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

I'm sure it would be expensive. Hopefully, they'll consider a 35mm field of view as opposed to 28mm. 28 is nice, but it's not as good as a general lens (more limited, I think).

At least there's the EOS M and 22... :)


Sent from my iPhone using SeriousCompacts mobile app
 
Yes, but the later article by Thom Hogan was about Canon's strategy of not selling the new 11-22 zoom in the US. He doesn't go against anything he said in the earlier article about the EOS M with the 22 being a nice large sensor compact.
 
It was a bit broader than that. He roundly criticized Canon's whole marketing and development effort and suggests that Canon was going to make the M a "regional" camera. He cites the 11-22 thing as a symptom of Canon's overall poor judgement on many levels.

There's no question that the M is a great camera for some things -- at it's current price point. It was absurd before and I'm not sure really sustainable now.

But here's the thing about Hogan's article: if they were going to "prosper" that platform in the USA, wouldn't you want to tempt folks into "buying in" in every way possible? Market and sell every single lens and accessory to get folks on board as future customers for the M II ? Unless they are considering discontinuing the whole series in the USA, it does make NO sense to withhold that lens.

And as a final point -- I think the crap focus even with firmware seriously limits it's utility as a low-light street camera unless you intend to zone focus.
 
For me it's not really AF speed as much as the size of that AF region. I've gotten a number of shots where the camera focusses on the background because the AF area is simply much larger than the thing I'm focussing on. Since I use the M for static subjects, I just correct with MF. There is no way, however, I would want to use this with anything moving. Low light would depend on the subject and whether I had enough light to see an MF correction.
 
The 'M', sounds like a good fixed lens, always in the car/truck point and shoot. From what I've seen in the images, posted here, there's no flies on the 22mm lens, mated to the 'M'. If I had a few extra coins laying around doing nothing, I'd buy it for the dedicated FL. Ought to well as a backup for the E-p3 and longer lens. Or, just get the 20mm for the'3'.
 
By the way, just got the 11-22mm fresh from Japan. Nice lens...I'm trying to find a lot of difference (sensor limited) between the output of it vs. the Fuji 14mm. So far so good for $425 shipped with no customs.
 
I'm not letting any of the online reviews and sites convince me I can't make reasonable images from the EOS M...even with the AF speed "limitiations." It shoots like a compact camera...a good one. I've had mine a week, and just got back from Boston, Mass., and shot it like a street-shooting compact...no problems. I love the big-camera-look files.

9373152520_acc9ed8af1_b.jpg


9370378569_10d8450330_b.jpg


9373155036_76778562dd_b.jpg


9370376731_e7ba22622a_b.jpg
 
I can see the controls during the day on the back LCD, but the higher-contrast the scene, the harder it is to see the exact framing details. I'd be concerned I'd miss focus because I touched something in the foreground instead of the background, and vice versa. I disabled the touch screen for shutter release, and use the LCD for everything else--in bright light, I center and recompose--and it works great. It's as reactive as an iPhone screen (the touch-screen gold standard, I think).
 
I also disabled the touch shutter. The controls are pretty stark and bright compared to the subtler tones of the image itself, so it's not too bad seeing the LCD controls and the touch screen itself is very nice, as noted above.
 
It's OK. I've tried: EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-210USM, Tamron 28-75, EF-S 55-250 STM, 40 STM.

The Tammy is a slow focuser to begin with, and likes the M even less.

The 50 and 85 focus fine for static subjects. They will miss moving subjects. I've enjoyed both, and find they are a good size. The EF40/2.8 also focuses fast, and has nice output on the M. I just don't know what to do with that Focal Length, so I returned it. The 55-250 STM is pretty darn fast, too (for non-action shots), but I decided I didn't need that focal lenght.

The EF 70-210 USM is an old lens, and it focus hunts quite a bit with the M, but that lens REALLY old -- I think mid-90s, so the algorithms are probably really old.

I was delightfully surprised at how well the EF USM primes focus, but I'm mainly doing landscape and still life and portrait. I use my DSLR for action.

Hope that helps.

Here are some example shots with the 50, 85 and 40 on the M

I would summarize this way. If you have Canon lenses, and you have the M for the 22 or kit, then go ahead and put them together. It's worth the adapter. If you have lenses, but not the body, I think the body is worth it, if you are shooting mainly scenic/vacation/static. Get the body with the 22, IMO. If you have neither the body nor the lenses, and/or if you want to shoot action, I'm not sure the combo is the first set-up I'd invest in.

50/1.4
10390530743_0d028598a7_c.jpg

20131020-20131020-IMG_6719 by wt2100, on Flickr

85/1.8
10292158164_d8921b3e87_c.jpg

20131015-20131015-IMG_6586 by wt2100, on Flickr

10292378973_32299d2768_c.jpg

20131015-20131015-IMG_6576 by wt2100, on Flickr

40mm/2.8
10292234605_55a98546c1_c.jpg

20131008-20131008-IMG_6512 by wt2100, on Flickr
 
Here are some example shots with the 50, 85 and 40 on the M

I would summarize this way. If you have Canon lenses, and you have the M for the 22 or kit, then go ahead and put them together. It's worth the adapter. If you have lenses, but not the body, I think the body is worth it, if you are shooting mainly scenic/vacation/static.

Thanks for this. I have a truckload of ef lenses from my past as a photojournalist. I don't need a body that can use them, but am fascinated by the EOS M.

Something to think about anyway. Thanks for the feedback and examples.
 
Back
Top