# Canon finally goes mirrorless: EOS-M



## iMatt

Canon EOS M: hands-on preview of Canon's first mirrorless EOS: Digital Photography Review

I guess this one isn't so interesting?

The first camera using Canon's new mount looks very conservative. No built-in flash, no accessory EVF, few manual controls (it looks built up from P&S, not stripped down from SLR), reportedly slow AF, just two lenses to start. Decidedly following, not leading. 

If the new Canon has a unique selling point, it's backward compatibility, via adaptor, with existing Canon lenses.

Or was, until today:

KIpon EOS to m43 adapter with full electronic control! | 43 Rumors

EDIT: apparently this adaptor will not offer AF capability.

None of this means Canon is DOA in this market.

As long as they have correctly identified the mistakes of the earlier entrants (else why wait so long?) and push the new system forward without worrying about cannibalizing low-end SLR sales, Canon will grab a healthy share and be fully prepared for the future.

If this goes on for long as a glorified, high-priced P&S with few native lenses, i.e. just a secondary compact system for owners of high-end Canon gear... not so much.

On the whole I'm reminded of the first Olympus mirrorless, the E-P1, from around three years ago. With a significantly better sensor, of course. But that camera was missing many of the same features and seemed rushed to market. It was quickly joined by a low-end body with a pop-up flash, and superseded by another with an accessory port for an EVF. It took nearly three years for Olympus to release the OM-D -- the first m43 camera to be taken really seriously by a large audience beyond early adopters of the Micro Four Thirds system. 

Should Canon's plan be to take the EOS-M in that direction, it needn't take two or three years. From a technical standpoint, there's little doubt they could have entered with something more mature and feature-rich. Everything points to the EOS-M's shortcomings being deliberate.

So the question is, what is Canon's plan? Surely the goal is world domination, but how do they intend to get there from here?


----------



## screature

Yeah I saw this yesterday as well. With all the truly very good to great cameras in this category I really can't understand this product entry from Canon. It seems like a it is going to be a total flop... which (as you suggest) begs the question... Why? Why *this* product now?


----------



## iMatt

The thing is... from any other company it has FLOP written all over it. From photography's 800lb gorilla, it's probably a game-changer just because of the name.

I still think they will need to go in the general direction of the OM-D or Nex-7, and the basic technological foundation seems to be there, but is it actually in the cards?

As for why, a couple of astute comments I read suggested the basic short-term goal is to stop the trickle of high-end Canon photographers who are switching to other companies' mirrorless systems -- not just taking them on as secondary systems but completely switching over and putting high-end used Canon gear on the market -- from turning into a flood. Sounds plausible to me, but it doesn't look like this first product will be sufficient to do that.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> The thing is... from any other company it has FLOP written all over it. From photography's 800lb gorilla,* it's probably a game-changer just because of the name.*
> 
> I still think they will need to go in the general direction of the OM-D or Nex-7, and the basic technological foundation seems to be there, but is it actually in the cards?
> 
> As for why, a couple of astute comments I read suggested the basic short-term goal is to stop the trickle of high-end Canon photographers who are switching to other companies' mirrorless systems -- not just taking them on as secondary systems but completely switching over and putting high-end used Canon gear on the market -- from turning into a flood. Sounds plausible to me, but it doesn't look like this first product will be sufficient to do that.


I just don't see it iMatt as it brings nothing really new to the table other than being from Canon. Anyone seriously interested in a mirrorless system will still go elsewhere because this product is so deficient in so many ways. Seems to me if they wanted to stop the bleeding then they should have come out with a product that is a tourniquet and not a band-aid


----------



## iMatt

You might well be right, Screature, and I agree 100% that this body is deficient. But it's just one body: there is also a new lens mount, and any number of ways to run with it. I'm not convinced the sensor size is right (as it may force too many of the lenses to be too large), but that could just be the m43 fanboy talking.

And just being from Canon *is* a big new thing to bring to the table. Lots of resources, shelf space and brand loyalty there. I expect the price to drop far and fast, and better bodies to follow pretty quickly.

Most of all, I assume Canon has a comprehensive, well-planned hardware roadmap and marketing strategy. It's possible those plans are too conservative to succeed, but if they are willing to let this system eat into product lines both above and below it, and advance aggressively from this fairly timid start, it should pan out.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> You might well be right, Screature, and I agree 100% that this body is deficient. But it's just one body: there is also a new lens mount, and any number of ways to run with it. I'm not convinced the sensor size is right (as it may force too many of the lenses to be too large), but that could just be the m43 fanboy talking.
> 
> And just being from Canon *is* a big new thing to bring to the table. *Lots of resources, shelf space and brand loyalty there.* I expect the price to drop far and fast, and better bodies to follow pretty quickly.
> 
> Most of all, I assume Canon has a comprehensive, *well-planned hardware roadmap and marketing strategy*. It's possible those plans are too conservative to succeed, but if they are willing to let this system eat into product lines both above and below it, and advance aggressively from this fairly timid start, it should pan out.


I agree completely on this front.

On this front I don't understand why they would start their mirrorless "journey" with a product offering so far behind the curve. I mean if you are going to enter into the mirrorless market space then one would think they would enter it closer to where the others already are and not many miles behind...

I understand they don't want to "cannibalize" their other markets and with this offering there is certainly little chance of that, but first impressions mean a lot and this debutante is certainly not the "belle of the ball".


----------



## iMatt

Yup, right now it looks like they're skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. 

But Canon still has some advantages, the most important being that the market is still young and the two most firmly established competitors (Panasonic and Olympus) both have trouble producing and distributing their products in a timely fashion, and suffer from modest brick-and-mortar presence in key markets. 

In other words, North America, or at least the U.S., is still up for grabs. My prediction: millions of these things will be in every Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart in the U.S. in time to be blown out on Black Friday for $399 w/ lens, maybe even with a second model available for not much more, and Canon will have an impressive share of the market by Christmas. Many, many of the buyers will be existing Canon customers. Some will not know that the camera is behind the curve, and others won't care.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> Yup, right now it looks like they're skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be.
> 
> But Canon still has some advantages, the most important being that the market is still young and the two most firmly established competitors (Panasonic and Olympus) both have trouble producing and distributing their products in a timely fashion, and suffer from modest brick-and-mortar presence in key markets.
> 
> In other words, North America, or at least the U.S., is still up for grabs.* My prediction: millions of these things will be in every Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart in the U.S. in time to be blown out on Black Friday for $399 w/ lens, maybe even with a second model available for not much more, and Canon will have an impressive share of the market by Christmas. Many, many of the buyers will be existing Canon customers. Some will not know that the camera is behind the curve, and others won't care.*


You could be right iMatt, time will tell...


----------



## iMatt

Well, probably not right about $399 Black Friday blowouts, unless "October" release (which I hadn't noticed) means October 1. Even that would be a very short time for such a significant drop.


----------



## julian_photo

A bit late to the party here. Personally I shoot nikon so i'm no fan boy. However I think the market is there for this style of camera. Sure its not bringing anything new to the categorie other than the canon name. But thats the point it doesn't need to. It not for prosumers I don't think. This is really their lower end dslr in a body with no viewfinder. I think there will be a fair number of people who are willing to pay for decent image quality and the canon name that they trust or at least have heard of. Maybe their friend who is a good photographer has a canon and so they want one too. As long as canon commits to the lens mount with a decent line up sooner than later it will do well. Its a hot looking camera which i'm sure will help at best buys and such. 

I think the sensor they picked is a good one the images should be solid, video should be nice too. I think it will do well in the market even if i'm not interested in buying one.


----------



## okcomputer

It's a T4i in a smaller body, bringing a great sensor and excellent video capabilities, as well as a touchscreen LCD. 

Nothing game-changing, but not behind the curve either. The major news is the EF mount adapter. This camera with the 40mm pancake or other smaller lenses like the 28 1.8 will be awesome. 

I will not buy one even though I'm a Canon shooter. I want a BIGGER camera, not a smaller one. Just picked up the 5D MKIII and I'm already yearning for the 1DX lol. I realize I am in the minority, but I just don't have a need for a camera like this right now. Won't rule it out in the future though!


----------



## eMacMan

Given that so much of photography involves direct sunlight, I would not consider a touch screen display to be an advantage. Especially where there is no built-in flash.


----------



## crawford

I don't quite know what that means. Personally, I try not to take photographs in direct sunlight. 
I love the idea of a touch screen, especially to lock in focus. I use it on my iPhone all the time.


----------



## eMacMan

crawford said:


> I don't quite know what that means. Personally, I try not to take photographs in direct sunlight.
> I love the idea of a touch screen, especially to lock in focus. I use it on my iPhone all the time.


If you like a full contrast range, one area where shooting RAW is a huge advantage, then sunlight is your friend.


----------



## yeeeha

I think Canon is following the footstep of the Nikon 1 mirrorless interchangeable lens (MIL) camera in that the EOS-M is targeted more toward the P&S crowd as an upgrade. The big difference between the two systems is that Canon opts to have an APS-C sensor in the EOS-M vs. a much smaller imaging sensor in Nikon 1.

It is possible that both companies use their respective MIL cams to test this market segment and the technology. At some future time both Canon and Nikon could offer a much more capable APS-C MIL cam in the consumer/prosumer segment and abandon DSLR. At such time DSLR could only be a pro market camera with a full frame sensor.


----------



## okcomputer

eMacMan said:


> If you like a full contrast range, one area where shooting RAW is a huge advantage, then sunlight is your friend.


???

I think he was talking about bright, direct sunlight - the kind that washes out even the best LCDs, and therefore makes touchscreens difficult to use. 

Really bright, direct sunlight has nothing to do with RAW, dynamic range, or contrast... Except for the fact that it creates so much contrast you often need additional lightning to avoid harsh shadows.


----------



## screature

yeeeha said:


> I think Canon is following the footstep of the Nikon 1 mirrorless interchangeable lens (MIL) camera in that the EOS-M is targeted more toward the P&S crowd as an upgrade. The big difference between the two systems is that Canon opts to have an APS-C sensor in the EOS-M vs. a much smaller imaging sensor in Nikon 1.
> *
> It is possible that both companies use their respective MIL cams to test this market segment and the technology. At some future time both Canon and Nikon could offer a much more capable APS-C MIL cam in the consumer/prosumer segment and abandon DSLR.* At such time DSLR could only be a pro market camera with a full frame sensor.


The market segment may need testing by Canon and Nikon but Olympus and Panasonic have already successful "tested" the technology and currently own the market segment between them both (Sony is a distant 3rd). Canon and Nikon are behind the curve in this segment and are playing catch up. 

As for the touchscreen that other people are mentioning this is nothing new for either Olympus or Panasonic...

I doubt either Nikon or Canon will be dropping the DSLR for the consumer/prosumer any time soon as they simply have too much invested in that market segment with too large a base of users who would be a little PO'd if they simply abandoned them.


----------



## screature

okcomputer said:


> ???
> 
> I think he was talking about bright, direct sunlight - the kind that washes out even the best LCDs, and therefore makes touchscreens difficult to use.
> 
> Really bright, direct sunlight has nothing to do with RAW, dynamic range, or contrast... Except for the fact that it creates so much contrast you often need additional lightning to avoid harsh shadows.


I almost never shoot in bright sunlight i.e. in the late morning through to the late afternoon because it makes for very flat light. For me, generally speaking, I like light and shade in photos and bright direct sunlight doesn't provide for that. I prefer to shoot in the morning or the evening (even at night as well) as for my taste the lighting just provides for more appealing results.


----------



## iMatt

yeeeha said:


> I think Canon is following the footstep of the Nikon 1 mirrorless interchangeable lens (MIL) camera in that the *EOS-M is targeted more toward the P&S crowd as an upgrade*. The big difference between the two systems is that Canon opts to have an APS-C sensor in the EOS-M vs. a much smaller imaging sensor in Nikon 1.


That's what it looks like, but I've read (sorry, no link for the moment...) that at least in North America they will be focusing on specialty stores like B&H and the like, not big box outlets.

Not to mention that the 22mm pancake is clearly an enthusiast lens, and apparently that will be the main kit available in the U.S.

So there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between what it appears to be and Canon's plans for it.

The only explanation that comes to mind is that a number of Panasonic and Olympus models were originally designed for p&s upgraders in Japan and other Asian markets, yet proved surprisingly popular with enthusiasts in the West. So maybe Canon is not just expecting the same thing to happen with its new system, but planning for it.


----------



## MacDoc

Just reading this - do you really think the smaller bodies will drain from the SLR market???
I think it might be good for the full sized market providing a bridge to the bigger cameras.

I had a specific need with the 4/3 met and that has some play for others as well but I think it may simply expand the market for the "component" cameras. I really like I can slim down to really a point and shoot with no view finder and then snap a few bits on for more options. ( bought the EVF and like it ).

I'm a Pannie fan ( not just cameras ) but I would think Canon cannot afford to be in the market segment.


----------



## Lawrence

I think the Fuji X10 and X100 could wipe them all off the board.
The Canon may be nice, But the Fuji is the new Leica.


----------



## screature

The Fujis aren't in the same market segment and have fixed not interchangeable lens. If in the digital realm of cameras when you say Fuji is the new Leica you mean having to pay a premium price for less than premium performance you may be be right. But the X10 is a nice little camera at a reasonable price for what it is so I wouldn't put it with the likes of Leica, the X100 more so because of the heafty price tag for a fixed lens camera.


----------



## iMatt

Fuji also has the X-Pro mount. Expensive, but most people seem to like it a lot.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> Fuji also has the X-Pro mount. Expensive, but most people seem to like it a lot.


Definitely expensive and a very limited range of lenses right now (only 3 and all relatively expensive with each being over $500) with four more being promised for 2013. In this class I would still go with the more versatile and much less expensive Olympus OM-D E-M5.


----------



## Lawrence

I'd buy the X10 when Fuji switches to the open source RAW format,
But until then, I'll be waiting in the wings.

Nice looking camera though.

I really love the look of the X100 too.


----------



## Cliffy

I have recently switched to a G 1X and am trying to figure out where this M sits. For about the same price you can get either camera and except for the lens mount, I don't think I am missing much.

And besides, I think the G series still looks more "pro" than the M body


----------



## Kami

Lawrence said:


> I'd buy the X10 when Fuji switches to the open source RAW format,
> But until then, I'll be waiting in the wings.


Why does an open source RAW format make a difference?


----------



## screature

Kami said:


> Why does an open source RAW format make a difference?


Below is what I think Lawrence is referring to but strictly speaking there is no such thing as an open source RAW format as they are all dependant on the sensor used by the camera manufacturer and in the case of Fuji that is an EXR sensor (proprietary to Fuji). So there will never be a "open source" format of RAW file from the EXR sensor perhaps Lawrence means open source RAW software for RAW conversion... not really sure what he means here??

But the point is the conversion of RAW files from the X10 by external image converters yields less than ideal results.



> We appreciate in-camera Raw conversion in any camera, but with the X10, this control is absolutely crucial. Why? *Because third party support for the X10's raw files is far from universal among the more popular raw converters on the market. And even worse, among the raw converters that do support the EXR sensor, the results are disappointing.*
> 
> *The inevitable downside to a non-standard sensor design is that it requires a different set of demosaicing algorithms for optimum results. In the raw converters we've used - including the SilkyPix version that ships with the camera - image resolution and fine detail are significantly worse than the X10's in-camera JPEGs. The converted Raw files appear very soft and are clearly not displaying the best image quality the sensor can produce. *You can see this for yourself on both the Raw mode and studio comparison pages of this review. As it stands, you get significantly better image quality in terms of sharpness and resolution from processing Raw files in-camera than you do with external software.



dpreview.com Review of Fuji X10


----------



## iMatt

DNG is an open RAW format, and a few cameras do use it (some Pentax and Leica models, for example). I wish more would; it's stupid to have to upgrade software (sometimes $$) to open your new camera's files, and early adopters usually have to wait for that update. And then you have to be concerned about future-proofing or lack of it in your proprietary RAW format.

As for Fuji... I only mentioned the X-Pro because you (Screature) had listed the fixed lenses of the X10 and X100 as putting them in a different category. My point being that Fuji does have something in the mirrorless category, albeit at the high end and currently with a limited lens line-up. It's too soon to say if they will become a major player, but I wouldn't rule it out: they are gaining a pretty dedicated following. And just because they entered the market at the high end doesn't mean they'll be exclusively high-end forever.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> *DNG is an open RAW format*, and a few cameras do use it (some Pentax and Leica models, for example). I wish more would; it's stupid to have to upgrade software (sometimes $$) to open your new camera's files, and early adopters usually have to wait for that update. And then you have to be concerned about future-proofing or lack of it in your proprietary RAW format.
> 
> As for Fuji... I only mentioned the X-Pro because you (Screature) had listed the fixed lenses of the X10 and X100 as putting them in a different category. My point being that Fuji does have something in the mirrorless category, albeit at the high end and currently with a limited lens line-up. It's too soon to say if they will become a major player, but I wouldn't rule it out: they are gaining a pretty dedicated following. And just because they entered the market at the high end doesn't mean they'll be exclusively high-end forever.


I stand corrected. I of course know of DNG (Adobe) format but I did not know that any camera manufacturers were actually using the format at the capture stage. However, most RAW files are proprietary to the sensor that generated them.

I know that Fuji has a mirrorless option but it just wasn't the one's being mentioned by Lawrence. I would be surprised if they didn't have less expensive offerings down the road, but they are clearly going to have to get passed this EXR RAW format hurdle...


----------



## julian_photo

The Fuji X10 and X100 are both nice, Autofocus is on the slow side if you're used to an SRL but thats not the point. Although the are smaller / mirrorless cameras I think them and the new canon are going after different markets slightly. The Canon will be more consumer oriented while the fuji's are more enthusiast cameras. The Fuji X-1 pro does produce some great images there is no doubt abou that. Build quality is outstanding. As its already been said the lens lineup is lacking but that will hopefully change. Finally someone mentioned Leica, oh the M9. Is it over priced ? yes of course it is somewhat. But to be honest there really isn't anything else like it on the market at this point. The combination of it being a true range finder with a full frame sensor is pretty awesome.


----------



## screature

julian_photo said:


> The Fuji X10 and X100 are both nice, Autofocus is on the slow side if you're used to an SRL but thats not the point. Although the are smaller / mirrorless cameras I think them and the new canon are going after different markets slightly. The Canon will be more consumer oriented while the fuji's are more enthusiast cameras. The Fuji X-1 pro does produce some great images there is no doubt abou that. Build quality is outstanding. As its already been said the lens lineup is lacking but that will hopefully change. *Finally someone mentioned Leica, oh the M9*. Is it over priced ? yes of course it is somewhat. But to be honest there really isn't anything else like it on the market at this point. The combination of it being a true range finder with a full frame sensor is *pretty awesome*.


If $7K is a drop in the bucket... then buy anything you want... Hasselblad H4D-40 ($17K)..? 












Real-World Review: The Hasselblad H4D-40


----------



## Niteshooter

Have to admit when I saw the intro of this camera I was lukewarm about it. EOS lenses aren't exactly small and therefore it seems like a bit of a contradiction to put them on such a smallish camera. Then someone showed me this body with the adaptor and a 400 f2.8. My reaction was why?

Perhaps the missing link is the announcement of a broader range of dedicated lenses for this camera? Or maybe this is meant for video shooters?

If Canon had been smart they would have made an adaptor for their older FD line of manual focus lenses.....



I have the FD and Leica M mount adaptors for my GF2 and they work ok albeit in full manual and 2X magnification but the difference between the EF and FD lenses on MF is night and day. 

Someone mentioned the LCD panel, a touch panel is very handy, when you can see it. That thing on the top of my GF2 is an optional EVF, problem with the Panasonic version is that it does not lock to the top of the camera. Ask me how many times the darn thing has popped off but absolutely necessary shooting in bright sunlight or with IR filters.


----------



## jellotor

Canon DID make an FD-EF adapter with optics. Or are you talking about an FD-EF-M adapter?

I probably don't need to tell you about the differences in flange focal depths between FD and EF lenses making using FD on EOS bodies a problem.

I wonder if there'll be an electronics-free third party adapter to go from the EF-M adapter to FD?

(I avoided all of this FFD business by sticking to M42 lenses when I go manual.)


----------



## Niteshooter

We had an original Canon FD to EOS adaptor at work but there were a few problems with it. It was designed for longer telephoto lenses I think over 200mm and I don't think they focused to infinity so I never bought one when I converted over from FD to EF in 1989. That was back when I transitioned from photo retail to the Star so I still have my Canon retail sales guide with all the FD and EF data. I'm 100% sure I would have bought one if it had worked with all my lenses and focused to infinity and I think that is why I didn't.

The adaptors I have for my micro 4/3 Panasonic will infinity focus for both the Canon FD and the Leica M lenses I own. An M9 would be nice since I have the lenses but the cost talks me out of it when I start looking at what other gear I can buy with that much money. 

Reason I wondered about this new camera is that Canon would have had to start with a clean slate, though it's interesting that they built an adaptor for EF. Makes me wonder if someone in Japan is still a bit gun-shy after the furor that erupted when Canon abandoned the FD mount and went with EF. Which means not much of a chance for an FD adaptor other than a third party one from China. 

Oddly I have no interest in putting EF lenses on my M 4/3 camera mainly because they don't have a very smooth feel on manual focus. Perhaps also because the size of the lenses, most of my lenses are L so big, heavy and fast but that is what I need for the type of work I do.

I like the idea of smaller lightweight gear, mainly my age and back catching up to me so over the past couple of years I have been using bridge cameras, the Micro 4/3's and a Panasonic P&S super zoom camera. The new Panasonic with the 24-600 f2.8 really interests me because of the super fast lens. I shoot a lot of street so having the speed and versatility might make this a really good choice but I'll wait and try one out first.


----------



## jellotor

...I figured you knew about that already.

I'm thinking that it's so simple and trivial to make an FD adapter for this new EOS-M (since there's no mirror) that there's no point in Canon wasting its time designing something that'll get knocked off by the Chinese manufacturers in no time.

I still don't understand if there was a practical (rather than economic) reason that Canon changed the FFD from FD to EF.

I'd like to get some extended play time with the EOS-M and I agree that the vast majority of EF lenses don't make much sense on a small mirrorless camera but at least there's the option of using your existing EF glass.

As you said, better thought out than the switch from FD to EF.


----------



## iMatt

Didn't FD hit the end of the line 20 years ago? I think that fact is enough to explain Canon's lack of interest at this point. It's dead to them.

If this system catches on the market will be flooded with cheap adapters for FD and every legacy mount under the sun, flange distance permitting (which it should in most cases). Just look at Micro Four Thirds... $15-30 can get you an adapter for almost any mount you can name, even obscure ones such as Rollei QBM. In the early days, prices for adapters were more on the order of $60-100, but who knows if that will apply in this case.

Rest assured, small Chinese manufacturers are on it as we speak, and they'll do it for a fraction of the price you'd have paid for a Canon-branded version, if one existed.


----------



## jellotor

FD may be dead to Canon but it's not dead to a ton of Canon users, some of whom are spending a lot of money to have FD lenses adapted to EF. And not via a cheap, Chinese adapter either...practically reengineered. Apparently there's a guy in Barrie who does FD-EF conversions.

Also add in the number of mirrorless users who don't own Canon cameras but love manual FD lenses and don't mind paying for them. There's a market there...I'm not surprised that Canon doesn't care about it, but there is a market there.

Either way, the new EOS-M is likely the first Canon camera that will be able to legitimately claim compatibility with every Canon lens ever made.


----------



## iMatt

No doubt there's a market there, but like all camera companies Canon's primary interest is selling new lenses, not helping people make the most of their old ones. And if they are going to help with that (i.e. the new EF-to-M adapter), it's probably going to have some benefit for the company, like slowing the flow of customers to other mirrorless systems, slowing the flow of current-model gear to the second-hand market, etc.


----------



## jellotor

Agreed - Canon wants to sell new cameras and new lenses...that was undoubtably the logic behind going from FD to EF in the first place. Engineered obsolescence. We live in a time when even a coffee maker can be engineered to become obsolete.


----------



## Niteshooter

Sadly yes, Canon does want to sell new bodies and lenses. But sadly the new Canon lenses though wonderful in terms of their optics are really lacking in terms of their 'feel' on MF. I still shoot manual when I can even though at work we have the new Canon 1D X which Steve is using for his pix in London btw and is brutally fast both in FPS and auto focus.

FD is oddly not dead, I would have initially thought so because it has been so many years but the number of people looking for certain glass amazed me. The other day I get a call from a photographer friend of mine asking me if I still had my FD 35mm TS lens, and yup I did. He wanted to borrow it for a project because it's sharper than the newer lenses. Really I thought... I could probably sell my 50 f1.2 20 times by now as wall as my 7.5mm Fish Eye. 

Most of my old FD lenses are L and I still feel they are better built than my EOS L glass. Optically I think it's a toss up depending on the lens but comparing my FD 50mm f1.2 to the EOS 50mm f1.2 is an eye opener the new lens is massive compared to my FD version and that goes for quite a bit of my FD glass vs it's EOS counterparts. 

But this EOS-M mystifies me in that it is not really fish nor fowl or is that foul.... hmmm. With only two lenses I have to wonder what the logic was behind it. If it's to slow the movement of customers over to M4/3 then IMHO Canon has screwed up because they don't have the optics to back up the change and if you say that you can use EOS lenses on it well then why not buy the T4i which albeit is bigger has the same guts and better capabilities.

Panasonic would be my first choice because they have Leica lenses that will work with their M 4/3 systems and if I want to use my M glass well I can get an adaptor from Hong Kong/China for it. 

Hopefully at some point someone in China will do a knock off of an FD to EOS-M mount. It would not surprise me since they have knock offs for pretty much every mount to Micro 4/3 now and quality wise they are pretty good. Then I might take another look at this one but in the mean time I have an order in for the Lumix FZ200.


----------



## jellotor

The ironic part is that the value of those Canon FD lenses had a sort of reverse bell curve thing going on because of mirrorless cameras made by Canon's competitors!

I remember I used to see FD lenses at garage sales for 25 cents and other outrageous prices (even L lenses) before mirrorless cameras came out. Not anymore.


----------



## Niteshooter

jellotor said:


> Agreed - Canon wants to sell new cameras and new lenses...that was undoubtably the logic behind going from FD to EF in the first place. Engineered obsolescence. We live in a time when even a coffee maker can be engineered to become obsolete.


The corporate line from Canon was that the switch to EOS was because the mechanic couplings on FD could not support Auto Focus and that makes sense. I remember the furor when they did the switch because many of us had already had a major investment in FD bodies and lenses and at first there was no Pro body just the EOS 650 and 620 which were plastic bodied consumer cameras. The lenses were also equally plastic and light duty, my guess because they needed to shave weight and ditch the brass workings in order to save battery and motor power in terms of AF. 

Nikon did stick with their old mount but put the motor for AF in the body, it's was very slow compared to the EF lenses.

It was a full two years before Canon came out with a Pro EOS body, the EOS 1 and that changed everything and the reason I wound up mothballing my F1n's and FD glass although at work many of us were using T90's which were really good all round cameras. I shot a lot of my work in France with T90's instead of my F1's because the kit was lighter and a lot less expensive plus metering was better in low light (working the Festival of Pantomime in Avignon at night for example) . I think T90s are still fairly sought after in the used market or were last time I looked.


----------

