The last few years have seen a very large push in the photographic landscape toward smaller, lighter, high performing mirrorless interchangable lens compact system cameras. Most of the major camera manufacturers have produced something in this new segment. As Panasonic started the whole party off with the G1 a few years back, Olympus, Sony and Samsung jumped in quickly thereafter. Pentax and Ricoh have even had some interesting ideas since. Nikon and Canon watched this segment closely I’m sure, and calculated their entry into the mirrorless ring. Nikon took a different tack, creating a very small (comparatively) sensor system and Canon came up with this, the EOS-M. A few weeks ago, and after what many saw as a response to very poor reception and subsequent lack of sales since its introduction, Canon dropped the price of this APS-C sensor, mirrorless compact camera through the ground and I bit. Here are my thoughts on the camera itself, the Canon approach and where I think they need to go in the future with this…
I will try to keep this short and sweet. My initial opinions on this camera when it was announced have not changed much after having finally succumbed to Canon’s marketing prowess (as well as insane discounts) and purchased one. What I saw as a feeble first attempt going into a competitive market, with too little firepower to compete at it’s entry price, still seems a justified opinion. But, now that prices are lower than most any decent point and shoot, is this a viable option? Simply put, yes. Is it the best value for between $300-400? That entirely depends. I purchased the kit with the 22mm f/2 (35mm E-FOV) lens because I like to keep a compact kit, appreciate fast lenses, and seeing that they only have two lenses available (the only other lens currently on offer is the kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) my options were limited to one.
I’ll start off with my opinion on the upside for this little camera.
- The 18 megapixel sensor is the same sensor that has been used in most every Canon APS-C camera for the last few years. Granted, there have been a few processing tweaks over that time, the fact still remains, this sensor is good. Perhaps not great compared to competing sensors over the same time period, but very good.
- One big bonus is that it employs the Canon 14 bit RAW file compared to 12 bit RAW files from many of the other prominent mirrorless systems. This is a good thing for RAW shooters and post processing aficionados, but completely moot for those shooting JPEG’s.
- The 22mm pancake lens is by all accounts a great little lens. Sure it is slow to focus, but the lens physical focusing speed is going to be the least of your worries with this system if you’re in a situation where physical speed of a camera is going to be a big issue.
- The touch interface is clean, as is the menu system. Intuitive, simple and obviously borrowed from the DSLR’s.
- The image quality is good, low light performance is adequate and fidelity seems to stick with other Canon sensors in that it is very good to my eye. The promise of EF lens compatibility was very enticing as well. While I will continue to keep an eye on the system, ultimately my decision was decided by this camera’s faults and drawbacks.
So, onto the bad.
- This camera has very obviously been built to cater to the point and shoot crowd. Now, this isn’t “bad” per se if you are stepping up to an interchangeable lens system camera from a Canon point and shoot, and want your new camera to feel familiar, or don’t really care.
- For those who were hoping for a DSLR companion with a similar level of external control, don’t like having to use a touch screen to change settings, or have the hope of any type of proprietary viewfinder, you may be disappointed. All the standard adjustments are there in the EOS-M’s defense, and aside from a couple niggles, I had no real problems with the ability to interact with the camera, but the fact that I can only operate the camera in video mode for video, and stills mode for stills, and then whatever A+ mode (fully automated P&S mode) is, living on a dial surrounding the shutter button is a bit crummy in my opinion. Very reminiscent of any P&S cam I’ve seen over the last 10 years. It is easy to accidentally switch between these 3 modes and those three modes completely change the functionality of the camera, disabling certain functions and enabling others making for a somewhat frustrating experience if you’re caught in the wrong mode when trying to capture the moment, quickly. Once used to it, you know to look at the function switch first if the camera seems to be functioning incorrectly.
- The play button, if pushed, will turn the camera on, in review mode. The placement of the play button had me pushing it inadvertently, all the time, getting the camera in and out of the bag.
- Canon, your EOS-M specific (Hassleblad knockoff) strap lugs suck. You cannot use any type of strap without using those cheap feeling, aluminum and plastic locking knobs. I’m not a fan at all.
- Now, I bought this camera AFTER they announced the new firmware update which by most accounts remedied the horrifically slow auto focus speed. I’m not sure how slow it was before, but it must have been painfully atrocious because it is far from what I’d consider “fast” or even remotely quick now and at its best seems very comparable to a mid level point and shoot camera keeping with this supposed theme. It is absolutely fine for slow moving or static scenes. Most of the stuff you’d be shooting with a camera like this should be just fine. The larger problem for me was the focus accuracy. When the auto focus hit, the images were very sharp. Problem was, if I was shooting anything that was quite a ways away from background elements, a third of the time or so, the larger AF box would grab hold of something in the background if it fell within that rectangle as opposed to the subject. Nothing that couldn’t be remedied by readjusting the AF point to a different location, but in many situations, that would find me missing the moment. Not a decisive moment shooters dream camera, but in fairness, most all mirrorless cameras I’ve yet used have some level of this issue, and in my opinion is largely down to the contrast detection auto focus defaulting to the greatest point of contrast in that focus point which may or may not be where you want it to focus. The shot below took me about three tries to get focused on the flower that I wanted to as an example.
In conclusion, I could look at this camera from one of two angles. First, if you like a 35mm FOV, this could be, hands down, the BEST $300 point and shoot available. OR, if looking to invest in a fully featured MILC system, I feel it is too little, too late for the mirrorless party. Perhaps if you really wanted to use EF lenses, it could kinda make sense, but if that were the case, save the time and get the little EOS 100D.
While I feel that for the $300 I paid for the kit with the 22mm lens is a good deal, capable of sharp, high quality images, shallow depth of field, good low light performance and great color, it is bested in every way by other mirrorless cameras. The 22mm lens is great and while it does vignette a bit wide open, it also combines with the sensor to be sharp enough to really show some moiré. Both of these issues are correctable in post, and I like having the problem of a lens being sharp enough to have to combat moiré in post.
Ultimately, I chose to trade this camera to my Father in law in order to reunite with my beloved GF1 and 20mm f/1.7 which I find to be a better camera and lens combo for me, albeit with a more challenging sensor. I just prefer using the GF1 personally. Seeing as you can get quite a few quality camera + lens combos right now at bargain basement prices, I think my money would have been better spent on a Panasonic G5 or GX1 (which I’ve also recently acquired and was ready to trade for the GF1 too) which would also open up a much more diverse and mature system in the Micro 4/3 camp.
The EOS-M is not a bad camera, it is just obviously an intentionally hindered camera, and the system has not grown since it was announced (aside from the supposed 11-18mm zoom which will not be available to us in the USA, which I find bizarre). I assume Canon wanted to accomplish two things with this initial try. Firstly, to not cannibalize the sales of their entry level DSLR’s while throwing their hat into the mirrorless ring, and secondly, market this entry directly to phone and point and shoot photographers to try and address the hemorrhaging from the shrinking P&S market. I think they accomplished both of those things in theory, unfortunately nobody seemed to be interested. I felt at the time of announcement, and still to this day, Canon was way too cautious with this camera. They could have destroyed the mirrorless market with their name recognition alone if they’d brought a fully functional, pro-sumer spec’d camera, at under a grand into the fold. Originally, I thought they would have used this to almost replace their high end point and shoot division, and would have worked harder to make this appeal to existing Canon shooters with a fully functional “backup” option. Instead, they built a new platform with a new lens mount, handicapped this camera and continued to build other hindered DSLR’s into this crowded sector of the marketplace… I don’t get it, but then, I’m not being paid to make money for these camera companies, although, if they asked, I feel like I could certainly save them some in their R&D with a few simple suggestions. If you want another system to invest in, or are happy with a single lens situation for a budget pocket shooter and can get used to a very point and shoot interface, it is a good camera, no doubt about it, but I can’t personally say it is any better than any other mirrorless camera I’ve used, and is certainly worse in various ways. Good, but perhaps not good enough when looking at what else is out there in this segment, even at comparable pricing. It will be interesting to see if Canon continues to develop the EOS-M line, but they’d really need a home run with the next announcement, and of course, there is the severe lack of EF-M lenses, so there’s a whole lot of work to do if they’re going to try and compete here.
Thanks for the read and as always I’d love to continue the conversation in the comments.
If you are interested in purchasing the EOS-M, as I was, to perhaps have a cheap way to buy the 22mm lens and gain access into the system, you can see their combos while they still exist here at B&H:
Canon EOS-M with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EOS-M with 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens and 90EX Flash
Canon EOS-M with 22mm f/2 lens and 90EX Flash
Now that I look through, it strikes me as kind of funny that many of the shots I took with this were of sleeping creatures… 🙂
Cheers and happy shooting,
Tyson
Tyson Robichaud Photo-blography 
Awesome work Tyson, Ive been after a proper review of this for a while, my girlfriend loves her Canon Hsx220 but its close to death (dropped and Cracked the screen, beat the hell out of and generally overly loved. Maybe i’m too precious, refusing to take my camera in anything less than my proper padded bag with dividers) and was considering maybe picking this up as she likes canons interface and at a good price, seems worth it. Ive seen plenty of reviews dismissing it outright over Olympus OMD and Lumix GH3 which is unfair when compared to the pricepoint.
So actually seeing you review it this way has really helped, Thinking about it, Ally’s a point and shoot girl with a creative edge that the inbuilt features are perfect for and the Zoom is good for Gigs, I’m better off buying her the upgraded version sx240 or 60. Also, nice to see you mention the G5, as you know ive just picked one up so good to see it mentioned 😀
But you mentioned something that Ive been thinking about for a while but wasnt sure off, Ive always loved the look and feel of the GF1 but have never owned one, would it be worth picking up as my always on me camera as my point and shoot I usually carry is dead?
Thanks and great review
LikeLike
Thanks Chris!
Comparing the EOS-M to top end micro 4/3 bodies is imbalanced and unfair, certainly when considering the price disparity. Honestly, I think that if you compare pure IQ, the Canon could quite possibly beat the OMD and GH3 through fidelity (certainly in the case of the Sony sensor), potentially dynamic range, resolution and bit depth. Whether the 18-55 or 22mm lenses are capable of competing with the high end lenses on the micro 4/3 side of things, I do not really know, but feel that the 22 was certainly a good optical tool. Performance wise, getting the shot is where the biggest differences are, and the EOS-M operates very much like a point and shoot camera (slower AF, noticeable shutter lag comparatively, lack of mode dial, etc). That said, I do not mean to play down what a point and shoot is capable of, but it is less performance driven compared to a higher spec, pro or semi-pro type model, which we currently pay for in the top end models. At $700 or $800, the EOS-M was very poorly placed in my opinion, at $300-400, it is a much more interesting conversation.
I have a special relationship with the GF1 and for me, it will always have a very classic reputation. It was done right, with the right level of external control I feel and still performs admirably. With the 20mm pancake, it is one of the more balanced and cult classic worthy combos I’ve ever used. If you can find one in good shape at a decent price, I think you could certainly do worse 🙂 but I may be biased.
t
LikeLike
I think Canon is not likely to support this camera in the $3-400 price range for long. How many lenses does this camera support? Two? How many more are coming down line? IMHO, Canon would have done the world of photography a great service to join the M43 mfrs. but felt they could go it alone. How many buyers are going to feel comfortable being on a limb that Canon can saw off at any time.
There are probably reasons why this APS-C is not compatible with their other lens systems, but as an engineer, I would have worked, really, really hard at making a) a system compatible with M43 or Sony’s entry or my own Canon lenses or something. Not just unique.
Admittedly, I’m biased and not a pro shooter – wouldn’t be in the M43 class if I were, I guess. I’m happy with my GH1 and G5’s plus a small host of other Pana P&S’s. YMMV.
LikeLike
I’m curious to see if they choose to right the ship personally. With the Canon adapter, the EF lenses will auto focus and are fully operational, which is what I think Canon was hoping would sell this camera to existing users, but then they created a large sensor system camera capable of using high end lenses, being used on high spec’d camera bodies with a dumbed down control interface. I cannot speak from experience, but from online chatter, vids and the like, it seems like the functionality when using EF and EF-s lenses is hindered, which basically makes for a smaller, yet far less functional way to use these lenses. Why would existing Canon users buy this over a Rebel when looking to use existing lenses? I don’t think many did, and we see the current prices falling. The more alarming thing to me is the absolute lack of system development. They’ve only mentioned one other lens that won’t be available in a very large market like the states, with not a mention that I’ve heard of anything else being developed at all.
I always assumed Canon would go it alone, as they’re on the top of the pile, and prefer to control their own destiny, where joint ventures enable the smaller fish to more quickly mature a system to compete. I too was a bit confused when there wasn’t a better EF/EF-s lens solution and when the rumors started, I’d hoped to see a fully functional competitively spec’d camera with a directly compatible mount. I guess that is what the 100D became, but that is also severely hindered functionality wise.
It will be interesting to see what comes next with the EF-M mount, but I think too many folks have found their solutions with the other, more mature and more thoroughly thought out mirrorless systems.
Thanks Terry!
LikeLike
Actually, Olympus and Panasonic based micro four thirds together.
It was based on the Olympus four thirds standard, which Panasonic also used for at least one camera.
Olympus did NOT “jump on the bandwagon” as you say.
The two appear to have carved up the body and lens features along the way, so not to be in direct competition with each other.
Panasonic has finally jumped on the in-body IS bandwagon, and about time too.
OIS means “the OLD IS”. Hands up who still believes it does not cause QC headaches and add unnecessary mass and complexity to lenses by duplicating the IS function in each lens?
Sony has apparently commissioned Olympus to make some of their lenses for them, as Sony lenses are huge.
LikeLike
While the system was co-developed and based off of the Olympus system and 4/3 sensor, Panasonic was technically the first company to bring a mirrorless compact system camera to market. The micro 4/3 system, while an offshoot of the 4/3 standard, is a different system, requiring different development and implementation. Nowhere did I say that Oly “jumped on the bandwagon” because they didn’t, but they also didn’t have the first micro 4/3 camera, Panasonic did with the G1.
As for IS, having in body stabilization is certainly more handy in my opinion, but it is much harder to engineer an IS system that can accurately adjust to a specific, or more accurately, varying focal lengths where an IS system that is engineered for a specific lens is engineered for that lens and its focal length(s), so, the debate regarding IBIS or lens based IS isn’t as cut and dry as you may be painting it.
I appreciate the comment, but I can’t help but feel you are already sold on Olympus products over any others, or at least the comment comes across that way, which is fine, just doesn’t lend itself to open conversation or comparison.
Thanks,
Tyson
LikeLike
To me, it’s no wonder that they introduced the 100D/SL1. They half-heartedly gave the EOS-M a so-so design that people would want to use, and little more.
They just wanted to see what Olympus, Panasonic, and Nikon were going to do and then, they would do something else. Not Invented Here seems to be the motto that’s killing them.
I agree at $299 or a bit more with flash, it’s a good choice compared to a point-and-shoot camera at the same price. However, with any of the micro Four-Thirds with a 16 MP sensor, a person might as well go there, as you’d have a longer-lasting format.
In other news, all the mirror-less formats are a bit stagnant with too many people assuming that they have to look professional to get good photos–poor Ansel Adams!
LikeLike
Yeah, I think I even remember a higher up at canon going on about not needing to lose the mirror to make a compact system camera even prior to the EOS-M’s announcement.
While I think that Canon have the semi-pro/pro market well defined, the entry level has seemed to be unclear the last couple years and I believe it is partly down to them trying to figure out how to bring a mirrorless into the lineup all while trying to cram two or three entry level cameras (I’ve lost count on the models names) with a Rebel, a cheap rebel, a new rebel (while offering the previous rebel as the “cheap” version which wasn’t much different than the replacement) and now the SL1/100D into that space. I guess the 60D was also somewhat fitting into this category as it was a downgrade in certain ways from the 50D, construction wise, et al. It just smacks of too many poorly communicating cooks in the kitchen to me.
While I can understand the new mount for the M series, I am really confused by their lack of any ingenuity when they had waited so long, and obviously calculated their first try. It was almost immediate after the announcement that I remember reading that they had a more “professional” model in the works, almost seeming to try to tamp down the frustration the EOS-M was met with, but we’ve still not seen anything else to really suggest that they plan to further this system.
While I’m also equally confused by the Nikon system, at least they’ve built the system by offering various bodies and lenses and I can’t really fault them for that. I don’t like the 1 series cams I’ve used at all, but many do, and at least they’ve continued it, providing confidence to potential system adopters.
I’m still very happy with the m4/3 system, and look forward to seeing it continue and grow.
Thanks and as always, nice to chat with you 🙂
Cheers,
T
LikeLike
It feels as though we communicate well, without bias.
I just see that Canon is being attacked on so many sides by Nikon and Red and Blackmagic and micro Four-Thirds and maybe even Sony. They don’t know which way to go and their technological time of leadership is over.
I’ve heard many Canon fanatics claim that nothing is wrong, but it’s been obvious since the Nikon D300.
LikeLike
I too was tempted by the $299 deal and from your review, it looks l did the right thing by not getting it. I use a Canon 6D as my big camera and primary Olympus m4/3 for my mirrorless.
LikeLike
To me, the largest argument against the EOS-M system is the complete lack of an actual system. That Canon won’t even release the 11-18mm EF-M lens in the states is really bizarre to me. They’ve not done themselves any favors by the lack of confidence in their system they are instilling in the consumer base, which is too bad because I think that the camera is great for the price and the system could really be quality if they put a little effort into it pushing all other systems to compete. The more competition, the better for all of us 🙂
For me, I’m in the same frame of mind (no pun intended) with a FF EOS setup and m4/3 compact setup. Enough pros and cons on either side to justify both for me, and both systems are great.
Thanks!
t
LikeLike
I completely agree with you. Both Canon and Nikon have dipped their toes into the mirrorless market but it’s almost like they don’t want their cameras to succeed.
if either one of them came out with a great camera. They could have dominated the market. Imagine a camera with the EOS M quality and the Nikon 1 focusing system.
At least Nikon is better at creating lenses for their new system. Too bad their image quality is lacking.
LikeLike
Hopefully we will see a further development in all systems with a hybrid AF like that of the Nikon 1 and now the new EOS 70D on sensor PDAF. I’ve been saying that I think it has been one of the last major hurdles to a mirrorless, CDAF system to overcome. With that in place, I think the micro 4/3 system can really begin a huge push into the more pro minded market. With a few more high quality tele lenses, sports and birding, et al will be able to take advantage of the crop and smaller, lighter form factors. An OMD or GH3 with fully functional hybrid AF, fast frame rates and high quality sensors will make for a very compelling argument in a sub $1500 package!
Thanks for the conversation, and I look forward to the continuing advancement across the board in the future!
Cheers,
t
LikeLike
Likewise. Great conversation. The 70D looks pretty exciting too. More than I ever thought.
LikeLike
Pingback: *Another set of this guy’s opinions, or Mirrorless Lens buying guide! | Tyson Robichaud Photo-blography
Nice review. I thought I’d weigh in with a few comments. I just bought a lightly used EOS-M + the 22mm pancake lens for an extremely reasonable price and so far, I’m finding it to be one of the most ingenious, capable, and quality compact cameras I’ve used in a long time. I halfway agree with you that it’s not a great system, but for my own uses, I didn’t buy it as a system, as I’ve already got a fine GX7 & GX1 with some excellent assorted lenses. Rather, I acquired it in the hopes that it might become a semi-pocketable and inexpensive alternative to either the Ricoh GR or the highly underrated Nikon Coolpix A (which I recently shot with for a week or two and was blown away by its quality and touches). As a tiny (and it IS S-M-A-L-L) travel camera with an incredibly great lens (the 35mm FOV is a little less wide than the GR & Coolpix’s fixed 28mm lenses) …. it rocks. IQ is, in a word, remarkably good to great. So is the dynamic range. And weirdly enough, the touch-screen-centric controls, although they seemed weird to me at first, are actually logical, thoughtful and useful.
There are also workarounds for the slow focusing. Personally, it doesn’t bother me as I don’t usually do a lot of quick street shooting. Additionally, the ability to manual focus the nifty little 22mm pancake is a huge, huge plus (something the Coolpix A shares – but the Rioch GR apparently doesn’t have). And its RAW files seem both rich and extremely manipulable in whatever directions one wishes.
The EVF hasn’t been an issue so far. And I happen to have an ancient analog-era 35mm field-of-view OVF/viewfinder – made by Canon, originally for its viewfinders – which clips right into the slot on top and which I think may be a decent workaround for those horribly sunny days when one can’t see any LCD.
So, for me, there are a lot of pluses and not many minuses. Maybe if I wanted it as the basis for a system, I’d be unhappy – though, interestingly, I’ve heard that the kit lens (the 18-55) is very sharp. Additionally there’s another wide-angle zoom – an 11-22mm – which Canon, in its infinite wisdom, decided not to sell in the U.S. (but which can be found here and there, including eBay), which has the reputation of being a stellar optic as well. Speaking of optics, Roger Cicala of lens rentals basically raved about the quality of the 22mm pancake and from my relatively limited experience with it so far, his praises weren’t exaggeration: it’s a fine small piece of glass.
Obviously Canon miscalculated with their original pricing. Equally obviously, they seem to be rethinking their mirrorless strategy in the U.S. at least – the conventional wisdom is that they don’t want to harm or cannibalize their dominant position in DSLR sales with anything else – so as a result, the EOS-M ‘system’ seems orphaned at best. But as a standalone compact, hell, it’s really really good….so good that, though it may be sacrilegious to even imply, it may be an inexpensive “poor man’s RX1” …. which is saying a lot.
I like mine, though. And though our conclusions differ in some ways, I appreciate your review of it a lot. Thanks, Tyson!
LikeLike
Hi Miguel,
I largely agree. I feel the M with the 22mm is a killer compact, and do feel it is a poor mans RX1 or X100, et al. I did enjoy it, and for $300 or so bucks, is one of the best investments for the money I feel as far as quality goes.
The thing I found most frustrating was the obvious lack of support for the system. As a standalone compact camera, it definitely has its merits. As a compact system, I feel it has died on the vine, and this is sad because I do feel Canon can and should have given it more support.
I agree that they’ve done this to avoid cannibalizing their Rebel line, but I feel it will (and has) hurt them on a different level as more and more people buy into compact mirrorless systems instead of buying a bulky entry level DSLR. I feel that there is room for it all, but do feel Canon crapped the bed so to speak by slowly and noncommittally wading into the mirrorless market when if wanted, they could have owned it.
Now, I feel they’re playing catch up and have ultimately hurt themselves in the mean time.
They’re obviously rethinking their strategy if the whispers of late are any indication, and it will be interesting to see what they come up with, but I can’t help but feel they’ll continue to go the way of a glorified point and shoot interface with dumbed down features to still try and hold onto the fleeting entry level DSLR market as most folks looking to get into a system from scratch will either (more likely) feel good about going with a competing mirrorless system being sold right next to it in the big box stores, or know that they can make a step up for a more highly performing APS-C or affordable Full Frame model like a 6D or D610, et al.
I think the Rebel’s days are numbered myself, and Canon has a decision to make. I feel they’ll have to make the xxD model more affordable and feature rich to truly make a pitch against the GH4’s, EM1’s, A7’s or XT1’s of the landscape which offer more, and arguably a more affordable system of high quality lenses (not in Sony’s case I guess, but otherwise) for about the same price.
Interesting and exciting times it must be said.
I’m stoked that you’re into the M. I do think it is a great little camera, just not one which has much of a system surrounding and supporting it unfortunately, but that is all for naught if one sees the value in a compact, high quality “fixed 35mm lens” camera that can fit into a pocket.
Enjoy and thanks for the time you’ve taken to comment and share. I do think many can benefit from this perspective.
Cheers,
Tyson
LikeLike
I am not going to try to give Canon advice, or to criticise their decisions. As one of the two most successful camera manufacturers of the last 50+ years I reckon that the people at Canon know what they are doing, even if it sometimes seems that they do not.
I bought the original EF M as a backup for 1-series DSLRs. To me it is the best choice. If you are out on foot, walking miles, climbing hills and mountains, then it beats carrying a second DSLR, even one as small and lights as the D100. It is tiny and weighs next to nothing. And as 1-series Canon’s are unlikely to fail any backup equipment needs to be as small and light as possible.
What else makes it ideal? Image quality from the 18MP APS-C sensor, and the ability to use all my Canon lenses. Of course a 70-200mm lens or 300mm f/4 (never mind any really long lens) would look silly on the EOS M, and would not handle very well, but those combos still work and and deliver good results. The inconveniences of using it as a backup body are not big deals as it should not be necessary very often, if ever.
The AF is quite brisk with the firmware update. It is not the world’s fastest, but most cameras seem sluggish when you are used to 1-series DSLRs. From the reviews I had read I was worried that the AF might be unusably slow.
It is a bonus that the bundled EF-M 22mm f/2 STM is a gem of lens that makes the EOS M into a capable pocketable camera for when I cannot (or don’t want to) lug a big DSLR around. In that role it has replaced my old G12.
LikeLike
While there is certainly a lot to like about the M, the fact that after years, Canon has still not done much of anything to support its own mirrorless system is telling in that they obviously don’t feel the need to try and compete in the mirrorless market. It is what it is, but I am glad that it’s working out for you. The 22mm is really, really good, and I wish they’d at least have tried to produce similarly compact, reasonably priced 15/2.8 and 50 or 55/1.8 to go along with it. That would have been all I’d have needed in native offering and I think would have kept a lot of the Canon shooters that have looked to the m4/3, Fuji and Sony systems, in the Canon camp. Whether it’s new photographers, or invested shooters, Canon has not captured nearly as many as they could have, had they taken this segment more seriously, which to me ultimately is a good thing as it has spurred huge tech advancements and now Canon is having to play catch up on a couple fronts, so even Canon shooters are ultimately, and eventually going to benefit from Canon’s hesitance. Thanks for the read, and comment. 🙂
LikeLike