Quote:I just can't see why Canon still crams a mirror box into this kind of size reduction effort while they just released an EOS M. Probably a cost mastery exercise?
It´s obviously a move targeted at mirrorless competitors to defend or expand market share and an interesting addition to the entry level interchangeable lens cameras mass market.
Quote:Isn't the bigger LCD already enough? That's why I got the 1D Mark II N, not the original 1D Mark II...
But anyways, the 30D had Spot metering, could set ISO in 1/3 stop increments, had Picture Styles (not sure anybody would care)... and of course the mighty Direct Print button! B)
The 20D had spot metering too, set it apart from the 350D which didn't.
Quote:UPD: Per DPReview, the other goodies included:
- Selectable continuous shooting speed;
- RGB Histogram;
- Larger buffer;
- ISO in viewfinder when changing;
- Record review magnify;
And some other stuff, most of which was also something that could've been done with a firmware update. I should've remembered it, since I owned a 30D for a couple of years (and used a 20D intermittently).
Quote:It´s obviously a move targeted at mirrorless competitors to defend or expand market share and an interesting addition to the entry level interchangeable lens cameras mass market.
Sammy, it is an obvious move market wide indeed. I don't discuss that. But I think they compete more with their own mirrorless than with others. As for an interesting addition, don't you think the mass market is starting to lean on mirrorless and that Canon had better improved the M?
Quote:Sammy, it is an obvious move market wide indeed. I don't discuss that. But I think they compete more with their own mirrorless than with others. As for an interesting addition, don't you think the mass market is starting to lean on mirrorless and that Canon had better improved the M?
I don't know... if you're an existing Canon system user, and you want something smaller, I don't think the M hits the spot for most. Pretty much any other mirroless system is more attractive right now. If the 100D is small enough, it could get picked instead of getting another mirroless system.
One part I'm still not sure of, is mirrorless taking sales away from mirrored? I'm not talking market share, where by definition mirrorless will likely continue to eat into mirrored. I'm wondering if that applies to absolute units shifted. Are DSLR unit sales significantly going to mirrorless, or, is it more like the Wii effect? When the original Wii came out, it didn't really take away unit sales from the 360 or PS3, but carved out a totally new market. So in market share it blew the old school out of the water, but it didn't really affect their unit sales.
As for improving the M, I'm sure it is in the pipeline.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Quote:The 20D had spot metering too, set it apart from the 350D which didn't.
Nah, the xxD line only got that with the 30D (I rechecked with the DPReview spec sheets, just in case my memory of these cameras were deceiving me). The xxxD line also got spot metering a couple of iterations later. The 1xxxD line as yet hasn't. No big deal either way - the larger screen was much more important for me back then.
But now... eh... The new lens looks far more significant than the body.
Quote:Nah, the xxD line only got that with the 30D (I rechecked with the DPReview spec sheets, just in case my memory of these cameras were deceiving me). The xxxD line also got spot metering a couple of iterations later. The 1xxxD line as yet hasn't. No big deal either way - the larger screen was much more important for me back then.
But now... eh... The new lens looks far more significant than the body.
Woah, you are right (of course).
And yes, the new lens is the real news.
Quote:As for an interesting addition, don't you think the mass market is starting to lean on mirrorless and that Canon had better improved the M?
The appearance of the 100D does not exlude an improved iteration of the M. Anyhow, provided Canon offers it cheap enough the 100D has plenty of mass market appeal. In the same period Canon may well sell more 100Ds than Pana and Oly do combined in total units.
Quote:It´s obviously a move targeted at mirrorless competitors to defend or expand market share and an interesting addition to the entry level interchangeable lens cameras mass market.
That's what I think too. Canon does seem to have a problem on the sensory front. We keep seeing the recycled 18MP sensor now for a long time, and the 7D II takes its time, because I think they want to get the next generation sensor in there, which they haven't really managed to release yet. And as obvious with the EOS-M, they have not managed to really solved well the AF in a mirror-less situation, even though they put the phase-dots on the sensor. In a way the 100D is an admission by Canon that they can't make a good AF on sensor yet, and they compete by shrinking the mirror-box body.
Now, if you think about it, those mirror-less cameras that do have a viewfinder, they are not that much smaller than the 100D, except for the depth due to the mount. So, for the higher end mirror-less market, a 100D with fast phase AF due to the mirror, should be a very compelling competition.
As for smaller lenses, only lenses in the approximately the 20 to 40mm focal range would benefit from the mirror-less design, due to reduced flange distance, so you don't need retrofocus lens designs. That's why you have e.g. the EOS-M 22mm pancake, but the EF/EF-S pancake is 40mm. The larger lenses still would stay essentially the same since the sensor is the same for APS-C, where focal length and aperture dictate size of the lens. m4/3 and 4/3 would have a bit of an advantage because of smaller lenses, due to a little smaller image circle, and shorter focal lengths that give you a bit extended reach (the "crop" factor advantage). But the extended reach works only if m4/3 has a higher pixel density. If Canon would manage to come up with a 24Mp sensor that is similar quality as the 16MP in the Olympus OMD EM-5 (and Sony/Nikon have those already), then there is no advantage for 4/3 anymore either, since you just crop the image. The only advantage remaining is the smaller image circle, which disappears for tele lenses. And the pixel density on sensors can't be made smaller forever, due to diffraction, it's effect can already be seen here in the lens tests.
|
