"Average consumer"? What kind of average consumer walks into Argos and spends £800 on a compact camera? And since when was that half the price of SLR, a D5100 is half the price! What planet is he on?
Last edited:
** New Canon EOS M w/ EF-M Mount **
- Thread starter Stuff
- Start date
"Average consumer"? What kind of average consumer walks into Argos and spends £800 on a compact camera? And since when was that half the price of SLR, a D5100 is half the price! What planet is he on?
Caporegime
Cameras like the NEX5N,G3,GX1 and K01 were around £600 at launch though. Also,you need an EF to EF-M adaptor to use Canon dSLR lenses too which further bumps up the price.
The camera is at least £150 overpriced at launch plus the cost of the adaptor.
Moreover,look at the body:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/images/frontpage.jpg
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/canonimages/fourcolours.jpg
Yay!! Multiple colours and virtually no hand grip. This is a fashion camera made for people who had compacts previously.
If this was more like the NEX7 or X PRO 1 then perhaps I would think differently. The camera is neither here nor there.
I would rather have a 650D over this any day.
Last edited:
That is the unfortunate trend with them. For any kind of proper photography they are seriously bad value for money. When I first saw mirrorless cameras come out I thought it was a great advancement, but they've quickly become a joke, nothing more than an expensive fashion accessory. As opposed to what the name suggests, just an SLR without a mirror.
Last edited:
Caporegime
The camera is nearly £800 to £900 with basic lenses(they use plastic mounts too). The camera should have been cheaper than a 650D.
By using a different mount you are then locked into a probably more expensive lens system too with less choice.
For the price it is neither here nor there. If it were more like the NEX7 or X PRO 1 in functionality then even it was a £1000 it would be understandable. However,it seems this is not the target market though,so it really seems expensive for an upgrade camera. The fact that you need to pay more for the EF to EF-M adaptor further inflates the price.
Moreover,most of the mirrorless systems seem to have adaptors so you can use other glass but then it is not relevant for most people I suspect. Even the NEX systemhas an adaptor which can use nearly any A-mount lens from 1985,but then it costs a decent amount too.
Last edited:
I think this is a point that I've been trying to make, the manufacturers are all rushing to get mirrorless cameras to the market but they don't necessarily seem to know who they are aiming at.
You only have to look at the marketing to see how varied the demographic they seem to be going for is.
As CAT-THE-FITH says there are certainly some which are 'fashion' orientated. The ones which tend to look like classic range finders like the Fujifilm X100 are certainly going after the hipster crowd. To some extent, Leica can be wedged in here too.
Then you have the likes of the Nikon 1 which seems to be marketed at beginners who want to take good photos. The Olympus PEN system isn't too far off it, as their marketing is very 'Instagram' styled about what cool photos you can take and how it fits into your lifestyle.
Panasonic's Lumix G Systems seem to be marketed at the serious Photographers as a way of replacing their large DSLRs.
So I think this is the issue, it's a case of who is actually buying them?
I know people dismissed my earlier comments in comparing them to DSLRs, however I never intended it to be a like-for-like comparison. My point was that I think they are primarily aimed (or in the current state) should be aimed at the same people who buy entry level DSLRs. There is no doubt that entry level DSLRs are the brands big sellers, certainly in the case of Canon and Nikon. They want the people who might buy an entry level DSLR or are perhaps on the fence because they don't want something as big as DSLR to buy a mirrorless system.
I fully agree that Pro/Semi-Pro/Serious Amateur are only going to make the switch to these kind of systems when they match the ability of a DSLR. There is no doubting though that there are still some Photographers who will buy such cameras as something to have when they don't want to be using a full DSLR size camera.
You only have to look at the marketing to see how varied the demographic they seem to be going for is.
As CAT-THE-FITH says there are certainly some which are 'fashion' orientated. The ones which tend to look like classic range finders like the Fujifilm X100 are certainly going after the hipster crowd. To some extent, Leica can be wedged in here too.
Then you have the likes of the Nikon 1 which seems to be marketed at beginners who want to take good photos. The Olympus PEN system isn't too far off it, as their marketing is very 'Instagram' styled about what cool photos you can take and how it fits into your lifestyle.
Panasonic's Lumix G Systems seem to be marketed at the serious Photographers as a way of replacing their large DSLRs.
So I think this is the issue, it's a case of who is actually buying them?
I know people dismissed my earlier comments in comparing them to DSLRs, however I never intended it to be a like-for-like comparison. My point was that I think they are primarily aimed (or in the current state) should be aimed at the same people who buy entry level DSLRs. There is no doubt that entry level DSLRs are the brands big sellers, certainly in the case of Canon and Nikon. They want the people who might buy an entry level DSLR or are perhaps on the fence because they don't want something as big as DSLR to buy a mirrorless system.
I fully agree that Pro/Semi-Pro/Serious Amateur are only going to make the switch to these kind of systems when they match the ability of a DSLR. There is no doubting though that there are still some Photographers who will buy such cameras as something to have when they don't want to be using a full DSLR size camera.
Caporegime
Neither is EF-M, as of yet.
An EF adaptor? Get an Alpha adaptor.
You can't criticize the NEX and applaud this.
Caporegime
Has anyone over here tried the newer Pansonic and Olympus mirrorless cameras with the latest 16MP sensor?? It is meant to be much better than the ancient 12MP jobbie used in the Olympus E-PL1 according to Dpreview. The GX1,OM-D E-M5 and G3 are supposedly quite decent at high ISOs.
However,TBH a mirrorless camera is probably not good for my purposes as I want to use a telephoto lens.
However,TBH a mirrorless camera is probably not good for my purposes as I want to use a telephoto lens.
Last edited:
Not really convinced that APS-C is at all the best approach for a mirror-less camera.
The biggest constraint on the total system size is the surface area of the sensor and the required image projection circle leading to large lenses. A Nikon 3200 is a tiny camera as it is and any smaller and the ergonomics are out the windows. The mirror isn't even the limiting factor, one can make smaller SLRs cameras than that, but ergonomic design has created this minimum size. You can also do away with a mirror using translucent assemblies, a la Sony SLT cameras.
An ASP-C just seems like a way of minimizing something which is already small and light but really needs to be larger and heavier for balance and ergonomics, inatead of minimising something which is large, heavy and expensive, the lenses.
A Sensor along the lines of m43s or Nikon CX format just makes so much more sense for this market area. Of course a larger sensored mirrorless has value in more niche markets (it may work fine for street photograhy etc.).
Can you imagine having to attach a 70-200mm or 300mm f/4 and TC to tiny Canon mirror-less while hiking through Yellowstone looking for grizzly bears?
The biggest constraint on the total system size is the surface area of the sensor and the required image projection circle leading to large lenses. A Nikon 3200 is a tiny camera as it is and any smaller and the ergonomics are out the windows. The mirror isn't even the limiting factor, one can make smaller SLRs cameras than that, but ergonomic design has created this minimum size. You can also do away with a mirror using translucent assemblies, a la Sony SLT cameras.
An ASP-C just seems like a way of minimizing something which is already small and light but really needs to be larger and heavier for balance and ergonomics, inatead of minimising something which is large, heavy and expensive, the lenses.
A Sensor along the lines of m43s or Nikon CX format just makes so much more sense for this market area. Of course a larger sensored mirrorless has value in more niche markets (it may work fine for street photograhy etc.).
Can you imagine having to attach a 70-200mm or 300mm f/4 and TC to tiny Canon mirror-less while hiking through Yellowstone looking for grizzly bears?
That's why I bought an E-PL1, but the cost of extra lenses drove me to buy an SLR, these manufacturers need to get real with their pricing, what kind of entry level buyer is going to pay £230 for a 45mm lens when 50mm Canon EF ones are only £80? I certainly am not.
True, but then there are probably more people who bought an entry level DSLR with a kit lens who have never bought another lens for it. See what I'm saying? The other lenses may be expensive, but I wouldn't just assume that although cameras offer interchangeable lenses that everyone buys them.
Of course not, but to become viable as systems people need to buy the lenses, and at the moment even the bodies are far too expensive, an entry level buyer isn't going to pay £400-£600 for a mirrorless body when their performance is so much worse than a cheaper SLR. The only reason I bought m4/3 was because the camera was £215 Argos special offer. If it had been the price of an SLR, I would have bought an SLR instead.
Again though you are looking at it from the viewpoint of a very informed buyer.
Many people are not like that though, they buy a DSLR because of the assumption that they take the best photos, even if they only ever use the kit lens. Just go to any popular tourist spot & see how many people there are shooting with DSLRs now, it's quite astounding.
A number of the manufacturers are marketing the cameras as better than DSLRs because of the size and ability to take great photos. While you may know that it has a smaller sensor, the vast majority of the public don't know the cons, just what the marketing has said.
Many people are not like that though, they buy a DSLR because of the assumption that they take the best photos, even if they only ever use the kit lens. Just go to any popular tourist spot & see how many people there are shooting with DSLRs now, it's quite astounding.
A number of the manufacturers are marketing the cameras as better than DSLRs because of the size and ability to take great photos. While you may know that it has a smaller sensor, the vast majority of the public don't know the cons, just what the marketing has said.
I could. I never understood the unbalanced thing, even with my 400D and a 300 f/4. You hold the lens and the camera is just the bit on the end.
I love the idea of this camera, however having now moved over to Nikon and the price of it it's not quite appealing. I don't think I could ever use one as a main DSLR (no proper viewfinder) but as a second travel camera that could use all of my "current" lenses it would be excellent for those times where space was tight, for example a non photography oriented trip to Yellowstone. As a viable option it would have to be around £400-500 with EF adaptor IMO though.
Or a somewhat uninformed choice?
The EPL1 was never great for low light or fast action. That's why it was so cheap ...but you can still take fantastic shots with it! New m4/3 cameras are a completely different prospect to the ancient EPL1 (Sony sensors, super fast auto focus etc)Your getting a bit confused... That lens is the 35mm equivalent a decent quality medium/fast portrait lens, like the Nikon 85mm F1.8 G not a cheap niffy fifty. Looking at reviews it's actually great value for money.
(m4/3 has a few cheap fixed focal lenses now, like those two Sigmas)How many people that aren't well informed spend £800 on a digital camera?
Sure you see the odd person who has spend £380 on a buying an SLR with kit lens on the high street, but how many with full frame SLR's? It's simply outside the entry level buyers budget. It's like marketing a Ferrari to someone looking at a Vauxhall Corsa (except in this case the former is actually better), no matter what marketing spiel you give, you ain't gonna sell it.
Your getting a bit confused... That lens is the 35mm equivalent a decent quality medium/fast portrait lens, like the Nikon 85mm F1.8 G not a cheap niffy fifty. Looking at reviews it's actually great value for money.
I'm not confused about anything, I wanted a lens that would have a substantially larger aperture for low light photography, for roughly the same focal length Canon charge £80 and Olympus £230, as a consumer with a < £300 body, what am I going to choose honestly? It's lens affordability that is the problem, not lens quality.
Also is it good value for money as a system when I can get a 550D + nifty fifty lens for considerably less and take much better photos, or even a D5100 with the high quality Nikon G 50mm lens (which is still substantially cheaper than the Olympus lenses) for a similar price? No it's terrible value for money. The lens itself may be good value for money, but if I can take much better pictures for less money then the system is poor value for money, and so cheaper lenses need to be offered to compete on the market.
Though I would personally take a cheap lens on a better body any day for low light sports because the lens quality is not the limiting factor in image quality here.
Last edited:
Associate
I agree with your statement as the manufactures are not really sure who in the niche but still grey market the target consumer really is.
Is it some like me who owns a dirty big DSLR who wants some smaller with DSLR IQ and choice of lens, or a compact user stepping up, or hipster / chic person wanting a fashionable powerful camera !
Also factor in that there is not a buoyant second hand market of ¾’s or mirror less camera and lens + accessories. Leaving the only choice is to buy new so another reason other than R&D why the prices are still high !
THB these cameras are not cheap at all and additional lens are very expensive when compared to their bigger DSLR cousins
I know my wife would love a better compact type of camera that is more powerful and when she had the need for more zoom to be able to reach into her hand bag and fit a more powerful lens.
However she will not pay £650 plus for a kit bundle it is just too much for what you get !
Were I would pay for a smaller DSLR IQ camera !
I think what will encourage non DSLR consumers is the sexy looks of the camera and if it will be the next fashion icon to have after an iPhone / iPad.
And lets think back that when the iPad came out people were asking what would I use it for as I have a Laptop ! ! !
I still think the Sony NEX5N and NEX7 are the sexiest mirrorless cameras out there ! ! ! !
edit Note. some of the new compact cameras I have seen are really smart phones with no SIM card with a bigger lens attach to the body.
point being the camera is WiFi enabled and you can down load photo themed Apps.
I have not read the full spec on the canon M so does it have WiFi ! ?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I spent a few quid on a m4/3 setup as I wanted something that did better than most compacts, was small to carry about but also with some of the flexibility of a dslr.
One thing I've found with the bay and m4/3 lenses is a lot of the time they go for not much off what you can get them for new online, so whilst there's not a massive supply of second hand stuff it generally fetches decent prices when you do sell (not so great if you're buying though).
I keep meaning to pickup an old Olympus 50mm 1.4 lens to give it a try with an adapter, manual focus only but could be good.
This could be interesting though, esp with the adapter to use some of the 'normal' Canon lenses, but would have to be a bit cheaper for me to consider switching from my GX1.
One thing I've found with the bay and m4/3 lenses is a lot of the time they go for not much off what you can get them for new online, so whilst there's not a massive supply of second hand stuff it generally fetches decent prices when you do sell (not so great if you're buying though).
I keep meaning to pickup an old Olympus 50mm 1.4 lens to give it a try with an adapter, manual focus only but could be good.
This could be interesting though, esp with the adapter to use some of the 'normal' Canon lenses, but would have to be a bit cheaper for me to consider switching from my GX1.
Last edited: