What the M is

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Jul 24, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    David Taylor Guest

    On 27/07/2012 21:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <jutul7$8mj$>, david-
    > d says...
    >> I could easily get through more than 230 shots on a busy day - it would
    >> be a major limitation for me.

    >
    > Why don't you just carry some spare batteries with you? Seems to be no
    > big deal changing the battery once or twice a day.


    Back in the bad old days I used to carry two spare batteries for my P&S,
    and on more than one occasion I needed both, meaning that the camera had
    required three batteries for a day's hobbyist shooting. Recharging all
    three overnight became quite a dance! When to change batteries can also
    be an issue - you don't want to be changing batteries at the start of a
    motor race, for example, meaning that you need to check the battery
    state and act well in advance.

    Today I still carry one spare battery for my DSLR in the event of
    problems, although the only time I recall needing it was to help out
    someone who did not, unlike me, keep the batteries charged whatever
    their need. (I still charge nightly when I'm on a shoot, on holiday).
    The need to worry about battery state no longer exists, and I'm very
    unlikely to miss a shot through the battery running out.

    Going back to /needing/ to carry spare batteries routinely for a day's
    shoot seems very backward, when for a few more grams the problem could
    have been averted. I don't expect the special-to-type Canon batteries
    to be particularly low-cost, either.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jul 28, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > On 7/27/2012 2:24 PM, Robert Coe wrote:


    >> Yeah, but remember that what started this thread was my speculation that the
    >> true objective of the M product line is to eventually introduce much more
    >> serious cameras, an objective that is likely to be thwarted in the short term
    >> by the high power demands of a mirrorless camera and batteries not yet ready
    >> to cope adequately with those demands.


    > I've got a Canon 7D, and took 1600 picture during my
    > vacation in Borneo.


    > I really really like the 7D. Its auto focus is much better than my
    > old 30D. At least for flat subjects, that is, or
    > at least large objects more than filling the active sensor ...
    > like say a human head filling the center 1/4 of the frame.


    > But ... I took lots of pictures of wildlife amongst trees.
    > Mostly birds, monkeys, and orangutangs.


    > Even at 300mm autofocus often cannot cope. There's
    > too much near ... or even actually in front of ...
    > the desired object for autofocus to work correctly.


    > But of course live view and manual focus works. And it
    > works much better than the optical viewfinder since you can
    > get 10x magnification view on the back LCD screen.


    > AND THIS EATS THE BATTERY UP JUST LIKE a mirrorless camera.


    Worse, because it takes power to hold the mirror up.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss
    events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 29, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. On 7/29/2012 1:35 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >
    >> But of course live view and manual focus works. And it
    >> works much better than the optical viewfinder since you can
    >> get 10x magnification view on the back LCD screen.

    >
    >> AND THIS EATS THE BATTERY UP JUST LIKE a mirrorless camera.

    >
    > Worse, because it takes power to hold the mirror up.
    >


    Not necessarily. In olden times we assumed, probably correctly, that
    that was true.

    But there is no reason that a latching system that requires no hold
    power could not be used. I have no idea if my camera or any other does
    do that, but it sure makes sense to do so.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Jul 29, 2012
    #23
  4. Robert Coe

    Me Guest

    On 28/07/2012 11:44 a.m., Wally wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:24:59 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:32:59 -0600, Wally <> wrote:
    >> : On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:34:09 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> : <> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : >On 2012-07-27 01:32 , Wally wrote:
    >> : >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:52:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >> : >
    >> : >>> Really. The Canon Web site predicts that the M will average 230 pictures on a
    >> : >>> battery charge. With no built-in flash to help slurp up watts. Sad.
    >> : >>
    >> : >> That's not a problem for me. 230 pics is a lot of pics. If you need
    >> : >> more, get an extra battery.
    >> : >
    >> : >230 is not much when you consider that you may not get to re-charge the
    >> : >battery often. I have 2 batts for my camera but it's rare that I run
    >> : >one down during a single days shooting. That doesn't mean I'll be in
    >> : >position to recharge it before the next day, however.
    >> :
    >> : I did some cursory checks of my shooting and found on some occasions I
    >> : do around 300+ shots per day - not often, but often enough. (I'm an
    >> : amateur.)
    >> :
    >> : But I wouldn't do such shooting on the M. The M would be taken along
    >> : on days such as where I don't expect to shoot, or in situations where
    >> : a DSLR is a bit out of place.
    >>
    >> Yeah, but remember that what started this thread was my speculation that the
    >> true objective of the M product line is to eventually introduce much more
    >> serious cameras, an objective that is likely to be thwarted in the short term
    >> by the high power demands of a mirrorless camera and batteries not yet ready
    >> to cope adequately with those demands.

    >
    > Yes, the M mount seems to have the potential to grow into a serious
    > APS-C line with sophisticated bodies and smaller lenses.
    >
    > Unfortunately the new EF-M 18-55mm zoom is actually slightly heavier
    > than the EF-S version, and that is for now an indication that we might
    > be too optimistic.
    >

    If it's got more or less the same optics, but could be assumed to have a
    different and unlikely to be smaller focus motor - to be less noisy for
    movie shooting, and perhaps optimised for on-sensor PDAF, and the lens
    body has to be longer in order to suit the new lens mount flange
    distance, then yes, if you were expecting more compact kit zoom lenses,
    you might have been a bit optimistic.

    Nikon actually had the right idea for "compact" with the 1 system. What
    they completely cocked up (IMHO) is that the system was of little
    interest to Nikon F system users who probably hoped for at least an
    APS-c system like the EOS-m, little interest to "serious" upgraders from
    P&S cameras, as many of them would see little advantage to moving to
    such a limited and potentially orphan system, and for the market who
    might just want to shell out the large $$$ Nikon asked for a new gadget,
    they made the damned cameras ugly, unappealing, and not even
    particularly small.
    IMO the hope for the system would have been if they'd made an appealing
    pro-featured body, and a few fast normal/wide primes. Still a long
    shot, but as a Nikon user, I would have given it some consideration, and
    probably recommended at least looking at it as an option when people I
    know ask for advice (and they do, for better or for worse).
    Me, Jul 30, 2012
    #24
  5. In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    > On 7/29/2012 1:35 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:


    >>> But of course live view and manual focus works. And it
    >>> works much better than the optical viewfinder since you can
    >>> get 10x magnification view on the back LCD screen.

    >>
    >>> AND THIS EATS THE BATTERY UP JUST LIKE a mirrorless camera.

    >>
    >> Worse, because it takes power to hold the mirror up.


    > Not necessarily. In olden times we assumed, probably correctly, that
    > that was true.


    > But there is no reason that a latching system that requires no hold
    > power could not be used. I have no idea if my camera or any other does
    > do that, but it sure makes sense to do so.


    If you were designing the best camera of course it makes sense. But if
    it matters to keep the cost of the camera down it might equally make
    good sense not to add an electronically controllable latch.

    There's certainly no latch on my Sony A550. If it thinks there's not
    enough power to hold up the mirror for a long time for sensor cleaning
    purposes it will refuse, although there's plenty of power for all
    other camera purposes.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 30, 2012
    #25
  6. Robert Coe

    Trevor Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald <> wrote:
    >> On 7/29/2012 1:35 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >
    >>>> But of course live view and manual focus works. And it
    >>>> works much better than the optical viewfinder since you can
    >>>> get 10x magnification view on the back LCD screen.
    >>>
    >>>> AND THIS EATS THE BATTERY UP JUST LIKE a mirrorless camera.
    >>>
    >>> Worse, because it takes power to hold the mirror up.

    >
    >> Not necessarily. In olden times we assumed, probably correctly, that
    >> that was true.

    >
    >> But there is no reason that a latching system that requires no hold
    >> power could not be used. I have no idea if my camera or any other does
    >> do that, but it sure makes sense to do so.

    >
    > If you were designing the best camera of course it makes sense. But if
    > it matters to keep the cost of the camera down it might equally make
    > good sense not to add an electronically controllable latch.
    >
    > There's certainly no latch on my Sony A550. If it thinks there's not
    > enough power to hold up the mirror for a long time for sensor cleaning
    > purposes it will refuse, although there's plenty of power for all
    > other camera purposes.


    Yep, all my Canon's warn that there should be sufficient power available for
    sensor cleaning mirror lockup as well.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jul 30, 2012
    #26
  7. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    David Taylor <> wrote:
    >On 27/07/2012 21:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <jutul7$8mj$>, david-
    >> d says...
    >>> I could easily get through more than 230 shots on a busy day - it would
    >>> be a major limitation for me.

    >>
    >> Why don't you just carry some spare batteries with you? Seems to be no
    >> big deal changing the battery once or twice a day.

    >
    >Back in the bad old days I used to carry two spare batteries for my P&S,
    >and on more than one occasion I needed both, meaning that the camera had
    >required three batteries for a day's hobbyist shooting. Recharging all
    >three overnight became quite a dance! When to change batteries can also
    >be an issue - you don't want to be changing batteries at the start of a
    >motor race, for example, meaning that you need to check the battery
    >state and act well in advance.
    >
    >Today I still carry one spare battery for my DSLR in the event of
    >problems, although the only time I recall needing it was to help out
    >someone who did not, unlike me, keep the batteries charged whatever
    >their need. (I still charge nightly when I'm on a shoot, on holiday).
    >The need to worry about battery state no longer exists, and I'm very
    >unlikely to miss a shot through the battery running out.
    >
    >Going back to /needing/ to carry spare batteries routinely for a day's
    >shoot seems very backward, when for a few more grams the problem could
    >have been averted. I don't expect the special-to-type Canon batteries
    >to be particularly low-cost, either.



    For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.

    The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    control buttons, wheels etc..

    Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    market.

    We have been overwhelmed by pre-orders for the EOS M. The previous
    rush was pre-orders for the Olympus OM-D E-M5. We have only just
    managed to get stock of those to put on display and on the store
    shelves; until now the OM-D kits have gone out to pre-order buyers
    within a couple of days of delivery,
    Bruce, Jul 30, 2012
    #27
  8. Robert Coe

    David Taylor Guest

    On 30/07/2012 20:00, Bruce wrote:
    []

    > For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.
    >
    > The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    > firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    > who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    > want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    > control buttons, wheels etc..
    >
    > Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    > features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    > model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    > market.
    >
    > We have been overwhelmed by pre-orders for the EOS M. The previous
    > rush was pre-orders for the Olympus OM-D E-M5. We have only just
    > managed to get stock of those to put on display and on the store
    > shelves; until now the OM-D kits have gone out to pre-order buyers
    > within a couple of days of delivery,


    Thanks.

    For consumers trading up, I'm surprised they can't find a better way to
    spend their hard-earned money. The camera and its lenses aren't that
    cheap, but perhaps the margin is rather high. Surprising how much value
    is placed on a brand name.

    No wonder dealers are enthusiastic....
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jul 30, 2012
    #28
  9. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 30/07/2012 20:00, Bruce wrote:
    >[]
    >
    >> For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.
    >>
    >> The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    >> firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    >> who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    >> want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    >> control buttons, wheels etc..
    >>
    >> Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    >> features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    >> model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    >> market.
    >>
    >> We have been overwhelmed by pre-orders for the EOS M. The previous
    >> rush was pre-orders for the Olympus OM-D E-M5. We have only just
    >> managed to get stock of those to put on display and on the store
    >> shelves; until now the OM-D kits have gone out to pre-order buyers
    >> within a couple of days of delivery,

    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >For consumers trading up, I'm surprised they can't find a better way to
    >spend their hard-earned money. The camera and its lenses aren't that
    >cheap, but perhaps the margin is rather high. Surprising how much value
    >is placed on a brand name.
    >
    >No wonder dealers are enthusiastic....



    The dealer margin is exactly the same as for any Canon SLR or G series
    P&S. What dealers want is to sell lots of lenses and accessories
    because they carry better margins than camera bodies.

    Canon is obviously doing what Nikon did with the 1 Series, Pentax with
    the Q System and Olympus with the OM-D E-M5. In each case, the launch
    prices were high and early adopters paid a considerable premium over
    the street prices 6-12 months later.

    Actually, the OM-D price drop hasn't happened yet - it hasn't been
    available for long - but it surely will. ;-)

    As for the value of the Canon brand, no-one ever got fired for buying
    a Canon, or a Nikon for that matter.
    Bruce, Jul 30, 2012
    #29
  10. Robert Coe

    David Taylor Guest

    On 30/07/2012 21:06, Bruce wrote:
    []

    > The dealer margin is exactly the same as for any Canon SLR or G series
    > P&S. What dealers want is to sell lots of lenses and accessories
    > because they carry better margins than camera bodies.


    Yes, I can appreciate that. Somehow, though, if I was buying all those
    accesories I would want a better body for them, and if I was upgrading
    from P&S I would want a more complete camera - e.g. one with flash.

    > Canon is obviously doing what Nikon did with the 1 Series, Pentax with
    > the Q System and Olympus with the OM-D E-M5. In each case, the launch
    > prices were high and early adopters paid a considerable premium over
    > the street prices 6-12 months later.


    Makes reminder to self to wait for the D5200!

    > Actually, the OM-D price drop hasn't happened yet - it hasn't been
    > available for long - but it surely will. ;-)
    >
    > As for the value of the Canon brand, no-one ever got fired for buying
    > a Canon, or a Nikon for that matter.


    LOL!

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jul 31, 2012
    #30
  11. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:56:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >: Robert Coe <> wrote:


    >: > Because today a processor fast enough to drive the necessary high-resolution
    >: > EVF would be too inefficient for the job; i.e., it would run too hot and go
    >: > through batteries too fast.


    >: Really?


    > Really. The Canon Web site predicts that the M will average 230 pictures on a
    > battery charge. With no built-in flash to help slurp up watts. Sad.


    And that has exactly what to do with a processor driving an EVF,
    when the CIPA battery life is low because the back display eats
    the battery (please do look up the CIPA routine for measuring
    battery life)?

    That's as logical as "the swimmers didn't get an olympic medal
    because the fencers were fighting".

    If you need more battery life, buy an extra battery. Or use
    a DSLR.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 31, 2012
    #31
  12. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>,


    >> That's not a problem for me. 230 pics is a lot of pics. If you need
    >> more, get an extra battery.


    > Seems to be a problem for Wolfgang, who needs at least 900 shots on a
    > battery charge.


    Do you like misrepresenting what I say?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 31, 2012
    #32
  13. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:00:41 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : David Taylor <> wrote:
    : >On 27/07/2012 21:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    : >> In article <jutul7$8mj$>, david-
    : >> d says...
    : >>> I could easily get through more than 230 shots on a busy day - it would
    : >>> be a major limitation for me.
    : >>
    : >> Why don't you just carry some spare batteries with you? Seems to be no
    : >> big deal changing the battery once or twice a day.
    : >
    : >Back in the bad old days I used to carry two spare batteries for my P&S,
    : >and on more than one occasion I needed both, meaning that the camera had
    : >required three batteries for a day's hobbyist shooting. Recharging all
    : >three overnight became quite a dance! When to change batteries can also
    : >be an issue - you don't want to be changing batteries at the start of a
    : >motor race, for example, meaning that you need to check the battery
    : >state and act well in advance.
    : >
    : >Today I still carry one spare battery for my DSLR in the event of
    : >problems, although the only time I recall needing it was to help out
    : >someone who did not, unlike me, keep the batteries charged whatever
    : >their need. (I still charge nightly when I'm on a shoot, on holiday).
    : >The need to worry about battery state no longer exists, and I'm very
    : >unlikely to miss a shot through the battery running out.
    : >
    : >Going back to /needing/ to carry spare batteries routinely for a day's
    : >shoot seems very backward, when for a few more grams the problem could
    : >have been averted. I don't expect the special-to-type Canon batteries
    : >to be particularly low-cost, either.
    :
    :
    : For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.
    :
    : The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    : firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    : who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    : want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    : control buttons, wheels etc..
    :
    : Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    : features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    : model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    : market.

    It had better have room for at least twice as many batteries as the M. 230
    shots per charge is *not* adequate for serious photography. (Yeah, it will do
    for landscapes, but certainly not for events. IMO.)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 3, 2012
    #33
  14. Robert Coe

    David Taylor Guest

    On 03/08/2012 00:03, Robert Coe wrote:
    []
    > It had better have room for at least twice as many batteries as the M. 230
    > shots per charge is *not* adequate for serious photography. (Yeah, it will do
    > for landscapes, but certainly not for events. IMO.)
    >
    > Bob


    What's the betting that when, or if, a newer model comes along it will
    need yet another incompatible, expensive, proprietary battery?
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Aug 3, 2012
    #34
  15. Robert Coe

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:00:41 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: David Taylor <> wrote:
    >: >On 27/07/2012 21:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >: >> In article <jutul7$8mj$>, david-
    >: >> d says...
    >: >>> I could easily get through more than 230 shots on a busy day - it would
    >: >>> be a major limitation for me.
    >: >>
    >: >> Why don't you just carry some spare batteries with you? Seems to be no
    >: >> big deal changing the battery once or twice a day.
    >: >
    >: >Back in the bad old days I used to carry two spare batteries for my P&S,
    >: >and on more than one occasion I needed both, meaning that the camera had
    >: >required three batteries for a day's hobbyist shooting. Recharging all
    >: >three overnight became quite a dance! When to change batteries can also
    >: >be an issue - you don't want to be changing batteries at the start of a
    >: >motor race, for example, meaning that you need to check the battery
    >: >state and act well in advance.
    >: >
    >: >Today I still carry one spare battery for my DSLR in the event of
    >: >problems, although the only time I recall needing it was to help out
    >: >someone who did not, unlike me, keep the batteries charged whatever
    >: >their need. (I still charge nightly when I'm on a shoot, on holiday).
    >: >The need to worry about battery state no longer exists, and I'm very
    >: >unlikely to miss a shot through the battery running out.
    >: >
    >: >Going back to /needing/ to carry spare batteries routinely for a day's
    >: >shoot seems very backward, when for a few more grams the problem could
    >: >have been averted. I don't expect the special-to-type Canon batteries
    >: >to be particularly low-cost, either.
    >:
    >:
    >: For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.
    >:
    >: The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    >: firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    >: who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    >: want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    >: control buttons, wheels etc..
    >:
    >: Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    >: features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    >: model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    >: market.
    >
    >It had better have room for at least twice as many batteries as the M. 230
    >shots per charge is *not* adequate for serious photography. (Yeah, it will do
    >for landscapes, but certainly not for events. IMO.)



    The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    firmly at the consumer market.
    Bruce, Aug 3, 2012
    #35
  16. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:33:37 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:00:41 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : >: David Taylor <> wrote:
    : >: >Going back to /needing/ to carry spare batteries routinely for a day's
    : >: >shoot seems very backward, when for a few more grams the problem could
    : >: >have been averted. I don't expect the special-to-type Canon batteries
    : >: >to be particularly low-cost, either.
    : >:
    : >:
    : >: For the target market, 230 shots per charge is more than adequate.
    : >:
    : >: The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed
    : >: firmly at the consumer market. Specifically, it is aimed at people
    : >: who are trading up from a P&S for better image quality but who don't
    : >: want to be troubled by a complex user interface or a large array of
    : >: control buttons, wheels etc..
    : >:
    : >: Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    : >: features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    : >: model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    : >: market.
    : >
    : >It had better have room for at least twice as many batteries as the M.
    : >230 shots per charge is *not* adequate for serious photography. (Yeah,
    : >it will do for landscapes, but certainly not for events. IMO.)
    :
    : The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed firmly
    : at the consumer market.

    Sorry, I meant to make it clear that I was referring to the "more advanced
    model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast market".
    And my point is that if the M gets only 230 shots/charge, the enthusiast
    model, with additional watt-guzzling features and a less easily satisfied
    clientele, will require a significantly beefier power source.

    Let's face it: Canon knows they're on shaky ground here. You'll have noticed
    that one of the first accessories available for the M is an AC adapter. What
    other recent "consumer" camera needs that?

    And don't conclude that I'm reflexively panning the M. Far from it. The very
    fact that Canon may be in over their heads shows that they're thinking bigger
    than their competitors. And we Canonians should eventually be better off for
    that.

    Speaking of Canon, where the hell is that firmware upgrade to the 7D that was
    touted, for August availability, with such fanfare back in June?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 3, 2012
    #36
  17. Robert Coe

    Wally Guest

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:55:34 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:33:37 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:00:41 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: >:
    >: >: Judged from an enthusiast's point of view, the camera is lacking some
    >: >: features and performance. But there will be another, more advanced
    >: >: model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast
    >: >: market.
    >: The camera is NOT aimed at enthusiast photographers, it is aimed firmly
    >: at the consumer market.
    >
    >Sorry, I meant to make it clear that I was referring to the "more advanced
    >model a few months from now which will better address the enthusiast market".
    >And my point is that if the M gets only 230 shots/charge, the enthusiast
    >model, with additional watt-guzzling features and a less easily satisfied
    >clientele, will require a significantly beefier power source.
    >
    >Let's face it: Canon knows they're on shaky ground here. You'll have noticed
    >that one of the first accessories available for the M is an AC adapter. What
    >other recent "consumer" camera needs that?
    >
    >And don't conclude that I'm reflexively panning the M. Far from it. The very
    >fact that Canon may be in over their heads shows that they're thinking bigger
    >than their competitors. And we Canonians should eventually be better off for
    >that.


    Canon's cameras have been getting bigger and heavier over the years.
    And pro cameras are heftier than the lesser models. I guess there's a
    perception that bigger is better. We pay for this in our backs.

    We have major size inflation happening in Canon digital cameras!

    Happened to be sitting beside someone yesterday with a Canon G11, a
    "compact" camera. That thing was collosal, bigger than the film
    rangefinders of yore.

    It takes a company like Sony to innovate and come out with a
    groundbreaker like the RX100. I hope it breaks the cycle!

    Compared to the RX100, the new Canon M is (IMHO) way too big, and
    double the price too.

    Canon will need to confront its culture of bigness.

    We could be due for a successor to the 7D soon. I hope the 7D2 is
    smaller and lighter than the 7D!

    Wally
    Wally, Aug 3, 2012
    #37
  18. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:44:01 -0600, Wally <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:55:34 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >Let's face it: Canon knows they're on shaky ground here. You'll have noticed
    : >that one of the first accessories available for the M is an AC adapter. What
    : >other recent "consumer" camera needs that?
    : >
    : >And don't conclude that I'm reflexively panning the M. Far from it. The very
    : >fact that Canon may be in over their heads shows that they're thinking bigger
    : >than their competitors. And we Canonians should eventually be better off for
    : >that.
    :
    : Canon's cameras have been getting bigger and heavier over the years.
    : And pro cameras are heftier than the lesser models. I guess there's a
    : perception that bigger is better. We pay for this in our backs.

    I meant bigger thoughts, not bigger cameras. All else equal, a mirrorless
    camera should be smaller. But a camera with an APS-C sensor is almost
    certainly going to have to be larger than the cameras with the little toy
    sensors from Nikon et al.

    : We have major size inflation happening in Canon digital cameras!
    :
    : Happened to be sitting beside someone yesterday with a Canon G11, a
    : "compact" camera. That thing was collosal, bigger than the film
    : rangefinders of yore.
    :
    : It takes a company like Sony to innovate and come out with a
    : groundbreaker like the RX100. I hope it breaks the cycle!
    :
    : Compared to the RX100, the new Canon M is (IMHO) way too big, and
    : double the price too.
    :
    : Canon will need to confront its culture of bigness.
    :
    : We could be due for a successor to the 7D soon. I hope the 7D2 is
    : smaller and lighter than the 7D!

    You may be barking up the wrong tree. I don't believe I have a single lens
    that I use regularly on my 7D's that isn't at least as heavy as the camera
    body.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 3, 2012
    #38
  19. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:01:45 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:56:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    : > <> wrote:
    : >: Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >: > Because today a processor fast enough to drive the necessary high-resolution
    : >: > EVF would be too inefficient for the job; i.e., it would run too hot and go
    : >: > through batteries too fast.
    :
    : >: Really?
    :
    : > Really. The Canon Web site predicts that the M will average 230 pictures on a
    : > battery charge. With no built-in flash to help slurp up watts. Sad.
    :
    : And that has exactly what to do with a processor driving an EVF,
    : when the CIPA battery life is low because the back display eats
    : the battery (please do look up the CIPA routine for measuring
    : battery life)?

    Pretty much everything, I'd say. Power is fungible, except in an add-on flash.
    Whatever power the dual processors use to drive the EVF, the back display
    doesn't get. Etc.

    : That's as logical as "the swimmers didn't get an olympic medal
    : because the fencers were fighting".

    No, it's like "The swimmers couldn't race because there was only enough power
    to light the fencing venue."

    : If you need more battery life, buy an extra battery. Or use
    : a DSLR.

    Well, you can't say I don't take your advice. I have three DSLR's (four if you
    count my old 400D) and lots of batteries (five for my two 7D's and several
    more for the other two cameras).

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 3, 2012
    #39
  20. In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012-07-26 05:16 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>> On 2012-07-24 21:43 , Trevor wrote:
    >>>> "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:43:32 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    >>>>> : This was my point, if you have to have it, then better that it uses less
    >>>>> : power (like an EVF) than a large rear LCD!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When's the last time you saw a digital camera without a rear LCD,
    >>>>> regardless
    >>>>> of what other kind of viewfinder it did or didn't have?
    >>>>
    >>>> No need to run a rear LCD permanently if you have an OVF/EVF though, you
    >>>> only need turn it on *if* you want to review. I cant see any reason why a

    >>
    >>> Do any of the EVF's allow review using the EVF's? I can go long periods
    >>> with my eye in the VF while operating controls. Quick reviews there
    >>> would be handy.

    >>
    >> Over the years Sony's EVFs have offered increasing amounts of preview
    >> and extra information in a variety of customisable modes and choice
    >> selections. The A77 and NEX7 are probably the most sophisticated so
    >> far.


    > Good. I meant however: "can I 'review' taken photos in the EVF?" The
    > point being not only keeping my eye in the EVF but it also seems a good
    > way to shade from the sun while reviewing.


    I'm not an owner, nor have I read the manual, but since you asked I
    have seen some owners mention reviewing their shots via the EVF. I got
    the impression you can arrange for the EVF to do whatever the LCD can
    do.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 4, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page