Canon Stupidly perhaps, I'm going to try the EOS-M

Sure, lens design is a big factor; my point was just that if it were that easy of a nut to crack, everyone would be doing it right out of the gate on their first try. Nobody *wants* to produce and market the camera with the slowest AF, right? It's in their best interest to produce sharp lenses, good performing sensors, and fast focus.

The firmware improvements to AF speed mean that in addition to lens design, it's also the algorithms in use that are a big factor. Yes, it's "just" contrast detection, but how you implement that, prioritize, and classify areas is all important. Coming from a software background, it's easy to understand how it takes time to build up an effective algorithm with incremental improvements, bugfixes, and performance enhancements over time.

That's the thing though. It's not the first time Canon has done it. They've done it countless times. This algorithm isn't exactly new and complicated. It's the imaging world's version of hello world. It's not exactly a grand challenge. There is no reason that it wasn't this fast when it was first released. The only reason I can think of that it's not faster now is that the mechanical hardware won't allow for it.
 
What is interesting about it is how good it is NOT in the sensor department. A G5 comes close and it has a 1/2 stop more dynamic range than the EOS M does at base ISO though the EOS M holds up better as ISO rises as you might expect -- though not tremendously better. The EOS M has 1/3 stop better noise. There's not a lot of difference.

From DxOmark: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

I just would expect more from an APS-C sized sensor -- but that Canon sensor is a pretty "old" design. The 70D's sensor is the way forward.
 
I've used Canon's APS-C sensor, and I agree. It is NOT better than the best m43 sensors in terms of high ISO noise. Canons' newer sensors, though, are edging ahead. The 6D sensor is VERY good (for a Canon -- I realize it's full frame, but Nikon and Sony had passed Canon in FF sensors. IMO, the 6D is equal to Nikon).

Supposedly, the 70D is a new sensor -- both better IQ and the on-board PDAF. We'll have to see.
 
first good luck to you and i hope you love it. its fun to experiment, so i say have at it.

however, and i apologize to the OP for this OT mini rant, it just blows me away that people are still talking derogitively about fuji x100 af speeds!!! ive owned one since it first came out and ive never, never, ever, ever had a problem with it. perhaps its because i knew i wasnt buying a 5dmkii, so i wasnt expecting slr af speeds. but having owned the same x100 for a few yrs now i can count on one hand the number of shots ive missed because the af was too slow. can we please put that silliness to bed?!

also, lumping in this canon and touting it as a $300 competitor to the x100 is only to set up the OP for disappointment. the fuji sensor is extraordinary and yields incredibly detailed and beautiful results up to iso3200. so much so that many use it professionally. moreover, it has simply the best dual format internal vf made to this point in time. i am absolutely not saying that this canon, and the nikon v1 and other small sensored cams cannot be enjoyed or cannot produce pleasing lovely images (i have and enjoy an oly xz-2), but please folks, they are not competing with the x100. the x10/20 yes; but the x100 is in another league.
 
I appreciate the points, and I've not used an X100, but the EOS-M is a Canon APS-C sensor, which is just a very small fraction smaller than the X100, which is also an APS-C sensor. For all intents and purposes, they are the same sized sensor.
 
They may have underwhelmed in the AF department but as I've said with the Fuji line, this just shows how hard of a problem to solve this really is and how far m4/3 has come to be as fast as it is.

I don't know if MFT went that fast....Auto focus wasn't significantly improved until the E-P3 and E-PM1. And Olympus had two generations of E-Ps prior to. Therefore, you have to give Fuji and Canon up to their 3rd generation too.....;)

And if anyone came with fast auto-focus right out of the box...It was Nikon :)
 
I don't know if MFT went that fast....Auto focus wasn't significantly improved until the E-P3 and E-PM1. And Olympus had two generations of E-Ps prior to. Therefore, you have to give Fuji and Canon up to their 3rd generation too.....;)

And if anyone came with fast auto-focus right out of the box...It was Nikon :)

Agree on Nikon the the 1 series for sure.

But from what I can see, my E-P1 focuses faster than the original release EOS M. Again, I say shame on Canon for ever releasing it as it was, at the price they did.
 
What is surprising is that the higher mass zoom lens focuses faster than the lighter 22mm. Probably because the pancake has a less powerful power/weight motor.

The Canon 22mm pancake is a unit focusing lens where the entire lens group is moved in and out to focus, whereas the zoom is internal focusing with much less mass to move. The two original m4/3 pancakes were also unit focusing and suffer today in focusing speed when compared to every subsequent lens which have all featured internal focusing. Samsung and Fuji have the same problem with a number of their current prime lenses featuring unit focusing designs.
 
The Canon 22mm pancake is a unit focusing lens where the entire lens group is moved in and out to focus, whereas the zoom is internal focusing with much less mass to move. The two original m4/3 pancakes were also unit focusing and suffer today in focusing speed when compared to every subsequent lens which have all featured internal focusing. Samsung and Fuji have the same problem with a number of their current prime lenses featuring unit focusing designs.

Sounds to me like how the Panasonic 20mm ƒ1.7 focuses...
 
Here are some images:

tomatom1-L.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


100% crop of a similar shot:
tomato-crop-L.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And some flowers:
flowerm4-L.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



flowerm2-L.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


flowerm1-L.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



Some observations, only JPEGS so far:

1. It feels OK, nicely built.
2. The touch screen is very good.
3. Default JPEG colors give me new appreciation for Olympus
4. The Auto-Focus came via firmware 2.02, which was pre-installed. The improved version is maybe the quality of the E-P1 with it's firmware upgrade. Since Canon sells so many pro cameras, I will assume this is a poor effort on their part. It's adequate, but I can't even imagine what the old version was like.
5. The lens is very nice.

The IQ has potential, so I'll be happy to keep this. No plans to sell the E-PL5, however.
 
The one thing that people don't really seem to compare is DoF characteristics between an APS-C sensor with an f2 aperture, and smaller (faster, cleaner, more modern) sensors. The EOS M gives a big-camera image in a small body.

In my mind (and in the image) the EOS M is a "compact" camera with a 35mm f2.8 lens (those are the numbers if you scaled the sensor up to FF from 22mm f2 on APS-C). Guess what terrific camera has those same numbers, but can't hold a candle to the EOS-M in image quality? The Contax T3, an absolutely brilliant compact from the recent film era.

I'm sold...the EOS M is my film compact replacement. I like the Ricoh GR and Nikon A too, but I prefer 35mm framing and appreciate the extra speed in this fantastic 22mm prime lens.

All for $299! :)


Sent from my iPad using SeriousCompacts mobile app
 
You definitely know how to make lemonade out of a lemon, lol. But your observations are true -- I'm just not sure that even for that low price I'd want to live with that camera. Especially if Canon "orphans" this or "regionalizes" it as they have so far -- in this case the fact that they don't sell in North America what would for me be the most compelling lens of the system: the 11-22mm ultrawide.

The one thing that people don't really seem to compare is DoF characteristics between an APS-C sensor with an f2 aperture, and smaller (faster, cleaner, more modern) sensors. The EOS M gives a big-camera image in a small body.

In my mind (and in the image) the EOS M is a "compact" camera with a 35mm f2.8 lens (those are the numbers if you scaled the sensor up to FF from 22mm f2 on APS-C). Guess what terrific camera has those same numbers, but can't hold a candle to the EOS-M in image quality? The Contax T3, an absolutely brilliant compact from the recent film era.

I'm sold...the EOS M is my film compact replacement. I like the Ricoh GR and Nikon A too, but I prefer 35mm framing and appreciate the extra speed in this fantastic 22mm prime lens.

All for $299! :)


Sent from my iPad using SeriousCompacts mobile app
 
More than a few people have suggested that they plan on using like a fixed lens camera. I guess there's no need to worry about other lenses if you're happy with the one on there. And for that price, there are no competitors for an APS-C sensor fixed lens camera (with the ability to add other lenses if they ever become available).
 
More than a few people have suggested that they plan on using like a fixed lens camera. I guess there's no need to worry about other lenses if you're happy with the one on there. And for that price, there are no competitors for an APS-C sensor fixed lens camera (with the ability to add other lenses if they ever become available).

That's a good point. Like a budget Coolpix A or Ricoh GR? Makes more sense like that.
 
Back
Top