Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by RT_Panther, Aug 1, 2012.
First Impressions: Canon EOS M
"...Olympus EPM1. Overall, the EOS M felt more solid and a bit heavier due to the build quality being magnesium/aluminum."
Isn't the EPM1 also aluminum? And isn't magnesium lighter than aluminum?
(serious questions...not being snarky)
Possibly the slight larger size of the EOS M is the reason for it being a bit heavier.
For cameras designed to be small and compact in this price range, I see little benefit for a magnesium/aluminum frame.
The blog also said that AF was painfully slow... darn.. looks like Canon didn't solve the issue that most mirrorless cameras suffer when put head to head with DSLRs.
Isn't the construction on the E-PM1 plastic frame with an aluminum skin? That could account for EOS M feeling heavier (and likely more stiff).
What I will never understand about the E-PM1 or the EOS M is why cameras that are supposed to be step-ups from P&S do not have integrated flash. "Casual" shooters don't want the inconvenience and size of a separate flash, imo, and they are not so likely to be buying fast primes to shoot available light.
I'm imagining lots of bad holiday photos this year from people trying to use the EOS M and kit lens, that Santa brought for them, indoors with marginal lighting.
Doesn't really matter I guess...was just an observation.
I'm thinking that Canon could have gone the same route as Olympus and made the body out of a cheaper material (while still being decent and perfectly acceptable) and made the pricing more competitive. Magnesium is a nice feature on any camera though I suppose.
Pretty much supports my initial feelings. The lack of a built-in flash and the price seem like real negatives for most of the intended market (P&S upgraders), and the accessory flash is huge relative to the camera.
For the more advanced market, which might accept the price and flash, it seems extremely limited in features, lens support and AF performance. And for the EOS owner who's looking for a smaller camera to use with existing lenses, the AF just doesn't seem to cut it.
It just seems too "in-between," and doesn't address any particular need or market very well. But given that Canon will probably spend $10 or $20 million on the launch campaign alone, none of that may matter.
Regarding the blog review itself, I had to laugh at the comment that the AF with EOS lenses is slow because they have all that heavy glass to move around. The AF motor is in the lens, and perfectly sized to move "all that heavy glass." EOS cameras have no problem moving all that glass very quickly. Just more evidence that you don't need to know what you're writing about to have a blog.
Whether it's Canon's first EVIL camera or not, just barely being ahead of 3-4 year old live-view AF technology isn't very appealing. Eventually it may become something great but so far the hybrid CDAF/PDAF doesn't seem to be living up to it's promise. I was all ready to go and buy one of these, but at this stage all signs are pointing to no.
In the morning I move slowly, since I have to move all that heavy.......glass
Shame about this cameras weak points from initial reviews I have read (slow to lock focus, 3 fps), I'm surprised Canon didn't have an initial release into the mirrorless world that knocked everyone's socks off. They are damn near the last players to enter the game and had all that free market research of other companies releases to gather intel on. Seemed they dropped the ball.
I believe all Olympus m4/3 camera bodies have a plastic frame.
The reason that the Canon EOS M has a stronger frame is to reduce or eliminate the risk of distortion of the lens flange/sensor assembly when a large and heavy EF lens is fitted.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.