« Random Excellence: Damon Winter | Main | And We Have a Winner »

Monday, 23 July 2012

Comments

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.

The price-point is also significant.

Yes simplicity by all means, but I have 3 things I can't live without: articulating LCD panel, remote control cable and custom modes.

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....

The cool kid comes late to the party ... and brings all her lenses. All her lenses.

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.

No eyelevel viewfinder......I'll pass.

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??

Late to the party or not, for a camera being billed as a way to step up from a point and shoot without having to buy a DSLR, Canon's decision to sell this in the US only with the 22mm f/2 (with or without the EF/EF-S adapter) and charging $300 for the 18-55mm is confusing at best. Gear the menu system and controls to someone not comfortable with a DSLR, but then give them only one focal length? And no built-in flash either. Canon expects you to buy a new one (made for the system) for another $150.

So, EOS-M: $800
18-55mm: $300
Flash: $150
Total: $1250

By comparison: T4i/650D (using the same sensor): $950. With the 18-55 and a built-in flash and works with every EF/EF-S lens without needing to spend /another/ $200 for an adapter.

Who is this camera for?

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.

Sorry, but one big yawn from me... Fuji the only company doing anything interesting these days in the "enthusiast" market

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.

Looks like a camera for the soccer mom. The only thing the new Canon has going for it is the size of the sensor, but as we all know, size is everything ;)

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).

What this says to me is that it costs several Benjamins more than Sony's NEX 3f for about the same features and, presumably, IQ.

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

@Speed, that's what I was thinking and what many commenters here seem to be missing... This isn't just a mirrorless, this is a mirrorless with access to a hell of a lot of lenses. (Not just Canon, but 3rd party as well.)

But not having a viewfinder does seem an odd design choice... point-n-shooters upgrading won't miss it, they're used to composing with a screen. But those more on the prosumer end and used to viewfinders, will likely find that off putting.

(And Canon, if we're into bold moves - how about an EOS rangefinder?)

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?

It suffers the same problem as Nex with lenses that are too big, and at the same time the sensor isn't big enough to be the Leica killer everyone wants. As you put it before, micro 4/3 hits the sweet spot.

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.

Two additional thoughts.

(1) Offering no body-zoom kit gives the game away. Canon wants people who buy these to already have an EF-format kit zoom. DSLR users will want the thing with the pancake prime. Digicam upgraders will want it with a kit zoom, and they can't have that. This is a tourniquet to keep EF-format gear off the used market.

(2) What are this camera's selling points? I mean that seriously. If you want a larg-ish sensor then Nex has a much more feature-rich lineup with (cough) more lenses to choose from (cough cough). Nikon has 'small' cornered and its on-chip PDAF is quite good. It is about distinctive as the beer that you found at a WWII PX that said 'BEER' on the can.

If you can live with a slightly smaller sensor then there seems to be very little reason to choose this over price competitors in any other mirrorless system.

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

I like Thom Hogan’s take on this: “Welcome, Canon. Seriously.”
I like it precisely because of the analogy with the introduction of the IBM PC.
Like then, the innovators have prepared the groundwork. Now the 400 kg gorilla moves in to claim the ground.
Like the IBM PC, this Canon looks over-cautious, expensive, under-designed. If pictures are anything to go by, irksomely under-designed. Sigma wouldn’t have got away with it. Neither would Ricoh/Pentax.

Now, its image quality may well be stellar, who knows?
But I remember the great cameras of the past: Leica M, Nikon F, Olympus OM, Hasselblad C/M. Each had its quirks, but their design exuded integrity. Integrity is a necessary quality in a tool. For one thing, it gives you something to live up to when you take it in your hands. Again, just judging it by the pictures, this EOS M is not a tool I would crave to take in my hands.

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

As a Canon user with a significant L glass investment, this is a giant yawn. Further proof of how out of touch Canon can be with the enthusiast / semi pro desires. Another lens mount and adapters for existing, but no EVF?. It validates my decision to choose the OMD as my mirrorless camera. The 5d is collecting dust, while the OMD continues to impress - great lenses and a small package.
As to those that comment that it offers access to ALL the lenses for Canon, so do the adaptors currently available from the m43's cameras. Personally I feel like Canon crippled features in the past and finally looked like they "got it" with the feature set of the 5DMkIII, but then raised the price $1k over the MKII - which just made Nikon all the more attractive to my eyes. I guess we'll see what Photokino brings, but as I get deeper into lenses for the Oly, it reduces my desire for Canon gear, given their current trends.

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

FYI.

Despite the list price, the EOS-M w/18-55 + Speedlite is up for pre-order at $879 or $829 w/the 22 f/2 at Canadian chain Vistek. Didn't see the kits listed at B&H.

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.

Well, this model doesn't interest me much, but I suspect that Canon introduced the "consumer" version first, expecting larger sales at this level than at the "prosumer" level.
The price IS oddly high, though. As Rob pointed out, it's in the same neighborhood as the T4i.
But the overall concept is promising: a compact mirrorless APS-C camera with fast, phase-detect focusing, and interchangeable lenses. Depending on image quality, it's already competitive with the Leica X2. The next model (with some kind of viewfinder) will take on the Fuji X100 and the Nexes.
Canon is about marketing. I don't think they would enter this market without a plan for owning it.

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.

My first reaction: Disappointed. This is one I really just do not understand, from any perspective except maybe - "Ah, these little mirrorless numbers seem to be hot, we better put something out there."

cfw

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.

Obviously not designed to make the "enthusiast" market go crazy, the cool kid is wearing wallflower clothes. To me it looks more like a little test platform, working out the bugs before releasing better models. I was thinking it could be compared to Honda's first car, but I looked that up and their first car was much cooler looking than the EOS-M... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S600 .

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.

What about focusing speed/reliability with old Canon lenses? Does compatibility (via adapter) really mean that the existing lenses actually are usable in practical situations?

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.

Strangely, it looks like EF-M is nothing new to canon, at least the name isn't:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/EFM/index.htm

seems odd using the same designation again...

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

"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."

Simple? You think they would have figured it out by now.

In 1981 I bought a Minox 35GL. It was a camera with a 35/2.8 sharp Tessar design scale-focusing lens, aperture priority auto-exposure, a full-frame (analog) sensor, AND an optical viewfinder, all in a light package that would easily fit in the smallest of pockets.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Minox35GL.html~mainFrame

More than thirty years later, this is what we get. IMO, the entire mirrorless phenomenon is an evolutionary dead end that the manufacturers will eventually have to back out of, in order to develop truly small cameras that can compete with DSLRs in image quality. It's too bad that so much time has been wasted.

In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath. My D800e will be arriving in a week or two.

@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.

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.

If a seasoned pundit would care to elaborate, I'd love to hear why it's worth getting riled up by these early announcements anymore. Each year, the notice of new cameras seem come earlier and earlier before shipping dates.

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

I'm in the "no viewfinder, no thanks" camp, but I'll tell you what: they'll have a higher end model with EVF and some manual controls out within a year. And then it will be a different ball game. Especially when you're getting APS-C image quality and lenses with MFT specs like the two just released.

"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

Ah, Canon can make a 35mm-equivalent, f/2 lens for $200-250. The Sony NEX (Zeiss-branded) equivalent is five times that & only a third of a stop faster.

I cannot believe that the Canon is all that inferior to the Sony lens.

Good show with the lens, Canon. Now please give us a real camera body.

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.

Another camera with no eye-level finder.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't even exist . Even a wonderful collection of compatible Canon glass would not provide any sort of incentive for me to even read one review of this camera.

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.

Narh! Sorry, Canon. No viewfinder - optical or EV - and no IBIS? And you have the nerve of calling this a "mirrorless system" camera?
Canon is trying to not canibalize its entry-level DLSR range, while claiming "me-2" on the mirrorless system concept.
This is nothing more than a p&s body with a large sensor spliced in.
Not worth the cost nor the trip by any stretch of the imagination. Give me a OM-D or even a Nex-7 any day!

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.

EOS-M(eh)

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?

Having read the comments through it seems that the new Canon is an epic fail. From what I've read (and I'll admit it could be hearsay and possibly incorrect) is that the mirror less cameras have a relatively low penetration into the US market and this is why Canon is not making a full range of EOS-M kits available there. Canon is chasing the consumers in the markets that have had a large uptake of mirror less. According to Thom Hogan "Panasonic's executives produced several statistics about mirrorless camera penetration and market share. To wit:

Taiwan: 46% DSLR, 54% mirrorless
Japan: 57% DSLR, 43% mirrorless
Hong Kong: 56% DSLR, 44% mirror less"

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/june-2012/panasonic-comment-on-mirror.html

So it is in those markets where Canon will be looking to grab some share and this is where they are offering the greatest number of kit options some of which include the EF adaptor and the flash.

I think it will be fair to say that there will be a model brought out later with specs that will be an obvious attempt on gaining the enthusiast market in the USA and Europe.

I also think Canon is playing a serious hand because they have been pretty quick in launching an enthusiast lens with the 22mm f2. This is not a"soccer mom's" lens, this clearly a lens target at more experienced and dare I say mature user.

It is good to see Canon join the affray. Increased competition will drive innovation and lead to a faster maturation of this category. The OMD-E5 is the first model that has managed to attract considerable market attention, but its biggest problem is very few retailers stock Olympus. Virtually every retailer stocks Canon. Now every player will have to lift their game considerably.

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?.......

"Another camera without a viewfinder...when will it end?"

My thought exactly.

"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

The emperor is wearing a clown costume and blowing a horn...because he can.

You will be able to tell who has the big advertising deals when you see the reviews.

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've taken a big step away from playing "Monday Morning Product Manager" because I realized that it has very little to do with photography. I still read camera reviews and user reports and troll the boards, but it's all with an eye towards, "will X camera work for me?" not "will X camera work for others." I've had more time to take and process and look at photos as a result. Highly recommended.

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.

"Another camera without a viewfinder...when will it end?"

I think viewfinders will still be around for a while.

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.

As someone who has been questing for a small mirrorless camera for some time, I'm sorry to say this isn't that exciting to me. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't used one yet, but it strikes me as very close to sony nex. Like the nex, it will be hampered in size by the need for APS-C lenses, like the nex 3,5 it has no viewfinder. A lot is going to come down to what lenses get made. RIght now in July 2012, it seems to me micro 4/3 is out front with the OMD.

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.

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

+1, to engage with the current paradigm

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 ...

Michaeal Farrell said ...
"Eye-level viewfinders are also a problem for the spectacle-bound."

Well it depends ... I need glasses for close work, but my distance vision is perfect. So to use the screen I have to put on my glasses, rendering the real world blurry. I'd much rather only have to use my glasses for chimping, which is at least optional!

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.

To me, it seems the mandatory potshot after the Nikon "mirrorless" offering. No EVF, no articulated lcd, slow AF, few phisical controls, only two lensesavailable for now... In exchange for what, the possibility of mounting a monster 300mm with an adapter? And at what price tag?
Yes, I too believe this is aimed to Canon enthusiats that want a point and shoot.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.