EOS M

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 13:25

Does anyone have an EOS M or have any experience with one?

the reason being I'm just not bringing my 5D out hiking with me so much anymore as it's far too bulky and heavy so I'm looking for something smaller to chuck in my bag that can still use all my EF lenses (with the adapter).

I see a people complaining about AF speed but is it really such a big deal as some people are saying? I've looked at some videos on youtube like this one and it's not as fast as an SLR but it doesn't seem that bad to me, granted it's a well lit scene but most of the time outdoors there is plenty of light and contrast too.

An Exception · 6 Dec 2012 at 14:01

Surely the bulk of the weight is the lenses?
Why not just get a 550D or something and forget about needing an adaptor etc.

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 14:34

True, but I already have an SLR, I don't want another one, I want a small camera that has most of the functions that I'm used to but that fits in the bag I take hiking, the 550D is >3 times the volume and double the weight of the EOS M.

Raymond Lin · 6 Dec 2012 at 14:40

The EOS M is pointless IMO if you are going to pair it up with a bunch of EF lenses.

It defeats the point of weight saving and size if you put a 24-70 on the end of it. The 650D will do more and will feel better in the hand than the EOS M.

All in all, the EOS M missed the target by a mile. There are only 2 lenses for it, if they are going to make it a success it needs a whole new range of lenses and the ability to use EF lenses needs to be a bonus rather than a necessity as currently it practically is with only 2 lenses !

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:08

I'm not likely to use the 27-70 on it as the included kit zoom lens covers essentially the same range as the 24-70 on the 5D, the plan was never to pair it with my EF lenses, just using them occasionally as a handy bonus.

It seems to fit my needs perfectly, I think it's a great alternative to bringing my other camera, saving a ton of bulk while still keeping the functionality if not the ease of use of my SLR (in some ways it can actually do more than my 5D *sobs* lol).

Phal · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:11

Doesn't even seem that much smaller tbh :/ If space was a real issue then a compact would be my choice. A EOS M seems like an expensive way to only lose a little bit of bulk.

D.P. · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:26

Col_M said:
True, but I already have an SLR, I don't want another one, I want a small camera that has most of the functions that I'm used to but that fits in the bag I take hiking, the 550D is >3 times the volume and double the weight of the EOS M.

The EOS m is just not a contender here though. You get stuck with the same heavy lensesl but in a camera with poor IQ and bad AF.

Have a look at the new microfour thirds cameras, the new Sony sensor give better image quality than any of the canon crop sensors forth most part, so you might actually get an Mage upgrade. At last olympus and Panasonic have a range of very smal l lenses, e.g. 14mm f/2.5 onlY weighs 55g, kit lenses are around 100g, the olympus 40-150mm is staggering at only 190g.

The alternative is the Nikon 1 because at least you get class beating autofocus and responsiveness.

Raymond Lin · 6 Dec 2012 at 15:52

The EOS M makes no sense on every level.

1 - If you want a small changable lenses system then it is not it, not enough lenses, slow AF and not the best sensor. The body itself is not class leading, egonomic is not the best.
2 - If you want it as a spare to your existing DSLR then a 650D is a better choice, it has better AF, better to hold and with the lenses you have to carry, it should be easy to squeeze in a 650D as a EOS M.

As an existing Canon user - a 650D makes more sense.
As a not Canon user - all other M4/3 are better.

The only advantage the Canon has is the ability to use the EF lenses, but that totally defeats the purpose of the size in the first place.

To make this work, Canon needs a class leading body with a stonking set of lenses, and as a bonus, it works with all EF lenses. That will be attractive.

cokebottles · 6 Dec 2012 at 16:17

Take a close look at the Canon Powershot S90/95/100/110 cameras. Forego the interchangeable lens side of things, but make the most of the truly pocket-able size along with good controls and image quality.

D.P. · 6 Dec 2012 at 16:42

Raymond Lin said:
The EOS M makes no sense on every level.

1 - If you want a small changable lenses system then it is not it, not enough lenses, slow AF and not the best sensor. The body itself is not class leading, egonomic is not the best.
2 - If you want it as a spare to your existing DSLR then a 650D is a better choice, it has better AF, better to hold and with the lenses you have to carry, it should be easy to squeeze in a 650D as a EOS M.

As an existing Canon user - a 650D makes more sense.
As a not Canon user - all other M4/3 are better.

The only advantage the Canon has is the ability to use the EF lenses, but that totally defeats the purpose of the size in the first place.

To make this work, Canon needs a class leading body with a stonking set of lenses, and as a bonus, it works with all EF lenses. That will be attractive.

it is basically the same on the Nikon side, although the Nikon 1s dohave Aaf performance close to low end DSLRs at the moment there is a lack of lenses and the lenses that are there are not particularly small give the sensor size.

It has taken quite some time for m43 to be even a consideration but now the system seems fairly well stocked with lens options and the updated Sony sensor takes the cameras into a whole new realm.

D.P. · 6 Dec 2012 at 16:43

cokebottles said:
Take a close look at the Canon Powershot S90/95/100/110 cameras. Forego the interchangeable lens side of things, but make the most of the truly pocket-able size along with good controls and image quality.

The 100 cameras are nice for very smalL compacts but the image quality is a long way behind any of the mirror less cameras out there, the s100 is shirt pocket size, the CSC cameras are jacket pocket size.

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:19

If you all think it's a bad camera I'm just going stick with what I have for now.

An entry level SLR is too big and weighs too much for what I want and I don't need another one.
I Don't want another compact, the sensors are even smaller and they don't have great image quality.

What I want is something that's a comprimise of the two criteria above.

I just assumed that the EOS M was perfect for what I wanted as it contains the sensor, DIGIC 5 processor and many of the features from a 650D but the body size of a larger compact. I don't really fancy a mirrorless from another company either, the only thing I can see that they have over the M is focus speed but then I lose the ability to use flashes and lenses I already have which is a dud trade off really. I'll wait and see if there is a firmware update that improves the focus speed or if there is a new M released.

Raymond Lin · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:32

My Olympus XZ-1 has the capability of an SLR without the size and weight. You just have to know its limits.

That's what it comes down to, each and every camera in the world has it own limitations, be it size, price, form, function or support. You weight up each one, weight up against the competition and make a decision and choice.

The EOS M just loses on far too many of the boxes it needs to be ticked to be a winner for me. I rather sacrafice size than AF and IQ performance.

I took my 5D on every holiday for the past 4 years, it's fine, just take one lens and good to go.

An Exception · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:37

The thing is your not actually saving much weight? and that's the whole point to this thread isn't it?
RX100 would likely fit the bill more than EOS M.

niko · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:38

there's also rumors of a new eos-m for the beginning of next year ,but at the moment i like the fuji x10,x100 and the interchangeable lens versions

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:42

An Exception said:
The thing is your not actually saving much weight? and that's the whole point to this thread isn't it?
RX100 would likely fit the bill more than EOS M.

My 5D and 24-70 is almost 4 times heavier than the M with 18-55 kit lens (1760g to 472g), that's a good weight saving no?

An Exception · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:49

Thought you were planning on using EF lenses though?

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 18:52

An Exception said:
Thought you were planning on using EF lenses though?

Nope, it was just an attractive feature being able to use my existing lenses with it too if needed.

Col_M said:
the plan was never to pair it with my EF lenses, just using them occasionally as a handy bonus.

An Exception · 6 Dec 2012 at 19:01

Well in that case it's not really an attractive feature. If your going to use the 24-70, then it's best used with the 5d. If you use the EOS M, your not really saving much weight overall, due to the weight of the lens. You end up using a little less heavy camera but that is also less ergonomic.
Why not explore better alternatives, or does it 'have to be Canon'?

Col_M · 6 Dec 2012 at 20:02

Well it's not just the 24-70, I don't think I would have used that on the M as it doesn't suit the camera. I'd agree with you that the bigger heavy zooms would be rather silly and pointless. The ones that make more sense are the 50mm 1.4, the 100mm macro and other small light lenses. Though I'd mostly just use the 18-55 STM as every review I've read praises it, now it's never going to be as good as a L zoom but I wouldn't be buying a small camera for absolute image quality.

I have nothing against buying another brand but the conclusion of every review I've seen says the Canon is great apart from the AF. If the rumoured firmware update fixes AF issues or they release an updated version that addresses the issue after I'd invested in another brand or system I'd be kicking myself. I admit it'd be unlikely that I'll be taking multiple lenses with me when hiking but if I had space and I could sacrifice the weight it'd be a shame not to have the option.