Kuzano

I'm sorry, but my post was a digital discussion only except for the references to oddballs who shoot old film camera's. It is about mass marketing, and not about the limited production and hand built camera's you speak so proudly of.... good choice by the way, as I have all of them for the most part.

Thanks for taking me to task, but the post was not intended for you, nor did I violate and rules of UHH that posts must apply to all manner of film, digital and camera equally.

You are in the minority, probably not addicted to appearance and quite an odd duck yourself.

Now, let me be clear that I am just as ODD as you appear to be, because I have and shoot all those same camera's, MF and large. I do not have a Leica, but I do have a Kiev (Contax copy) which is a marvelous old film range finder. I have the same Fuji "Texas Leica" rangefinder. My Voigtlander BESSA is the heliar lensed RF folder from the late 30's, shooting dual format 645 and 6x9. All these camera's are beautiful to my eyes, but the Image Quality is the real reason for using them.

And I suspect, much like you, I don't really give a Shit about how I appear out in the field to other people. I shoot what get's the job done. More often than not, it's film and it's either beautifully hand crafted, or it's ugly by most other people's standards. My large format camera is home built to meet my particular needs. NO HUMP and Uuuuuuuuglier than this web site.

My points were made from a Marketing perspective which I am highly qualified to practice.

I do however, forgive you for missing my point and reading a post that very likely pertains to the masses, but not an old camera warhorse like you.... nor to myself.

I will also agree that there are many bad opinions in this thread.... none in my posts of course.... but from very narrow minded individuals, who don't like to consider how the camera companies are duping them into purchasing products.

You have a good-un now. And again, sorry to get your knickers in a twist.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

I bought a Nikon 1, good little camera, to small for my hands though. Gave to my daughter and bought a Canon
T4i and haven't looked back.

Twin 1 Loc: Nor California

Bob, I am not one who is very experienced with a wide range of cameras. I do have a Canon 7D with one piece of good glass. I tried to "always have a camera at hand" as I try to practice this newly adopted craft. I love my 7D but the backpack and camera are large and bulky to constantly lug around. I went looking for another option.

I found the Canon M, it fits my needs. It is small, delivers high quality pictures and, with the adapter, I can use all of the lenses I have for the 7D.

It will probably be years of learning before I can discuss the all of the limits of this camera with some level of knowledge but for now, any time I leave the house, unless I know I am going to "shoot" pictures and bring the 7D, I have my Canon M in hand and I am very happy with it.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

In the video I watched of a review I didn't see RAW as a quality option. Maybe I missed it. I now watched another video and saw the RAW setting. Seems like a nice entry level camera for the enthusiast. These can only get better and offer richer features for the pros. DSLR is not going away anytime soon. (IMO)

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

The Canon M is going away. Canon and Nikon are playing catch up to the mirrorless marketplace. The M didnt perform well in the USA where Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji both have a foothold.

It is a shame too. I played with an M a friend got for 200bux firesale at the local shop with 20mm lens. Its very nice. Shame that Canon seems to want to be quiet in the mirrorless game, at least here in the USA.

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

I understand your point mate... however please tell me where o where could the designers have put the optical pentiprism in the bodies back in the day and this had to do with all of em Nikon,Canon,Pentax,Mimaya Sekor (sp), Minolta etc? And as I said they are replicating previous models.....

just sayin....

Kuzano

You are not in hiding, exactly. Your in Australia, or somair abouts.... ehh?

Well, that carries the discussion well into the past.

Naturally the position of the early HUMP was not marketing based. It was a logical decision.

I am simply saying that as the market gravitated from previous focus systems to the HUMP/PRISM location, which was obvious placement at the time, that facet of the camera became linked with professional usage as the Pros gravitated or moved to the SLR.

This is not a clear.... Hey let's put a hump on the camera. It was a well defined move.

What I am saying is that as people began to link their vision of professional stature (warranted or not) to the one defining physical characteristic of the body... the HUMP... certainly not an originating marketing decision, but happening over time.

I could expand on this with reference to Canons White lenses and my reference to painting the lens white to appear professional... That's no joke. It's been done.

Another slow over time transition was the burgeoning of switching camera's from chrome/silver and black bodies, to all black. Why, because Pro's always carried black camera's. It was an identifier.

Current proof of this exists today in the body color point. Someone mentioned a Canonet earlier in this post. Great little camera. I have been buying/selling film cameras for about twenty years now.

I can attest to the fact that I can get a price, using pristine examples, about $100 to$150 more for an all black Canonet GIII 1.7, over a Silver/black example. Same very true of an all black Olympus SP35 over the silver/black body. The list goes on.

It mystifies me that so many people in this thread are opposed to my theoy of the HUMP factor in marketing camera's to general users, ie the DSLR vs. mirrorless.

Confusing indeed. However, it has paid off for most of the manufacturers who have made those moves.

It is also part of the phenoma explaining why Nikon and Canon will never bring a successful mirrorless to market. Too late, and too little... NO HUMP! Neither of them are very good at "me too" marketing, and neither of them seem committed to produce a product that will compete with their very recognizable, Kinda like a professional... HUMP, and cut into their more profitable market.

How can a successful company, re define their product mixed to a camera that will return half or less of the retail price and also set up an assembly line for new mount lenses that drags income from their established High Grade and White Lens market.

Oh well. Think what you will... I think I'm onto something here. Loquacious, Tenacious and Persistent, I remain truly yours ... Kuzano

newtimes Loc: Indiana

Pulled out of Canon bodies, (kept a Canon T4i) now I use my Canon L glass Primes and 3 zooms with the SONY NEX 7 AND SONY-A7

Combined with the Metabones Speedbooster and the Metabones Smart Adapter both cameras give me APSC crop and Full frame, both adapters can be used on either body.

Strange way to go I guess but it's working out nicely and a lot of new Sony, Zeiss, Sigma, Samyang or Canon lenses coming up in the future to pick from

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

An optical finder is doable on a fixed-lens camera, even with zoom, but coupling to interchangeable megazooms would be a challenge.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

My Xpro1 has a OVF. I use a 18-55 on it often. The framelines shrink in the OVF overlay. Thats is how we deal with OVF and Zoom glass.

I tried to do it with the 55-250 lens and utterly hated it and use the EVF for anything over 55mm.

pterosonus Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

Just got my M recently. I really like it. IQ is awesome. Focus speed (improved w/firmware update) is not. Great for landscape, architecture and portraits. Useless for sports, kids etc. If you can work around the slow speed and limited lens selection (W/O adapter) it's a steal at current prices. Here's a link to DP Review's EOS M forum: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1060

kerfree Loc: Sebago and Sanibel

Hi Bob, I for one am hot on mirrorless gear. I am on my second Panasonic mirrorless, recently trading up to their top GH3, which is nearly as big as a DSLR, but what makes it extra sweet is that the micro 4/3 lenses are about half the size of the big boy lenses. I have about 7 Panasonic/Leica lenses I use with it... so far :). For me, it is the only way to go.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I've turned down pink cameras before, and they sell for half of what the black ones do. I do have one dark silver and one off-black Kodak in my collection though.

I still need to put the red pinstriping on my kit lenses some day.

jmizera Loc: Austin Texas

Ah, of course you are absolutely right about long lenses being an issue with a simple viewfinder. The old Canonet had a fixed lens of course. Something I could probably live with if it was a good one.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Great topic for Hump Day.

I have to agree with the "hump" philosophy, and that is exactly why I got the E-PL5 without the hump. I always like being the underdog. The E-PL5 has the same sensor/processor as the E-M5 and doesn't look pro. Plus, I don't get asked what film I'm shooting. It fits my style better.