Canon Mirrorless... Is it still alive? (Page 2): These guys know mirrorless gear, and do great reviews.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a8wmQk1egw...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

These guys know mirrorless gear, and do great reviews....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a8wmQk1egw

RalphP Loc: Oregon

RKH wrote:

I was looking around at the Adorama website and no... (show quote)

I have the M3 and accessories you describe and am happy with it. The STM lenses work good with the adapter. EF will hunt for focus more. I like the systems size and quality. The touch screen is a plus making it easy to adjust controls and settings. There may be other brands more highly rated but it works well for me.

ddonlewis

Let me first say that I have the original Canon EOS M 18MP camera and think its fantastic. It got a bad reputation because the newly released camera had some issues with focusing, but Canon quickly updated the Eprom software in the camera and this resolved the problem. Now let me say that if you are looking for a fast action sports camera you need to buy a DSLR. Cameras are like tools in toolbox, they are designed for different jobs. A mirrorless camera is a very light weight camera that will do most photographic chores well, but if you have a specific job you want to do, you may have to reach for the best tool for that job. I have 3 Canon EOS M lenses and they are all excellent. As you and others mentioned, you can use other Canon lenses on the body. The touch screen interface is the best I've seen on any camera. You ask if it's a good price for an M3 with lens for $600. I would probably go to a camera shop and compare it to a Sony 6000 (similar price). See which one feels better to you. I can tell you the Canon is built like a tank with an all metal body. If you have Canon lenses that may influence the decision. I find the 3 Canon M lenses I have are all I need. Again Canon is trying to overcome bad publicity when it initially fumbled the ball when it introduced the original camera, but I think they have a great product.

bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN

I'm not sure why anyone would bypass the leading mirrorless cameras to wait for Canon to catch up. Plus, just making a camera mirrorless won't get you up to speed with the Sony for example.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

BebuLamar wrote:

No it doesn't count. If it does then you have to count many of the Canon rangefinders as well. And did you ever heard of the term mirrorless back then? So really the term mirrorless means more than just a camera without the mirror (and I am sure the first camera ever made didn't have a mirror).

Sure the old rangerfinders can be called mirrorless. AND full frame!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

bkellyusa wrote:

I'm not sure why anyone would bypass the leading mirrorless cameras to wait for Canon to catch up.

Yup...and for those current M users...I recommend you try another current mirrorless camera (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, or Fuji), to see what you're missing.

BebuLamar

BullMoose wrote:

Sure the old rangerfinders can be called mirrorless. AND full frame!

So why I didn't hear about mirrorless until the 21st century although cameras without mirror were made in the 19th century?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

BebuLamar wrote:

So why I didn't hear about mirrorless until the 21st century although cameras without mirror were made in the 19th century?

Perhaps because you weren't paying attention? We can't answer for your specific situation!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

BebuLamar wrote:

So why I didn't hear about mirrorless until the 21st century although cameras without mirror were made in the 19th century?

I know large format cameras are expensive these days...but I'm much rather shoot my EM1 from a convenience stand point.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Not that I trust this person, but...

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/tony-northrup-says-nikon-1-and-canon-eos-m-are-dead-systems-just-like-the-samsung-nx/

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

BebuLamar wrote:

So why I didn't hear about mirrorless until the 21st century although cameras without mirror were made in the 19th century?

The "mirrorless" designation was meant to imply that the cameras were "SLR-like", but decidedly *not* dSLRs. MILC = Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. But for various negative reasons, those acronyms didn't stick!

Consider the evolution of 35mm cameras from the rangefinders (Leica, Contax, Nikon, Canon... and others all made them at least until the late 1950s, and some much later) ...to the SLRs of the late 1950s until around the early 2000s... to the dSLRs we have today.

The dSLR evolved from the SLR. Manufacturers essentially replaced the film transport with electronics and a sensor, and called it digital! They only had to rearrange some things to make it happen. dSLR heritage is an evolution from 35mm film. They even kept the same lens mounts and the reflex mirrors. At first, this made perfect sense, because the technologies for electronic viewfinders had to evolve greatly to make them practical. Heck, the early LCD displays on dSLRs were pretty terrible!

Mirrorless designs came of age when two things happened: The proliferation of digital point-and-shoot and cell phone cameras like the iPhone, which had live view screens, and the development of Micro Four-Thirds, which was a mirrorless evolution of the Four-Thirds platform.

Wonder of wonders... When you get rid of the mirror, you can shorten the distance from the lens flange to the sensor. That makes lens designs smaller, lighter, simpler, and better! AND, there is no mirror slap, no finder blackout at moment of exposure, you can SEE what the camera is doing, instantly, without taking your eye away from the EVF... You can even see in black-and-white or a creative mode.

Getting rid of the mirror means so many things. Most EVFs are pretty good, but some of them still have disadvantages to overcome. Even on the fastest cameras, the EVF still has a lag that puts action stopping at a slight disadvantage to the finest dSLRs. Not everyone likes the "look" of the EVF yet. AF speed needs improvement in several systems.

Still, each of the four non-Canikon brands mentioned has compelling reasons to be attractive. A lot of that attraction has to do with their NEW lens mounts and NEW lines of lenses. Optics designed specifically for these cameras tend to have excellent performance, although there is a wide variety of optics in the field.

Because the flange to sensor distance IS shorter, adapters can fit your older lenses. But as I said earlier, many photographers opt not to adapt their existing optics.

Many who do adapt older lenses are cinematographers working with the Lumix GH4. You can adapter-fit just about any Nikon F/G, Canon EF/FD, Contax G or Contax Yashica, Contarex, Alpa, Arriflex, Leica M or R, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, Rollei QBM, or ciné lens on that camera (and probably quite a few other brands!). Quite often, controls are fully manual, but if you have the lens and don't need it often, an adapter can put it to good use...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Canon and Nikon have been at the top with Clunk Click every trip DSLRs. BUT they have both rested miserably on their laurels. They have basically ignored the new technology.

BebuLamar

burkphoto wrote:

The "mirrorless" designation was meant to imply that the cameras were "SLR-like", but decidedly *not* dSLRs. MILC = Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. But for various negative reasons, those acronyms didn't stick!

Consider the evolution of 35mm cameras from the rangefinders (Leica, Contax, Nikon, Canon... and others all made them at least until the late 1950s, and some much later) ...to the SLRs of the late 1950s until around the early 2000s... to the dSLRs we have today.

The dSLR evolved from the SLR. Manufacturers essentially replaced the film transport with electronics and a sensor, and called it digital! They only had to rearrange some things to make it happen. dSLR heritage is an evolution from 35mm film. They even kept the same lens mounts and the reflex mirrors. At first, this made perfect sense, because the technologies for electronic viewfinders had to evolve greatly to make them practical. Heck, the early LCD displays on dSLRs were pretty terrible!

Mirrorless designs came of age when two things happened: The proliferation of digital point-and-shoot and cell phone cameras like the iPhone, which had live view screens, and the development of Micro Four-Thirds, which was a mirrorless evolution of the Four-Thirds platform.

Wonder of wonders... When you get rid of the mirror, you can shorten the distance from the lens flange to the sensor. That makes lens designs smaller, lighter, simpler, and better! AND, there is no mirror slap, no finder blackout at moment of exposure, you can SEE what the camera is doing, instantly, without taking your eye away from the EVF... You can even see in black-and-white or a creative mode.

Getting rid of the mirror means so many things. Most EVFs are pretty good, but some of them still have disadvantages to overcome. Even on the fastest cameras, the EVF still has a lag that puts action stopping at a slight disadvantage to the finest dSLRs. Not everyone likes the "look" of the EVF yet. AF speed needs improvement in several systems.

Still, each of the four non-Canikon brands mentioned has compelling reasons to be attractive. A lot of that attraction has to do with their NEW lens mounts and NEW lines of lenses. Optics designed specifically for these cameras tend to have excellent performance, although there is a wide variety of optics in the field.

Because the flange to sensor distance IS shorter, adapters can fit your older lenses. But as I said earlier, many photographers opt not to adapt their existing optics.

Many who do adapt older lenses are cinematographers working with the Lumix GH4. You can adapter-fit just about any Nikon F/G, Canon EF/FD, Contax G or Contax Yashica, Contarex, Alpa, Arriflex, Leica M or R, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, Rollei QBM, or ciné lens on that camera (and probably quite a few other brands!). Quite often, controls are fully manual, but if you have the lens and don't need it often, an adapter can put it to good use...

The "mirrorless" designation was meant t... (show quote)

Thanks Burk! That's what I meant. Mirrorless camera isn't any camera without the mirror.

BebuLamar

Delderby wrote:

Canon and Nikon have been at the top with Clunk Click every trip DSLRs. BUT they have both rested miserably on their laurels. They have basically ignored the new technology.

May be because their past experience? Canon and Nikon both started out making mirrorless (well, rangefinder) cameras and not SLR's. But even they tried very hard and made some very good cameras they could never surpass Leica. Picking up the idea from Pentax, they started to make SLR and they dominated the camera market. So now they hesitate to going back making cameras without mirror again.

fishone0 Loc: Kingman AZ

gave the Olympus a try--got a body and lens for dirt cheap on a Black Friday deal-- now --waiting for my new wide angle lens totally into the M4/3rds system--love it and it is so easy to carry while hiking in the mountains here in Arizona