Canon Releases EOS M Digital SLR Camera

[Guest]

If you just don't want to deal with the weight of DSLR cameras, but want to take advantage of different lens capabilities, this is about as good as it gets.

Canon Releases EOS M Digital SLR Camera : Read more

 

[aracheb]

too expensive.
for that amount of money you can buy
a Rebel t3i with a 18-55 lens
or if you already have the lenses like me.
just buy the rebel t4i body.

 

[centaurius]

I will take one, who's willing to give me one?

 

[masterasia]

I'm a Canon user. I'm ready to make the switch to Nikon. D800 here I come. Canon has nothing left in the tank.

 

[tomrippity02]

What does Nikon offer that really makes it worth the investment to switch? That would a multi-thousand dollar transition.

 

[dotaloc]

[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]I'm a Canon user. I'm ready to make the switch to Nikon. D800 here I come. Canon has nothing left in the tank.[/citation]

I'm a Nikon user, but have always been brand neutral (if you own Canon lenses, get a canon...same for Nikon gear). The photographer matters more than the equipment. Blah. But a friend of mine who has been a Canon user for the last 2 cameras recently made the same statement to me citing frequent camera breakages with costly repairs. I'm pretty sweet to my Nikons (2 aging D70s), but have never had any trouble...and self-clean the sensors.

Interesting product, though, despite the higher than expected price. Hope it works well and takes quality pictures.

 

[peevee]

This is definitely NOT "about as good as it gets". There are MUCH better choice in mirrorless market.

 

[alidan]

i have a question...
what makes a dslr cost more than a non slr... im talking about bodies alone, not the lenses, lenses i know why they cost more.

is it the mechanics in the camers... i know many can at least handle 3 shots a second, and some of the higher cost ones getting somewhere around 10.

is it the sensor itself? what makes it more expensive... its it just the process that does it, or just that so few are made that they can artificially raise the price?

 

[chipchip1971]

The title is misleading since DSRLs are NOT mirrorless systems.

 

[milktea]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i have a question...what makes a dslr cost more than a non slr..[/citation]
There are subtle differences. Ease of use and Ergonomics are just a few to name. Just think about trying to switch Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO value in a non-SLR camera; it's painful. And for a pro, those should be done in ease. Speed is everything when the pros are competing.

Also higher end models have Magnesium Alloy bodies and environmental seals. Try taking your point and shoot to a windy beach and use it for a few days. You'll start noticing white sticky dust in your pictures. And no easy way for you to clean your sensors.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]milktea[/nom]There are subtle differences. Ease of use and Ergonomics are just a few to name. Just think about trying to switch Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO value in a non-SLR camera; it's painful. And for a pro, those should be done in ease. Speed is everything when the pros are competing.Also higher end models have Magnesium Alloy bodies and environmental seals. Try taking your point and shoot to a windy beach and use it for a few days. You'll start noticing white sticky dust in your pictures. And no easy way for you to clean your sensors.[/citation]

i wasnt thinking about the high end range, i was thinking more along the lines of the entry level, sub 2000$ cameras...

i have seen their picture quality, and i know its not all about the lenses.

the speed at which you can change iso shutter speed, and aperture cant be the only reason that a dslr in the low range is more expensive, i know enough people who take their time to get a shot perfect, so all the changes you said would be moot for them, and the pros that need that wont be getting a lower end camera, they would probably be in the 5 grand+ range.

im not discounting what you said, but i cant believe that those are the only reasons they are more expensive.

 

[chipchip1971]

The conceptual benefits of mirrorless systems are beautifully espoused on the micro4/3 website, the original mirrorless concept system. http/www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/

Shame on Canon, Nikon and Sony for implementing their own proprietary system thereby locking consumers on one platform. At least with the micro4/3 system, one can choose between Olympus and Panasonic (two very experienced manufacturers of mirrorless systems). I own an Olympus PEN-EP3 myself.

 

[peevee]

alidan: "Just think about trying to switch Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO value in a non-SLR camera; it's painful."

WRONG, the controls (dials and buttons) " to switch Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO value" have nothing to do with the presence of the mirror (defining SLR). In fact, most consumer-level SLRs (Canon Rebels etc) do not have enough controls for full manual control (just one dial), and good mirrorless cameras, like Olumpus OM-D E-M5, Sony NEX-7 and Fuji X-Pro1, are much better in this regard.

 

[peevee]

Oops, it should have been addressed to milktea.

 

[alidan]

so everyone know, im still wondering what exactly makes slr, and the mirror less counter parts cost so much more than a consumer camera, excluding the glass.

 

[peevee]

alidan, sensors of better cameras (including most mirrorless and DSLRs) are much bigger than the typical sensors in point-and-shoot cameras (so called 1/2.3", really 6x4.5mm). For example, sensor in Nikon 1 system is about 4 times bigger, in 4/3 and micro Four Thirds system is 8 times bigger, sensor in APS-C cameras is 11.8(Canon)/12.7(everybody else) times bigger and in "full frame" cameras about 31 times bigger. This provides huge advantages in light gathering ability and charge retention, roughly proportional to the sensors' area at the same f-number of the lens for sensors of the same generation, giving bigger sensors much better abilities to shoot at low light and much wider dynamic range at any light. But at the same time bigger sensors are disproportionally more expensive to make.
Also usually interchengeable lens cameras have faster processors, better screens, often provide viewfinders (optical for DSLRs, electronic in mirrorless cams and Sony DSLTs). And the cheapest of them are not that expensive, for example Olympus E-PL1 can be had for $129 now (it is pretty old though).

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]peevee[/nom]alidan, sensors of better cameras (including most mirrorless and DSLRs) are much bigger than the typical sensors in point-and-shoot cameras (so called 1/2.3", really 6x4.5mm). For example, sensor in Nikon 1 system is about 4 times bigger, in 4/3 and micro Four Thirds system is 8 times bigger, sensor in APS-C cameras is 11.8(Canon)/12.7(everybody else) times bigger and in "full frame" cameras about 31 times bigger. This provides huge advantages in light gathering ability and charge retention, roughly proportional to the sensors' area at the same f-number of the lens for sensors of the same generation, giving bigger sensors much better abilities to shoot at low light and much wider dynamic range at any light. But at the same time bigger sensors are disproportionally more expensive to make.Also usually interchengeable lens cameras have faster processors, better screens, often provide viewfinders (optical for DSLRs, electronic in mirrorless cams and Sony DSLTs). And the cheapest of them are not that expensive, for example Olympus E-PL1 can be had for $129 now (it is pretty old though).[/citation]

ok, that answers a few questions that i could think of.

but here is something that im also intrested in knowing.

do the sensors have different qualities? like different manufacturing processes that would make them different than what is in a consumer camera, other than size of the sensor?

also, you brought up Olympus E-PL1, which has me very intrested, but im looking at it paired with some newer consumer cameras, and the consumer ones are winning out on the site im looking at. you know anywhere that can show me pictures taken with the camera?

 

[peevee]

alidan, as all electronics, photo sensors improve. In every particular class all sensor manufacturers (majors are Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung) produce a new, significantly improved version every 3 to 4 years, with maybe minor tweaks and variations in between.
The sensor in E-PL1 is about 3-4 years old Panasonic, it is certainly not state of the art, but due to huge size advantage (8x) vs regular point-and-shoot sensors, it still easily beats them all with an appropriate lens (!!! lens has as much to do with image quality as sensor, probably even more at this point of technology).
Now, comparison shots on some of those sites are not made at the same exposure settings (aperture/shutter speed) which would apply to real life. For example, if you compare the same ISO, you should understand than a camera with bigger sensor allows you to shoot with lower ISO, or the same ISO will look better.
The new development this year is reappearance of fixed zoom lens cameras with pretty large sensors and pretty good built-in lenses- Canon G1 X and Sony RX100. If you are not planning to go beyond a cheapest zoom lens on a DSLR or mirrorless interchengeable lens camera, they are actually pretty good alternatives (but not cheap, at $800 and $650 respectively). G1 X is not compact though.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]peevee[/nom]alidan, as all electronics, photo sensors improve. In every particular class all sensor manufacturers (majors are Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung) produce a new, significantly improved version every 3 to 4 years, with maybe minor tweaks and variations in between.The sensor in E-PL1 is about 3-4 years old Panasonic, it is certainly not state of the art, but due to huge size advantage (8x) vs regular point-and-shoot sensors, it still easily beats them all with an appropriate lens (!!! lens has as much to do with image quality as sensor, probably even more at this point of technology).Now, comparison shots on some of those sites are not made at the same exposure settings (aperture/shutter speed) which would apply to real life. For example, if you compare the same ISO, you should understand than a camera with bigger sensor allows you to shoot with lower ISO, or the same ISO will look better.The new development this year is reappearance of fixed zoom lens cameras with pretty large sensors and pretty good built-in lenses- Canon G1 X and Sony RX100. If you are not planning to go beyond a cheapest zoom lens on a DSLR or mirrorless interchengeable lens camera, they are actually pretty good alternatives (but not cheap, at $800 and $650 respectively). G1 X is not compact though.[/citation]

i look into cameras all the time, but i find it hard to spend money on them as we have had 2 sony cybershots, one at i think little over 4mp, and one at 8.1. the video for both is out of focus crap, the pictures, while better, have such glaringly obvious flaws to me that i don't want to look at a cybershot anything, and these are cameras that cost 300-400$ new, the cameras arent mine, but ones i have access to.

a while ago, i read about digital film, as in a digital film i could put into a camera and turn an old slr into a dslr... problem is i haven't heard anything about that in a long time.

as of right now, i want an slr or mirrorless camera, and i'm willing to spend money on one if i believe im getting the best deal i can possibly get.

as for lenses, i know that quality means alot, as a 600$ slr can out shoot a 5000$ slr if it has a good lense and the 5000 has a bad one, lenses are where i'm willing to invest most money into.

right now im looking at, Pentax K-01, i believe that's the one, because price performance it beats cameras higher than it...

now one last thing... i dont believe higher than 1080p would ever be needed, for video, i also don't see the point in really high mp pictures, if i'm probably never going to point them big enough to need that.

what i really want in a camera is something that i wont see flaws in the picture when i have it at full size, that if i want to take video, i can manually focus, or it has damn good auto focus, a camera that if i see a humming bird and try to take a picture of it, its clear (that's an example, what i mean by that is everything isn't a blurred mess in the middle of the day if i take a picture hand held... i have shakey hands and cant shoot like that with a consumer camera, i need a tripod), if possible i would like to have a camera that can replace a scanner, such as if i'm focused right, the camera takes a good enough picture that i don't have to deal with a scanner anymore, as needing 1-2 minutes a page is so annoying, if i could take a picture and get close to the same quality, would make the process so much more tollarable.

what im saying is the moment i get a camera that i see as good enough, i wont need a better one a few years down the road.

not sure i explained that right.

 

[peevee]

Frankly, Pentax k-01 is one of the worst mirrorless interchengeable lens camera "systems" right now. Only EOS M, Nikon 1 and of course Pentax Q are even worse, but at least Nikon 1 has the redeeming qualities as fast AF in good light which Pentax k-01 is lacking.