Canon - delighting you always

Not always.

Ignoring Leica, who have been operating in their own little expensive world since forever; and Epson with their low volume RD-1, it was Panasonic and Olympus who launched the concept of a compact system camera in 2008 with the micro four thirds (MFT) format. Sensors big enough to provide a quality image, small enough to enable lenses that matched body size and provided a small shooting solution. What could go wrong?

Nothing really, and the format has gone from strength to strength with a wide choice of improved bodies and an ever-expanding lens selection. I am a fan.

Sony observed the concept, saw that it was a winner, and came to play with their own take on the idea, the NEX series. Bigger sensor, which is good, which in turn required bigger lenses which is not so good. And the current Sony lens line-up is pretty weak; but at least there is some innovation in their bodies.

Also joining the compact systems party but with less success so far are Fuji, Pentax, Ricoh and Samsung; all with their own little variations on the theme.

So if you don’t want to take photos with a dumbed-down point & shoot (and why would you, just use your phone), and you don’t want to lug around a bulky DSLR and associated heavy lenses (and why would you, unless you are being paid to do so); then there is now a wide choice of cameras and lenses around which you can build a system.

Meanwhile, the two largest camera manufacturers in the world, Canon and Nikon, have spent the last four years with their heads in the sand hoping compact systems cameras would stop being the future and just fade away. If you already have a huge range of point & shoots and DSLRs, the last thing you want is a system that comes between the two and takes away sales from both.

But the big boys could not stay away for ever. And with their massive R&D budgets, plus learning from what has gone before, the world waited for game-changing offerings.

First to show their hand was Nikon with the 1 series. Plus Point: Fast auto-focus system in good light. Minus points: Almost everything else. Tiny sensor, lack of controls; basically a point & shoot with a weak selection of interchangeable lenses at a high price. It sold well at first, thanks in no small part to the Nikon marketing machine; but longer term I expect the system to fail.

And so the world waited for the Canon offering. What would one of the market leaders in cameras come up with? What exciting new features would they unveil to an expectant public?

This:

Oops, sorry, that was the Panasonic GF1 introduced more than three years ago. I mean this, the EOS-M:

Of course, being three years more advanced than the GF1, the EOS-M has better image quality. It also has no inbuilt flash, fewer controls, no provision for a viewfinder and slower auto-focus. That’s right, this advanced product of the Canon R&D department has slower focus than a camera of three years ago. Pathetic.

Still, there is the exciting (sarcasm alert) 22mm F2 pancake lens, only slightly inferior to the three year old Panasonic 20mm F1.7; plus an 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 zoom. Not much to start with; but we could get excited about the future lenses for this camera if there was some sort of roadmap of planned lenses; but there isn’t.

So, a glorified point and shoot with a bigger sensor, could be appealing for some at a price point of around $500. Except it is $800….

With Photokina coming up, there are going to be new PEN cameras from Olympus that will no doubt blow this away, even more than the existing PEN line already does.

Alternatively, you can buy the Panasonic GF5 with a power zoom lens and proper controls for less money:

Or for $700, body only, you can get the new G5, with articulated screen, built-in viewfinder, innovative touch screen focusing, on-board flash and, like the GF5, nearly instant focusing.

But Spike, I hear nobody saying, I can use the optional adapter to bolt on my current selection of Canon EF lenses! Indeed you can dear reader, then you can enjoy an even more degraded focusing experience which Engadget described as “almost painful”. Have fun with that.

Really, Canon, what is the point of this? Of course you will sell some, to people who believe only Canon make cameras. But the rest of us will just mock and go and use something else. It’s an overpriced point & shoot with a two lens option, feeble focus and nothing at all to differentiate it from the crowd. In the words of a fourteen year old: epic fail.

Seppuku for all involved please.

Comments 🔗

2012-07-24 | Ad says

Why do you think the non Canon/Nikon manufacturers didn’t join the m43 gang but instead came out with their own systems instead that would never really catch on? Surely if they joined in the m43 fun, people that had already invested in m43 could be interested in their cameras. If it’s a licencing issue, then surely it also makes sense for Olympus and Panasonic to let them in as it widens the number of people that would be buying their cameras and lenses.

2012-07-24 | TheSon says

Arrogance and pride, I reckons. Or throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

2012-07-24 | Spike says

I’ll go with the shit throwing; mainly because the concept amuses me.

2012-07-24 | Spanky says

You summarized what most think of the Canon’s offering. The only thing I can think of is that Canon is targeting those with heavy lens investments to try a smaller body. You could in theory slap on the smaller primes and have a decent enough shooting experience.

While Engadget may slam Canon’s adapter, the Olympus 4/3 to m43 adapter is just as painful to use. I sent it and a lens back back because focus lock when it did happen would take up to 30 seconds.

2012-07-24 | Spike says

I don’t think an “almost painful” focus is going to lead to a decent shooting experience. I agree on the 43 to M43 adaption; if you want to use those lovely lenses then you have to go manual. But Canon seem to be pitching one of the core reasons for owning this camera as being a mount for all those EF lenses that people own; and it is going to suck. Or perhaps we are all wrong. Ken Rockwelll reckons it’s “the world’s first serious mirrorless camera”…. http://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-m/m.htm

2012-07-24 | Spanky says

I firmly believe Ken Rockwell is a tool for the most part. Digital Rev is now my new favorite. It’s Top Gear meets photography. Close your eyes and listen to Kai talk and you would swear its James May.

2012-07-24 | Robin Parmar says

Besides your excellent photography, this is why I follow your blog… your spot-on accuracy when it comes to analysing the existing market. Nothing you say could I disagree with; you’ve saved me the time of writing my own blog entry.

2012-07-24 | Spike says

And Top Gear doesn’t have Alamby!

2012-07-24 | Robin Parmar says

I just read that horrifically stupid Rockwell “review”. To save the rest of you the agony:

“Sony, Samsung, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and other third-tier brands offer lots of mirrorless cameras, but then aren’t pro grade; they are just consumer electronics products and usually only with smaller 4/3 sensors (or smaller) and/or lens mounts often with few advanced lenses available. (First tier is LEICA, classic Hasselblad, Contax and others. Second tier is Nikon and Canon.)”

This is stupid on so many levels. First, he perpetuates the myth that gear can be “pro grade” and that it is your gear that makes you a professional. WRONG. Second, he somehow thinks that Canon glass is better than Olympus, Pentax, Voigtlander, and Zeiss (which don’t even get mentioned in his personal hierarchy). WRONG. Third, he thinks that the APS-C sensor is notably better than micro-four-thirds. WRONG. Finally, he figures that the Canon camera is somehow not the product of the same “consumer electronics” production chain as, say, Fuji and Panasonic. WRONG.

How can this guy be so wrong about so many things? He is basically a spammer who repeats a lie enough times to make it a “truth”. His only goal is to make money off the gullible who come to his site. He is nothing less than a bully, one of the most distasteful sides of photography I have encountered. Plus, he can’t write.

2012-07-24 | Spike says

Go on. do it anyway, and give us the link.

2012-07-24 | Galumay says

Be careful dissing Ken Rockwell, i remember when someone pulled him up on his review of the Fuji X100, he let loose with a terrible spray and all sorts of wild threats. As you say he is nothing but a bully.

2012-07-24 | Spanky says

True true!

2012-07-24 | Spanky says

Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think.

Great response and very accurate.

2012-07-24 | Robin Parmar says

I already wrote such an article, Open Letter To Ken Rockwell, and he responded. Now though I prefer not to feed the troll.

I have nothing to fear since I can back up all my statements with factual evidence. And also I have a certain willingness to engage lawyers should people cross the (legal) line.

2012-07-24 | Spike says

You certainly stuck it to Ken. Thanks for the link to your blog, looks like plenty of interesting stuff to read. Your shrine shot is stunning.

2012-07-25 | Clive says

The weird thing for me is the issue of size and weight of camera bodies. When I first became interested in photography, I bought myself a Minolta 7000 and then a Dynax 7i, which in their day were recognised as “Camera of the Year” candidates. Both were excellent. They were not far off the size of my Panasonic DMC-GX1 except they had a larger hand grip to accommodate a 35mm roll film. They worked brilliantly well.

But check out a size comparison between my GX1 and my EOS 7D…

http://camerasize.com/compare/#154,183

or worse, between a 7D and Canon’s recently announced 1DX:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#154,183

I also have a Powershot G12 with underwater housing, but comparing that with the G1X

http://camerasize.com/compare/#154,152

we once again see “bloat” creeping in. People tell me that the reason professional photographers like the 1DX body size is that it gives them balance when they are using L-Series [Canon professional] optics. Don’t get me wrong, I love using my 7D with L-Glass, but the body plus the 24-700mm f2.8 is mighty chunky, and if you tried the 7D and the 70-200mm on a neck strap, you’d need chiropractic help within minutes… But if balance is so important, how do Canon expect to achieve that with the EOS-M and say L-Series Glass on the front? And why would you build an adapter for EF lenses if not for good quality L Glass? Why, with all that we have achieved in miniaturisation, do all these cameras have to keep getting bigger and bigger?

Hopefully, the thing that will tip it will be the advent of specialised lens makers producing models for “standard” mounts like M43 and not for these one-make solutions from Canon, Nikon and Sony.

We’ll see…

2012-07-25 | Spike says

Here’s my GX1 next to my 1D: 2012_01_panasonic-gx1-review The 1D is so large because it has a massive battery which gives a 5,000 shot capacity. Then there is the 1.3 crop sensor and the space that requires, the mirror, prism and focus mechanism, the viewfinder, the magnesium body and a shitload of electronics. They probably couldn’t make it much smaller and lighter even if they wanted to. And yes the bulk does help with balance with a massive lens stuck on the front.

The EOS-M suffers from the same problem as the NEX; the body can be small, but the lenses have to be disproportionately bigger to cope with the sensor. Which is why they have made the pancake the “kit” lens rather than the more obvious zoom; because the zoom looks like crap hanging off the edge of the body. Bigger lenses will look even more stupid, will be hard to handle, and won’t focus worth a damn. Meantime, you can stick the sweet, tiny 45mm Olympus on the GX1 and go take great photos!

2012-07-25 | Robin Parmar says

I too have never bought the “camera balance” excuse for testosterone-pumping gear. If that was the case, there would be cameras the size of flight cases to balance the long fast optics many sports/wildlife shooters use. Instead, there’s this little thing called a tripod (and it’s cousin the monopod) which photographers can avail of. There are even tripod mounts for the lenses so a proper centre of gravity can be established. In these cases, the camera can be as small as needed with no problem.

A good number of people think that the bigger the camera, the more professional. Canon certainly seems to exploit this fallacy.

2012-08-03 | Spanky says

Not to dredge up a Ken Rockwell debate but I happened across this blog and the guy was more open to the Canon offering but isn’t sold. He does have some brilliant street photography shots. http://www.londonstreetphoto.org/

2012-08-03 | Spike says

He does have some good shots. He also reads Pattaya Days. Therefore, a talented man of culture.