasing one in the near future. I'm not a working pro, and if the EVF is at least as good as the EP-3 (which I HAVE used), then it's more than enough camera for me. I'm tired of lugging around a huge camera that is only huge because it needs room for light to bounce around inside.

The EOS-M doesn't have any viewfinder...

-Ken Turner

 

[unpopular]

I think eventually professional dslr's will be mirror-less and will have touch screens. Touch screens will be probably coming out a lot sooner.

I don't. Touchscreen probably. But for working pros an OVF is a necessity.

I don't think it much matters. The cost to manufacture a mirrorless with an EVF is going to be so attractive to camera manufacturers that I think in the long run that our hand will be tied. I've always though this was the real motivation behind Sony's EVF.

But I also have a hard time believing that with a sufficient resolution it would matter much, and mark my word, in two years we'll see 4mp EVF's showing up in hybrid finders.

---

I think that Canon may be trying to create a buzz with this model, delaying an NEX-7 competitor so that people get excited about it and say "oh, it'd be perfect if only it had a viewfinder!", then at some near point release one that does. I think Sony inadvertently did this with the NEX, and by the time the 7 came out people who bought it were already convinced by the platform, if only it had a viewfinder; once an NEX did, early sales were solid by early hype.

 

[Derrel]

... in two years we'll see 4mp EVF's showing up in hybrid finders.

Nope. NEVER going to happen.4 megapixel viewfinders? Ha! What a laugh! Just like those idiots that said this dangerous electricity was going to replace the kerosene lantern! Snort! And just like the way those fools claimed that these newfangled aeroplanes would replace the train! And this crazy tele-vision fad? Pshaw! Who wants to sit around and watch a tiny little box when you can go to the movies for 25 cents and have a great time and have fresh popcorn?

 

[unpopular]

If god meant us to use electrical viewfinders, he wouldn't have given us pentaprisms!

 

[rexbobcat]

The human eye can only resolve so much fine detail. I'm sure that 4MP in such a tiny space would be overkill.

On top of that, the EVF is just another electrical something-or-other that has the chance to crap out and degrade (hot/dead pixels).

I mean, if it was tried, true, and very very reliable then I might consider it. But I don't want one of the only analog parts of modern photography left to be taken over by another piece of digital technology, which has to be rationalized for WHY it's better.

I just don't understand why. I thought "what you see is what you get" is the best when it comes to a using a camera.

 

[unpopular]

Typically solid state electronic equipment outlast mechanical equipment, I am unsure if this is true of EVFs. I agree that "what you see is what you get" is best, but I am sure that, and perhaps unfortunately, the economics will prevail. It's way cheaper to wire up a EVF to a sensor.

 

[Gaerek]

This is one of the biggest complaints from people who think mirrorless cameras are a, "to be ignored" fad. Yet most of them who complain have never actually looked through a good EVF. I've heard many say, "Live view on a DSLR is sluggish, so these mirrorless cameras must be bad too." The thing is, the EVF on the better mirrorless cameras (I'm thinking the EP-3 specifically) is actually quite good, and has several benefits over an OVF. Of course, I have no insight into this new Canon camera, but it certainly intrigues me. The only thing that was holding me back from purchasing a mirrorless camera was the fact that I'd have to give up my lens collection. Since this will mount EF and EF-S lenses, as long as it's a solid camera, I don't see any reason I won't be purchasing one in the near future. I'm not a working pro, and if the EVF is at least as good as the EP-3 (which I HAVE used), then it's more than enough camera for me. I'm tired of lugging around a huge camera that is only huge because it needs room for light to bounce around inside.

The EOS-M doesn't have any viewfinder...

-Ken Turner

Unfortunately, I hadn't actually look at the specs of the camera before I commented. Looks like I'll pass on this one, at least until there's a version with an actual viewfinder, or an accessory viewfinder, like on the Leica M and EP-3.

I mean, if it was tried, true, and very very reliable then I might consider it. But I don't want one of the only analog parts of modern photography left to be taken over by another piece of digital technology, which has to be rationalized for WHY it's better.

Although I would never say that an EVF is always better than an OVF, I would say there are several aspects that make it better, or at the very least, more useful in certain circumstances.

-Ability to "crop" the image in the viewfinder to check focus
-Better low light (OVF's are hard to see through in low light, and basically useless in extreme low light conditions. With an EVF, gain can be increased, albeit with additional noise, but you can actually "see" in the dark.
-Information can be overlaid on the scene (histo, etc) and in some cases can be customized to show only what you want to see through the VF.
-100% VF coverage, which most entry level DSLR's do not have (and is, at this point, what these mirrorless cameras are trying to appeal to)
-No mirror box in the camera, which gives you a camera less than half the size of a DSLR, with no noticeable difference in IQ, in relation to sensor size.

I'm not saying these are all deal breakers, or if they really appeal to everyone. But if you need a rationalization why they could be considered better, there are several reasons why. It's now looking a bit too early for me to adopt, but give it a few years, and the technology will be ready for prime time. Give me a camera that accepts the lenses I already own, has the same features of a DSLR, with an actual VF (electronic is fine), and I'll be buying one. I'm not a pro, and the OVF v. EVF debate is a no-brainer for me, if it means I don't have to lug a brick around anymore.

 

[unpopular]

It is possible, although not specified, that the hot shoe could detect if a flash or EVF is attached, and change the behavior of the shoe accordingly. However, if the EOS-M doesn't have any way to facilitate an EVF, this platform DOA.

 

[usayit]

I too was skeptical about the EVF. After all, its the core reason why I choose to shoot with a rangefinder which is brighter than any prism. I also rarely bought a DSLR without a prism as it bothered me after seeing the nice bright viewfinders of cameras of the film days. The EVFs in early mirrorless were "adequate" but the latest are pretty darn good. The Olympus EVF has more resolution than the top-tiered LCDs on both Nikon and Canon.... squished to the size of a postage stamp. There's also the ability to boost brightness when the light is dim. Not to mention more information that can be overlaid...

Most are building their opinions on lowly cheap P&S experiences rather than a camera that truly has some of the latest technology behind their EVF. Video guys have been using it for quite some time.

Why the concern over longevity? Not too many of us have a digital camera nor intend on keeping one fore more than 10 years.

Derrel should remember a long thread we had over mirrorless... and how they would never gain traction among serious photographers... and look at this.. here we are. Both of the big two trying to gain their own foothold in a supposedly fad ridden market. Let's not forget that mirrorless is making a killing everywhere in the world except here in the US.


Don't under-estimate the progress of technology....


Oh.. touch screen... I've been ignoring mine until this past weekend when I found how fluid it is to simply touch the screen to change focus points. I use the term "points" loosely as there are no AF points at all.... its completely infinite number of AF "locations".

 

[Gaerek]

It is possible, although not specified, that the hot shoe could detect if a flash or EVF is attached, and change the behavior of the shoe accordingly. However, if the EOS-M doesn't have any way to facilitate an EVF, this platform DOA.

I hadn't seen any information relating to anything like this. I think it's a good way for Canon to get a foothold into the mirrorless category, but those of us who have already adopted EOS lenses who want a replacement for our DSLR are going to find this camera a bit inadequate. However, I imagine that many photographers will be looking to this camera as their "vacation" or everyday carry camera.

I remember the stink that was made when Popular Photography (not going to argue the merits of this magazine, but they certainly do have an influence on aspects of photography) said the 2008 Camera of the year was the Panasonic G1. Most people were saying the whole mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras were just a fad, and would be gone in a couple years. Here we are, 4 years later, and now the big two (Nikon and Canon) both have entries in this this category. And the cameras made today are far and away better than the G1. Imagine where this category of camera will be in another 4 years. Will it take over DSLRs? Who knows, only time will tell. The tech can only get better. And for those that say EVF's suck...go look through a good EVF, like a Leica M, or EP-3, and tell me that. Those EVFs are so clear, it's almost like looking through an OVF.

 

[belial]

It is possible, although not specified, that the hot shoe could detect if a flash or EVF is attached, and change the behavior of the shoe accordingly. However, if the EOS-M doesn't have any way to facilitate an EVF, this platform DOA.

I'm thinking a ovf would be fine up there though. As someone who isn't sold on evf yet this is what I'd do.

 

[unpopular]

I do admit, I often forget about AF, a dumb finder would be really cool on something like this.

 

[rexbobcat]

Unfortunately, I hadn't actually look at the specs of the camera before I commented. Looks like I'll pass on this one, at least until there's a version with an actual viewfinder, or an accessory viewfinder, like on the Leica M and EP-3.

Although I would never say that an EVF is always better than an OVF, I would say there are several aspects that make it better, or at the very least, more useful in certain circumstances.

-Ability to "crop" the image in the viewfinder to check focus
-Better low light (OVF's are hard to see through in low light, and basically useless in extreme low light conditions. With an EVF, gain can be increased, albeit with additional noise, but you can actually "see" in the dark.
-Information can be overlaid on the scene (histo, etc) and in some cases can be customized to show only what you want to see through the VF.
-100% VF coverage, which most entry level DSLR's do not have (and is, at this point, what these mirrorless cameras are trying to appeal to)
-No mirror box in the camera, which gives you a camera less than half the size of a DSLR, with no noticeable difference in IQ, in relation to sensor size.

I'm not saying these are all deal breakers, or if they really appeal to everyone. But if you need a rationalization why they could be considered better, there are several reasons why. It's now looking a bit too early for me to adopt, but give it a few years, and the technology will be ready for prime time. Give me a camera that accepts the lenses I already own, has the same features of a DSLR, with an actual VF (electronic is fine), and I'll be buying one. I'm not a pro, and the OVF v. EVF debate is a no-brainer for me, if it means I don't have to lug a brick around anymore.

What I meant is that if it was truly better then you wouldn't need to explain why it's better.

Al those points you listed are all well and good, and some photographers probably find them worthwhile, but for me they just seem impractical.

It's kind of like liveview with current DSLRs. Yeah, it's neat and handy, but could I live without it and still do what I do? Of course.

I want to see what's actually through the viewfinder. I want to be able to cleanly frame my shot. I don't want a cluttered Ironman-esque screen displaying what it interprets as what's out there.