At the risk of sounding like all the other photography bloggers on the internet, here are my thoughts on the newly-announced Canon EOS-M, which is apparently their entry into the compact, interchangeable-lens marketplace.
I’m not going to give a full rundown on the camera – I just want to talk about a few points. And mostly express my general mystification as to how Canon thought this was a camera (and possibly even a system) that would compete with the m4:3 and Sony NEX systems.
For any new readers here, a quick disclaimer: I shot with Canon gear for 6 years. This past spring I sold it all and replaced it with m4:3 equipment. I love my Olympus E-M5 and haven’t regretted the switch for a moment.
So I was definitely interested to see what Canon would come up with, although I didn’t hold high expectations – there was virtually no chance that they would be able to lure me back, no matter what they released. And the EOS-M is anticlimactic, to say the least. Here are my thoughts:
- For the price of an EOS-M, you can buy an actual DSLR; and can possibly even get the DSLR cheaper. The Nikon D3100 and Canon T3 are both just under $500, each with a kit lens. There are multiple Canon, Nikon, and Sony body-only and body + lens kits below the EOS-M kit’s $799. So smaller camera, fewer lenses, fewer direct controls, no viewfinder…but more expensive.
- The EF-M lens system has only two entries, so anyone buying into it is also buying into the implied promise that Canon will continue to develop it. Given Canon’s track record, I find this risky. Canon introduced the EF-S lens line with the same implied promise, appeared invested for the first few years, then quietly redirected their attention and let the EF-S line essentially sink.
- The EF to EOS-M mount adapter. People are excited about this, but it’s actually ridiculous. And also a cop-out on Canon’s part, essentially saying, “We don’t really have any lenses for this camera yet, and maybe we won’t even develop that many of them, but that’s okay – you can use your existing EF lenses with it. Except the size of an EF lens relative to the EOS-M body is entirely disproportionate. The consumer-level EF primes may not be too large or heavy, but the majority of zoom lenses – and especially any L-series lenses – are going to be huge in comparison.
- From one end, the people who are buying the EOS-M for its small size aren’t going to want to sacrifice that by attaching huge EF lenses to it. (Otherwise they would have saved some money and bought a T3.) They’re going to want small lenses that maintain the portability of the system. And at the opposite end, the L-lens crowd isn’t going to want the EOS-M body on the end of their expensive glass, as it will almost always be too small and unwieldy. These people tend to be photography enthusiasts; they’ll want a comfortable, responsive camera body that fits the lens – a DSLR.
- The feature set of the EOS-M is uninspired. It’s very much a point & shoot with interchangeable lenses, having all the weaknesses that plague most P&S cameras: limited physical controls and no viewfinder. The EOS-M is apparently controlled primarily via its touch screen. Granted, this is the way everything will be controlled sooner or later, but my own experience with camera touch screens tells me that the software needs to let you make all the necessary control inputs for it to be truly viable. Any sort of half-baked setup (and my Olympus OM-D falls into this category) is just frustrating.
- The lack of a viewfinder is the most puzzling. It’s not unexpected that there isn’t an EVF built in, but there doesn’t seem to be one available as an accessory, either. Nor any mention of one in the future. The lack of a true viewfinder is the kiss of death to this camera for almost any semi-serious photographer; using the rear LCD just isn’t the same. (And the EOS-M’s screen is fixed, so it can’t even claim the occasional benefit of being useful as a tilt screen.)
I’m sure that the EOS-M will sell, simply because it says Canon on the front. The same way that Nikon’s compact system is selling. But that doesn’t mean it makes much sense. From a purely photographic standpoint, I’ll just shake my head and go back to my micro four-thirds system, which kicks the EOS-M’s ass in everything except sensor size. And even there, without any decent EF-M lenses to take advantage of it, I imagine that m4:3 would still win in terms of image quality.
So that’s my take on it. Unimpressed, and a little baffled. I think I left Canon at the right time. Small, mirrorless, EVF cameras are the next step in camera evolution. And Canon still doesn’t have one.