Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

canon compact systems camera

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
youmightlikethis
youmightlikethis e2 Member 11989 forum postsyoumightlikethis vcard Scotland
26 Dec 2012 - 3:15 PM

is the canon csc worth a look I see the price has come down a bit in that well known camera store

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Dec 2012 - 3:15 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
26 Dec 2012 - 3:18 PM

In short, nope.

User_Removed
26 Dec 2012 - 5:36 PM

It's strange. Or maybe it isn't.

Whereas both Nikon and Canon hold sway in the dSLR market and both offer some excellent compacts, neither has really made a mark (yet) in the CSC arena where Olympus and Panasonic really rule the roost.

dandeakin
dandeakin  6187 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
26 Dec 2012 - 6:14 PM

THis is an interesting link discussing the mirrorless market, and explaining the difficulties Canikon have in making mirrorless bodies. The second part is very interesting to.

Steppenwolf
27 Dec 2012 - 1:37 PM

The trouble with the Canon system is that it uses the APS-C sensor size, which means that the lenses are never going to be that small. If you look at the various CSCs available the sensor sizes are as follows:

Canon M, Fuji X, Samsung NX, Sony NEX: APS-C sensor(1.5X or 1.6X crop)
Olympus M4/3, Panasonic M4/3: M4/3 sensor (2X crop)
Nikon 1: CX sensor (2.7X crop)
Pentax Q: 1/2.3 sensor (5.5X crop)

I'm not sure why so many manufacturers have decided to make "compact" system cameras with the APS-C sensor because it does seem to defeat the object slightly. I'm also not quite sure why Pentax have gone for the compact sensor size because that seems to make interchangeable lenses an unnecessary complication. It seems to me that the M4/3 and the Nikon 1 systems have got it roughly right. I recently bought a Nikon V1 and can thoroughly recommend it.

EsaT
EsaT  1 Finland
1 Jan 2013 - 10:01 AM


Quote: The trouble with the Canon system is that it uses the APS-C sensor size, which means that the lenses are never going to be that small.

It really isn't only about sensor being such bigger in area but equally much about its film era legacy 3:2 aspect ratio which needs larger image circle.
That's why all non legacy based digital cameras have 4:3 aspect ratio sensors. Including Powershot G1x whose sensor Canon precisely told to be digital age ideal compromise. (little bigger than 4/3 probably only for bragging rights)

Historically (in fair market competition) dominating system has always been chosen because of it being the smallest format offering good enough noise and resolution performance for most uses.
And while APS-C failed with film tech digital tech has made it more than good enough for dominating format and justifiably has shown as their dominance in sales over 35mm which moved to position of film era's medium format.
Here in Finland first new nature documentary film in half century (trailer in here) just came out few days ago. All photography was done by two nature photography amateurs/semi-pros and while some material predates video DSLRs most of the material filmed for it has been taken with 7D because of advantage in system's bulk over 35mm especially in teles.

But still as system there are many limitations coming from film era.
Again 4/3 sensor size was chosen without legacy limitations from photography's horse wagon era (digital sensor did same to photography what car did to personal transportation) and designed around digital age tech taking also size requirements of optics into account.
And now with mirrorless camera/mount they can build single compatible system scaling from small compact bodies and small lenses to fully featured high end bodies and very high quality lenses. (no other format has Leica D 14-150mm quality travel zoom)

But with power base of Canon and Nikon being in domination of their (D)SLRs they're stuck on film era legacy because that system can't be upgraded to native digital age system because of compromises of that legacy. And neither do they really want to build completely new 4/3 like digital age format system because that would for the first time in long time expose them to real competition. (Nikon 1 is made to complement their DSLRs, not to be replacing system)

Steppenwolf
2 Jan 2013 - 9:16 AM


Quote: It really isn't only about sensor being such bigger in area but equally much about its film era legacy 3:2 aspect ratio which needs larger image circle.
That's why all non legacy based digital cameras have 4:3 aspect ratio sensors.

Two points. First not all non-legacy digital cameras have 4:3 aspect ratio sensors. The Nikon 1 CX sensor for example is 3:2 (13.2mm X 8.8mm) - the small size of Nikon's CSC sensor was not the only surprise.

Second, I don't think the size of the image circle makes much difference to lens size. If you compare, for example, the size of the Olympus 4/3 300mm f2.8 with that of the Canon 300mm f2.8 you'll find that there's virtually no difference, despite the fact that the Canon lens projects an FF image (35mm diameter) and the 4/3 image is about 18mm in diameter (1/4 of the area). Lens size tends to be related to focal length and aperture, not image size. The size saving you get with smaller sensor cameras is caused by the fact that, in the above example, the 4/3 300mm f2.8 is the equivalent (in FOV) of a 600mm f2.8 on the FF camera - and I don't like to think how big that would be if anyone made one.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 2 Jan 2013 - 9:18 AM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1214400 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jan 2013 - 5:12 PM


Quote: Including Powershot G1x whose sensor Canon precisely told to be digital age ideal compromise

For a long while I believed this was going to be the sensor used in there mirrorless designs, it would have made better sense.

Gregww1
Gregww1  1 United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 - 11:57 AM

I really don't understand why the Canon EOS M gets such a hard time, it seems one person didn't like it and then everyone just jumped on the same bandwagon. The only major thing it seems to have wrong with it is it can take a while to hunt for focus...well, I'm sorry, the ONLY time you really need that is if you are seriously into Sports, Aerial or Nature photography and forgive me, but if you are serious about those subjects you really shouldn't be trying to use a camera like that, you should be shooting with a full pro-DSLR.

I have begun to build a nice little selection of Canon lenses, I also have a 5D2 body, but I mainly shoot landscapes and do some candid photography. I do want something a little smaller to carry on occasion, but I don't want to invest in a whole new system...the EOS M suits that requirement. I'm heading to Namibia later this year and want a crop camera body attached to my zoom lens whilst I have the 5D2 on a much wider lens...I don't want to have to keep changes lenses in a dusty environment and if I see something in the undergrowth I just want to grab something and take a shot, not have to change lens to suit. Obviously I may suffer not being able to focus quickly, but, I'm not absolutely needing to get the shot for the next cover of National Geographic either, and I have to carry this lot in my luggage daily, so the small size and ability to use with all on my existing lenses means it fits the bill perfectly.

To be honest, I've played with it in the shop several times and didn't find the AF that bad really, certainly no worse than ANY point and shoot camera i've ever played with.

Bonus is by the time I need it for the trip, it should be pretty cheap by then...so nobody should buy it because then it'll be reduced in price further! Wink

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1214400 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
4 Jan 2013 - 4:32 PM


Quote: I really don't understand why the Canon EOS M gets such a hard time

Oddly enough most of the bad press comes from the Canon users, its not often that a systems own users come along a bash something, there must be some truth in it.

NeilS
NeilS e2 Member 7801 forum postsNeilS vcard United Kingdom
4 Jan 2013 - 4:51 PM

I was disappointed that Canon didn't inovate and put in body IS in it, the ASPC to me would be of interest to me but the AF performance, no way

However all is not yet lost because it was their first entry into this market, I would await the second generation coming out which could be sooner than you think

Additional lenses are likely to appear at the same time as well

Steppenwolf
5 Jan 2013 - 9:18 AM


Quote: I really don't understand why the Canon EOS M gets such a hard time, it seems one person didn't like it and then everyone just jumped on the same bandwagon. The only major thing it seems to have wrong with it is it can take a while to hunt for focus

This is what AP said about it:

"Sadly the hybrid focus system is slow and sluggish compared to the systems used on similar cameras. This system is more like that fitted to one of the first generation CSCs froma few years ago. With the 18-55mm kit lens the EOS-M gradually searches back and forth, honing (sic) in on the point of focus. There was little difference with the 20mm lens with both lenses being particularly slow in subdued light and sometimes taking more than a second to find focus." And it's even worse when using the adaptor and EF lenses.

Canon seem to be having trouble getting the hybrid focus system to work properly - unlike Nikon and Sony. So why would anyone buy an EOS-M when they can buy, for similar money, a Sony NEX-6 which throws in a state of the art EVF, more features and lightning focus - and was much more highly rated by AP. I suppose the only reason would be that they have Canon lenses and are willing to put up with its deficiencies for the ability to use these lenses, albeit with very slow AF.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 5 Jan 2013 - 9:23 AM
steve_p
steve_p  81073 forum posts United Kingdom
5 Jan 2013 - 10:03 AM

People give the EOS M a hard time, they all jump on the bandwagon in much the same way as they did about the Olympus OmdE5 saying what a marvellous camera that is. It should be at 1000+.
I can't for the life of me see why it should warrant getting on for 4000 comments.

I owned a m4/3 camera for a few months, didn't like it and sold it. Everyone to their own choices.

Last Modified By steve_p at 5 Jan 2013 - 10:08 AM
keith selmes
5 Jan 2013 - 12:04 PM

I lost interest when Canon said there wouldn't be a variant with a viefinder, nor an accessory viewfinder.
This is the only model, and they don't plan any development.

However it is now available "ship from UK" at 499.99, with free postage and including the 22/2 lens and the eos adapter.
I'm not planning to buy one, but it doesn't look quite so stupid now. Might be a handy second or alternative body if you have Canon DSLR kit.

pablophotographer

Depends if you have lenses you can use on this, otherwise if you are thinking of mirrorless why don't you consider Samsung, there are taking Pentax lenses and third party ones. NX20 looks like a DSLR but it's thinner and has a viewfinder too.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.