# Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 4, 2020)

> I have had multiple reports over the last few months that Canon plans to announce two new EOS M cameras in 2020. Recently I was given a bit of information about the two models. Unfortunately, I have been unable to confirm this information with a source I’d consider above [CR1], so please treat this information accordingly.
> *Canon EOS M7*
> The new flagship of the EOS M lineup. Yes, it goes against Canon’s normal nomenclature, but the “7” means a lot to the Canon lineup. So take what you want from the number “7”.
> This camera will reportedly have the same 32mp sensor as the Canon EOS M6 Mark II, as well as IBIS, Dual Card slots, and “all the bells and whistles”.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BroderLund (Aug 4, 2020)

as a hybrid shooter, “all the bells and whistles” hopefully includes DPAF2 and 10bit 422 clog video.
However they still need more and better lenses for me to take the M line seriously


----------



## SteveC (Aug 4, 2020)

The M7 sounds like essentially the M5-II with a different name...except, perhaps, with much more.

And if this pans out, I suspect it's the replacement for the 7D, especially given that number 7.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 4, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> as a hybrid shooter, “all the bells and whistles” hopefully includes DPAF2 and 10bit 422 clog video.
> However they still need more and better lenses for me to take the M line seriously


same AF system as R5 and R6 which seems to pick up eyes of insects which is a seriously good improvement.


----------



## Upeo (Aug 4, 2020)

I don't think the 32mm gets enough credit for how good it is, I'm always amazed that a lens that size can take the images it does. If they release an 85mm that's just as good I'll die a happy man. Sigma already did a pretty good job with their 56mm so I'd rather Canon focus their efforts on the focal ranges that have been least represented so far on the M system.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Aug 4, 2020)

Portrait lens, please. And a 56mm isn't a portrait lens, even though it has "85mm equivalency". I'm talking a 70 or 80mm lens at least.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 4, 2020)

If the R5 has "overheating problems" in video, will the M7 have even bigger problems, presumably being a smaller body? (I have an R5 in order but will probably use it almost exclusively for still.)


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 4, 2020)

CafferyPhoto said:


> Portrait lens, please. And a 56mm isn't a portrait lens, even though it has "85mm equivalency". I'm talking a 70 or 80mm lens at least.


Wild guess: Higher quality M-mount lenses will come from Sigma, a byproduct of their introduction of an APS-C L-mount camera and the lenses to go with it.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 4, 2020)

"The biggest question? Will it have IBIS?"

Naaah, the biggest question is: Will it have OverHeating issues?


----------



## nchoh (Aug 4, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> "The biggest question? Will it have IBIS?"
> 
> Naaah, the biggest question is: Will it have OverHeating issues?



It really depends. If any camera manufacturer tries to build a stills ergonomics camera and cram 8K video into a weather sealed body., then it probably will overheat. 

If Canon sticks to the design philosophy of the M series, then it definitely won't.


----------



## Osama (Aug 4, 2020)

There is no two cameras.

there is the m50 mark ii (no IBIS) and there is the c100 mark iii (IBIS with RF).


----------



## sdz (Aug 4, 2020)

But we were told that Canon would ditch the M cameras. What gives?

/sarcasm


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 4, 2020)

nchoh said:


> It really depends. If any camera manufacturer tries to build a stills ergonomics camera and cram 8K video into a weather sealed body., then it probably will overheat.
> 
> If Canon sticks to the design philosophy of the M series, then it definitely won't.





> This camera will reportedly have the same 32mp sensor as the Canon EOS M6 Mark II, as well as IBIS, Dual Card slots, and “all the bells and whistles”.



Same sensor as 90D/M6 mk II so no 8K and neither of those two overheat.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 4, 2020)

They'll _have_ to break their silly 61mm rule.


----------



## Ditboy (Aug 4, 2020)

I'm debating about switching to Fuji right now from the M system. I currently have 4-M5's and over 20 lenses I use with them. This camera, M7, if it is as currently rumored, would be the only thing that might stop me. Dual slot is a must for me for my next camera. But there is still the problem with lenses. Yes, the 32mm 1.4 is one of the secrets of the Canon world, but it is still mainly a plastic lens. Will it hold up over the years? I would definitely add the Sigma 16 & 56, which I already want. But sadly, I still see the EOS M line being dropped when the EF line is discontinued unless Canon introduces some kind of a speedbooster converter to allow RF lenses to be used on the EF-M bodies. I've used Canon for over 40 years, but my needs have changed and Fuji seems to be the better fit right now. October was when I was planning on the switch, so let's see what you got Canon!


----------



## padam (Aug 4, 2020)

If they stick to the 32MP APS-C sensor, it will have line-skipped 4K or 1.25x crop oversampled mode 4k30p only that they have in the 90D as well.

So it probably won't have overheating issues, but that IBIS won't be paired with great video features, which is a shame.

With the technology already present in the R5 they could easily make a 17MP APS-C sensor with 4k60p internal 10-bit 4:2:2 and advanced AF - but I guess they basically have the full-frame R6 to fill in that gap.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 4, 2020)

We will see if my predictions have been correct: A 7DII replacement at the top of the M line. 

This retains the clear distinction between APS-C and full frame in their mirrorless lineup. This won't be a video focused camera if it has the "7" designation. I would expect it will carry over the R5 autofocus refinements. Maybe even improve on them slightly if they follow the 7 series tradition. 

What the new lens might be is a good question. In my opinion, they really need two new lenses. A 15-85 similar to the EF-S version and a long telephoto zoom -- either 400 or preferably a 150-500 f5.6 (one can dream).


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 4, 2020)

CafferyPhoto said:


> Portrait lens, please. And a 56mm isn't a portrait lens, even though it has "85mm equivalency". I'm talking a 70 or 80mm lens at least.


Please explain why you don't believe it's a portrait lens. I can share an image shot with a 85mm at f/2 on a full frame camera next to the sigma 56mm shot at f/1.4 on the M6 Mark II and you won't be able to tell the difference at all....as a matter of fact, I'll do it this afternoon if I get time.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 4, 2020)

Give me everything EOS M!!!

I shoot with the 1DX Mark II and EOS R, now the R5. The M-series are absolutely beautiful and powerful cameras that stay true to the "mirrorless is smaller" concept. I now use the M6 Mark II as my main video camera and primary stills camera for many of the odd jobs I do that don't require the benefits of full-frame.

Offering an all-out M5 Mark II or M6 would be excellent for my travel and even work. Right now the lack of weather sealing is a problem...Canon could easily release a sealed body and new zoom lens to fix this. Give us a fixed f/2.8 or f/2 zoom that trades a bit of that compact size for "pro" benefits.

It would also be nice to see them drop the price of the EF to EOS-M adaptor to the price of the EF-RF adaptor...why it's $50 more is beyond me. Drop the price to $75-100 and release a $150-175 version with weather sealing so we can adapt sealed lenses properly. Heck, even put in a true Canon glass focal reducer in there too!

Seriously, though...I'm using the M6 Mark II for some high end professional work because I can. I just shot a national magazine cover with it this past weekend...I used it to shoot a drag race...an indoor party...the winner's circle...shots in the pits...video around the track...you name it! All with a single card slot, hotshoe EVF and a lens mount that has poor zoom options! Haha

The M is my APS-C of choice because when I don't want to lug around a 1DXII with full-frame lenses, this keeps me light and more nimble. My back hurts significantly less after an event since I introduced them to my bag.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 4, 2020)

M7 or M5 Mark II, its just a name . I guess Canon feels it's more then just an evolutionary successor to the M5, but why not call it the M1 then (like the 1DX)? And yes, I know there was already an original M(1).

Regardless, I can't wait to see what Canon has in store for the M system, including that newly rumored "higher-end" EF-M lens!


----------



## Etienne (Aug 4, 2020)

Ditboy said:


> I'm debating about switching to Fuji right now from the M system. I currently have 4-M5's and over 20 lenses I use with them. This camera, M7, if it is as currently rumored, would be the only thing that might stop me. Dual slot is a must for me for my next camera. But there is still the problem with lenses. Yes, the 32mm 1.4 is one of the secrets of the Canon world, but it is still mainly a plastic lens. Will it hold up over the years? I would definitely add the Sigma 16 & 56, which I already want. But sadly, I still see the EOS M line being dropped when the EF line is discontinued unless Canon introduces some kind of a speedbooster converter to allow RF lenses to be used on the EF-M bodies. I've used Canon for over 40 years, but my needs have changed and Fuji seems to be the better fit right now. October was when I was planning on the switch, so let's see what you got Canon!



I will buy the top end M camera even if just to use it permanently with the 32 f/1.4
Bonus: I have the 11-22 and 22 f/2. And with a portrait prime, I could do just about anything. Although I'd like them to put out a 200mm prime


----------



## Canfan (Aug 4, 2020)

We need a RF to EF-M adaptor as well. Some guys who have the RF lens may want to use on it on a smaller camera as well, like EF and EF-S system


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 4, 2020)

If either had IBIS and the new sensor, I'm in.


----------



## peconicgp (Aug 4, 2020)

Oh man, I am really excited about this. I initially bought an original M6 just as kind of a play around compact camera because I got it on sale for less than $300. I also got the 22mm Pancake to make it like my "Canon" version of the Fuji XT100 series. I ended up liking it so much that I bought the M6 mkII and that has been a wonderful camera. I have a 5d MK IV and honestly, I keep finding myself using the m6 mkII for so many things. The sigma primes along with the Canon 32 mm make for a wonderful little kit that really covers a lot of bases with excellent image quality. There is a ton of potential in the M series. Canon has moved slowly but the M6mk II is incredibly capable for the price

I think Canon must have seen the success of the Fuji X series of cameras and realize that their sensor is every bit as good or better and they really have the chance to gain some market share. I imagine that the M line appeals to new photogs who don't want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for full-frame cameras and lenses as well as experienced photogs looking for a smaller kit in personal/travel situations.

With a new updated "vlogging camera" M50 II, a new "M7" on par with a Fuji XT4 along with a few more high-quality M lenses Canon could absolutely transform the M series, I really hope Canon pursues this.

For the "M7" give me:

WEATHER SEALING!! I take my M6 II with my fly fishing but don't take it out in the rain and miss shots I would love to have. I would take improved weather sealing over improved (from M6 II) video features all day. 

IBIS. At this point, just about every camera should have this given the available tech.

Autofocus on the level of the new R5/R6. I can't imagine there is any benefit to Canon to try to limit the focus capabilities of an M line camera as there is no direct upgrade path to the R series. Let the top of the line M series be the best it can be.

I think it goes without saying but a viewfinder should be there as well and it seems that articulating screens just work for more things that the tilty ones but I like them both for different reasons.


----------



## peconicgp (Aug 4, 2020)

Canfan said:


> We need a RF to EF-M adaptor as well. Some guys who have the RF lens may want to use on it on a smaller camera as well, like EF and EF-S system


RF lenses are not compatible with the M mount. You can use EF and EF-S lenses because they were designed for DSLR so the gap for the mirror in a DSLR can be replicated with the gap in the adapter.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 4, 2020)

peconicgp said:


> RF lenses are not compatible with the M mount. You can use EF and EF-S lenses because they were designed for DSLR so the gap for the mirror in a DSLR can be replicated with the gap in the adapter.


This keeps getting said but what about an adapter with a glass element, like a speedbooster?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 4, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> This keeps getting said but what about an adapter with a glass element, like a speedbooster?



Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.


----------



## nkak78 (Aug 4, 2020)

I think canon will use the eos M line as their mirroless apsc camera and the eos R line up for full frame mirrorless


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

Let's see what are the limitation if an M7 or something similar if ever comes out.


----------



## Canfan (Aug 4, 2020)

peconicgp said:


> Oh man, I am really excited about this. I initially bought an original M6 just as kind of a play around compact camera because I got it on sale for less than $300. I also got the 22mm Pancake to make it like my "Canon" version of the Fuji XT100 series. I ended up liking it so much that I bought the M6 mkII and that has been a wonderful camera. I have a 5d MK IV and honestly, I keep finding myself using the m6 mkII for so many things. The sigma primes along with the Canon 32 mm make for a wonderful little kit that really covers a lot of bases with excellent image quality. There is a ton of potential in the M series. Canon has moved slowly but the M6mk II is incredibly capable for the price
> 
> I think Canon must have seen the success of the Fuji X series of cameras and realize that their sensor is every bit as good or better and they really have the chance to gain some market share. I imagine that the M line appeals to new photogs who don't want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for full-frame cameras and lenses as well as experienced photogs looking for a smaller kit in personal/travel situations.
> 
> ...


Agreed what will make the M seizes stand out would be IBIS, then there won’t be a need for heavy glass with IS, the attraction of the M system is portability. 
add a 54mm 1.4 no IS, an 10m prime, 18mm prime and a 10-18f4, 15-45mmf4 no is and this would be a great travel,blogging, street photography, journalist system. As well as enthusiast or mom. 
two card slots maybe useful but not a necessity for all. 
weather sealing is also a must.
Stellar autofocus would will give canon the edge.
This will not compete with the R system as full frame systems most give better image quality and will continue to be king of the hill.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Let's see what are the limitation if an M7 or something similar if ever comes out.


Hot cakes suffer from supply limitations only...


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 4, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.


This really just takes a chip in the speedbooster, which I believe is already what many if not most have. Translating protocols isn't that big a deal although it raises the cost of the device.


----------



## Gilvan Moreira (Aug 4, 2020)

Para manter a média dos últimos anos acredito que além dessas 2 máquinas há espaço para mais uma, quem sabe uma compacta?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 4, 2020)

The M6 Mark II is already pretty great. Just make a version with EVF, some weather sealing and a bit sharper and more detailed 4K video. 
And some AF improvements from the R5/R6.

Also we really need a better standard zoom for the M mount. Maybe a 15-60 F4 or F2.8- 4, weather sealed and sharp. And no plastic mount.

I wonder if Canon could make an RF-M adaptor with lens elements.


----------



## Max TT (Aug 4, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Due to recent events, to which I vowed to myself to not speak of again... Ha

“all the bells and whistles” is the kinda statement that gets them in trouble... Because now I actually want a bell attached to my camera lololol

Ps for the dummies out there, I am aware it's not an official statement, please understand what a jest is! Lol


----------



## nchoh (Aug 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> They'll _have_ to break their silly 61mm rule.



Have you considered that the vast majority of buyers of the M system maybe buying into the M system because of the nice neat little lens in the collection?


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 4, 2020)

Canfan said:


> We need a RF to EF-M adaptor as well. Some guys who have the RF lens may want to use on it on a smaller camera as well, like EF and EF-S system



No, we need good equivalent lens that never came to the EF-s.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 4, 2020)

a “higher-end” EF-M lens - something at 300mm or above for the birders?


----------



## nchoh (Aug 4, 2020)

Canfan said:


> We need a RF to EF-M adaptor as well. Some guys who have the RF lens may want to use on it on a smaller camera as well, like EF and EF-S system



Logically speaking, if Canon is going to improve the M series even more by putting in IBIS and dual slot cards (and weather sealing?) thus opening up the M series to a much larger user group, it would follow that they would likely release more quality lenses and also probably break their own 61mm rule. If Canon also selects and adapts some of the R lens designs that better fits with the small M bodies, the M line would be really excellent.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 4, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Logically speaking, if Canon is going to improve the M series even more by putting in IBIS and dual slot cards (and weather sealing?) thus opening up the M series to a much larger user group, it would follow that they would likely release more quality lenses and also probably break their own 61mm rule. If Canon also selects and adapts some of the R lens designs that better fits with the small M bodies, the M line would be really excellent.



Is this 61mm rule official? I really hope they break it and release some bigger lenses.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 4, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.


I don't see how that would be possible when each system's communication is based on EOS.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 4, 2020)

I'm all in for an M5 mkII by whatever Canon chooses to call it, but dual cards is antithetical to the M concept. Just give us a few more quick primes and an f/4 constant standard zoom and I'm good...


----------



## nchoh (Aug 4, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Is this 61mm rule official? I really hope they break it and release some bigger lenses.



I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2020)

Sounds good. People who want Canon to discontinue this line for an “R” mount APS-C don’t understand why Canon kneels upgrading the cameras and continues to make new lenses for it. It’s pretty simp,e, as I keep telling them. This is a very popular camera line. Why should Canon abandon it for something else?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 4, 2020)

nchoh said:


> I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.



The 61mm isn't a hard rule, it's a design & marketing decision based on the EOS M market so far. A higher-end M body would bring demand for better lenses that might be bigger and heavier than before. They'd still be lighter and smaller than full-frame equivalents though.

Something like an 15-55 f/2.8 IS, or even a lightweight 18-55 f/2.8-4 IS higher-end kit lens would be sensible.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 4, 2020)

Ditboy said:


> I'm debating about switching to Fuji right now from the M system. I currently have 4-M5's and over 20 lenses I use with them. This camera, M7, if it is as currently rumored, would be the only thing that might stop me. Dual slot is a must for me for my next camera. But there is still the problem with lenses. Yes, the 32mm 1.4 is one of the secrets of the Canon world, but it is still mainly a plastic lens. Will it hold up over the years? I would definitely add the Sigma 16 & 56, which I already want. But sadly, I still see the EOS M line being dropped when the EF line is discontinued unless Canon introduces some kind of a speedbooster converter to allow RF lenses to be used on the EF-M bodies. I've used Canon for over 40 years, but my needs have changed and Fuji seems to be the better fit right now. October was when I was planning on the switch, so let's see what you got Canon!


The M6 Mk II is the camera right now with Vloggers


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 4, 2020)

nchoh said:


> I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.



Not sure about the 50-200. The 55-250 STM is super sharp and i have yet to see a similar image from the EF-M lens. 
Every time i check samples it just disappoints me. It's ok but that sharpness and contrast is not there.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 4, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Not sure about the 50-200. The 55-250 STM is super sharp and i have yet to see a similar image from the EF-M lens.
> Every time i check samples it just disappoints me. It's ok but that sharpness and contrast is not there.



Nice to know. I have been using the 55-250 mm on my M5. Yes, it's super sharp and pulls in amazing images. I have seen reviews that say the 55-200 is on par or better. Maybe it's a manufacturing issue? In any case, I'll stick to the 55-250 STM.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 4, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.



Are there specifications on the RF mount connectors and the protocols used to talk with RF lenses? Visually, the RF mount has the original 8 connection points from the EF mount, plus the additional 4. And if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the EF to RF adapter use those 8 connection points to communicate with adapted EF lenses? If that's the case, wouldn't it also be possible that RF lenses are using those same 8 connection points for basic lenses functions (aperture, auto-focus, lens info, etc)? I know there's a ton to look at here if that sort of thing can be dissected and looked into. But from a visual standpoint, there may be more backwards compatibility in the RF mount then Canon has showed us so far.


----------



## Max TT (Aug 4, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sounds good. People who want Canon to discontinue this line for an “R” mount APS-C don’t understand why Canon kneels upgrading the cameras and continues to make new lenses for it. It’s pretty simp,e, as I keep telling them. This is a very popular camera line. Why should Canon abandon it for something else?


Very true, anytime someone who is new to photography and is buying their first camera ask for my advice... M50 is my go to response


----------



## tataylino (Aug 5, 2020)

I am still waiting for the EF-M equivalent of EF 50mm STM. I hope this will be the next lens and with about same price range.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Have you considered that the vast majority of buyers of the M system maybe buying into the M system because of the nice neat little lens in the collection?



I have considered that.

But the people who'd buy this camera won't care. And neither would the people who like the 61mm form factor, either--none of those is going away! In fact, if they want to produce a whole raft more of lenses whose main feature is 61mm diameter, more power to them, but that shouldn't stop them from occasionally producing something bigger.

I hope they go to a situation where lots of lenses are consistently 61mm in diameter, but there are a few "advanced" lenses such as long zooms, or wide aperture primes 50mm and greater, that are a bit wider.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> M7 or M5 Mark II, its just a name . I guess Canon feels it's more then just an evolutionary successor to the M5, but why not call it the M1 then (like the 1DX)? And yes, I know there was already an original M(1).



The "obvious" reason is it's to be the mirrorless successor to the 7D.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 5, 2020)

tataylino said:


> I am still waiting for the EF-M equivalent of EF 50mm STM. I hope this will be the next lens and with about same price range.


I think the 32 f/1.4 M will have to suffice. It's more expensive but reportedly very sharp.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Aug 5, 2020)

M7 with all the wishlist improvements over a M6 II?

Day 1 preorder. I *really* like my M6 II and if the M7 really will have IBIS, dual card slots and improved body and enhanced AF - that's exactly what I want. The images I get from that 32m sensor are great so yes please! 

Be icing if they come up with a way to adapt RF to EF-M but I wont be holding my breath. EF glass and the adaptor work well


----------



## vjlex (Aug 5, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> If the R5 has "overheating problems" in video, will the M7 have even bigger problems, presumably being a smaller body? (I have an R5 in order but will probably use it almost exclusively for still.)


Smaller sensor, smaller readout I imagine. I think a lot of people concerned about the R5's heating issues aren't really taking into consideration just how much data is being moved at very high speeds.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 5, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The "obvious" reason is it's to be the mirrorless successor to the 7D.



If that is the case, then will there still be an M5 Mark II? Or is the M6 Mark II taking its place permanently, as some of the old rumors suggested?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> If that is the case, then will there still be an M5 Mark II? Or is the M6 Mark II taking its place permanently, as some of the old rumors suggested?



I suspect this is also the M5 Mark II under a different name. But that's pure speculation on my part (and yes I wanted an M5 Mark II--I finally just gave up and bought the M6 mark II).


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Aug 5, 2020)

This is the news that I needed. With a couple RF lenses in hand and no body, I was this close to picking up a Fuji x100V or at least upgrading from the M6 to the Mark II. Now I can banish both ideas and just wait it out for the news to come out.

IBIS would be great, all the new AF tracking stuff is what I want. I love the two card slots (and don't understand the one comment saying that a second card slot of all things would be against the M design philosophy.)

Otherwise, like several people have mentioned, an equivalent to the EF-S 15-55 2.8 would be nice. 

There are only three lenses that get love, the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 32mm. (And occasionally the 28 macro.) A good standard zoom, some longer primes are what's needed. If Canon is going to push this as a 7D replacement, maybe something in the telephoto end will come out first since people want it for more reach.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 5, 2020)

PhotoGenerous said:


> This is the news that I needed. With a couple RF lenses in hand and no body, I was this close to picking up a Fuji x100V or at least upgrading from the M6 to the Mark II. Now I can banish both ideas and just wait it out for the news to come out.
> 
> IBIS would be great, all the new AF tracking stuff is what I want. I love the two card slots (and don't understand the one comment saying that a second card slot of all things would be against the M design philosophy.)
> 
> ...




Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.



I don't disagree. If this is what Canon wants to do, they will have no alternative but to come out with a lens that isn't 61mm in outside diameter.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 5, 2020)

Huh, well I guess it makes sense that most 7D users were using EF lenses to begin with. The EF-M mount gives you the ability to use tiny crop lenses when you want to, and then use a big super telephoto EF lens. I'm sure Canon will release a higher-end EF-M adapter for this.

I'd be more interested to know if a M7 would use a LP-E6NH or not, I'd think birders/sports would want a bigger battery. A real 7D replacement would also probably need an optional battery grip, but I think this would represent a big change in how Canon is developing the M series. 

Will be really interesting to see where this goes for sure.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Aug 5, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Nice to know. I have been using the 55-250 mm on my M5. Yes, it's super sharp and pulls in amazing images. I have seen reviews that say the 55-200 is on par or better. Maybe it's a manufacturing issue? In any case, I'll stick to the 55-250 STM.


Sample size of one each the 55-250 was better and the range is great, many more successful shots, can’t say whether it was sharpness , contrast or what. It’s also got great balance with the adapter, it’s basically the only lens I adapt to the M anymore


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Aug 5, 2020)

Christmas is going to have something really nice under the tree this year hopefully.


----------



## idahobill (Aug 5, 2020)

If Canon uses the same 32MP sensor in the M6 Mk. II (as rumored and seems likely), then is it technically possible for the M7 or M50 Mk. II to have Dual Pixel Autofocus II as on the R5 and R6?
Some Canon users may not know that the M6 Mk. II already shoots faster (14FPS) than the 7D Mk. II with likely a higher autofocus hit rate. The M7 could get a larger buffer which would be very useful.
Will these new M-series cameras get the DIGIC X processor? If so, would that enable non-line skipped 4K readout? If so, heat could be a problem, so hopefully the M6 Mk. II 4k quality would be an option.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 5, 2020)

I know this was in the lens rumors, but since someone brought these rumors back up in the other thread I thought it was interesting to think about in terms of this camera: https://www.canonrumors.com/five-new-ef-m-lenses-for-the-eos-m-lineup-coming-cr1/

"EF-M 15mm f/2 STM
EF-M 52mm f/2 STM
EF-M 62mm f/4 Macro IS STM
EF-M 18-45mm f/2.8-4 IS STM
EF-M 100-300mm f/5.6-8 IS STM"

That 100-300 rumor could be an interesting birding lens depending on its build quality, and the 18-45 f/2.8-4 would make sense as a kit lens for a higher end body. I definitely think that a 52mm F/2 would be the prime lens they mentioned, as well. Would be a tinier version of the RF 85 f/2.


----------



## hamish (Aug 5, 2020)

I was using a 200D but started getting interested in Birds in Flight. Earlier this year I bought a second hand 7DII from eBay. I briefly considered an M5 or M50 before getting the 2nd hand 7DII but they just didn't have the right level of specs, build quality and so on. While the 7DII is "only" 20MP, I'm getting some very nice shots: landscapes using the EF-S 24mm prime, and Birds In Flight with the EF-S 55-250 IS STM.

I don't have a big budget. Pretty much all of my gear is second hand. There's no way (apart from selling a kidney on the black market or divorce) that I'm going to be able to afford a FF mirrorless like the R6 or R5, especially when you factor in the cost of new RF lenses (adapting my existing EF-S lenses is pointless). Sorry Canon, but at that price point in AUD, it's just not going to happen. 

However ... if this new "high end" M camera has even some of the specs that folks here are suggesting like weather sealing, 32MP sensor, 14fps+, and so on, then I'd be *very* tempted to sell most of my current kit and invest in the M line. I know that's still a significant investment, but if I can pick up just the body and EF/EF-S adapter, then I can continue to use my EF-S lenses, and swap over to native EF-M over time.

Two card slots seems to be one of the things people are wanting in a "high end" M. Personally, I don't see Canon doing that. It's not really part of the M series design and with the Canon online imaging service thingy (can't recall the name, and I know they're still ironing out the issues with it not working recently), I'd be surprised if they offer two physical card slots, and have only one, plus the ability to backup via Bluetooth or WiFi to a mobile device. I know that chews batteries, and I'd *really* hope they use a better battery than the LP-E17 from the 200D/250D/M50, and go with the LP-E6 series. Also many of us already have a bunch of those, so that's an advantage.

Anyway, for this current DSLR shooter who is very aware that DSLRs are dying and mirrorless is the way of the future, bring on the CR2s, so I can start planning and saving for my next camera!


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 5, 2020)

Whereas I think they could do a converter for ef and sacrifice focus at infinity (which I believe I read would be the casualty), I think Canon research indicates the number of people with EOS M and EOS R is limited (to people who contribute to this site and similar ones - ha ha)

I tried the 100-400 Ii ok the m6 ii and the balance is difficult - the grip / body is too small and the weight for me required a monopod mounted to the 100-400. So possible but awkward.

ive used the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 with more success but I still struggle a little with the grip / body on the m6 ii.

I think the EOS-m series is good - small and lightweight. I don’t want them to fiddle battery sizes unless there’s an adapter for us. And for the body, maybe an expansion grip when I need it. Similarly I can use a few select Ef lenses but I can’t see me trying to use rf ones - again size and balance. I’d prefer them to stick with the current parameters and improve them with an m7.

the m6 ii is closer to an EOS or EOS R from menus and controls but there are still some differences I think they could improve on but nothing earth shattering.

so yes please Canon a body with IBIS would stop me buying a second m6 ii, and an add on grip please (not too big) but don’t make it too good as I’d have to sell that and buy 2 new ones, lol...

I just picked up the sigma trio in HK for a good price - my Canon ef-m ones were a poor batch clearly. I think a faster 320mm f/4 would be nice - any bigger of faster would again I think impact size / balance, and maybe a 10mm f/2 with AF. As mentioned, bring me some which I can’t get in other brands, even the manual focus ones are ok...


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 5, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.



I sold some (most of my M glass, kept some primes) and now mainly use an EF-S 15-85 STM and EF 70-300 II USM on my M50 via the adaptor. Both balance quite well. And for fun I've put my 100-400 Mk II on a tripod and put the M50 on the back. Looks mad, but works. Just got a used x 1.4 converter. I might give that a shot with the M50. (986 equivalent by the way ;-). 

The beauty of the M system is the adaptor. Mine cost £23. Lots of lovely glass to hang off the bodies and the EF-S range has some nice compact lenses.


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 5, 2020)

I think the introduction of the M7 and M5 II will mark a clear division between the two two strands (body form factors) of the M range. The M200 and M6 to represent the compact end.

The other part will have built in EVF (which also makes a design statement). Then in order to fit two card slots, IBIS etc. the M7 and I guess the M5 II will end up putting on a bit of size and a hint of weight. I guess the bodies might be a bit taller, to accommodate the tech and our extra fingers. That would also help balance larger legacy glass via the adaptor. Think a slimmed mirrorless version of the 250D. Or something just a bit smaller than the RP. It would also add space for an additional wheel or two.

If they manage to put some weather sealing in the M7 and some subset of animal eye focus they will have a winner. I'll be there for pre-order.

(I love my RP. However my rucksack with the body, 100-400, extender, adaptor and FR 24-105 alone is a lump before I add a 50mm, batteries, filters and all the other stuff.

My M50 and 4 lenses weighs a fraction of my other kit and fits nicely in a shoulder bag).


----------



## addola (Aug 5, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> If the R5 has "overheating problems" in video, will the M7 have even bigger problems, presumably being a smaller body? (I have an R5 in order but will probably use it almost exclusively for still.)



It would be a smaller body, but it wouldn't be as weather-sealed as the R5/R6, so heat can escape. I think that's why the Sony A7S III overheated when it was exposed to the sun.


----------



## Jack Jian (Aug 5, 2020)

Because Canon's main mirrorless rival is pushing so much with their A6xxx series (and will with A5xxx), Canon needs to push too, at similar level. 

So, I believe we'll soon see beautiful specs.


----------



## i_SH (Aug 5, 2020)

1. Canon, let the design of the EOS M7 repeat the design of the EOS R5. R5 is a camera of rare beauty!
2. New stock zoom to the M7 camera is desirable up to 70 mm. It already has something to dock from the EF optics. Or release the EF-M 50-350 (250) zoom immediately.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Aug 5, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.



Yes it can. EF adaptors means it doesnt matter.


----------



## ZenYogiVegan (Aug 5, 2020)

I love my M6II for photos but for 4k video it's rather soft compared to Fuji and Sony so hopefully this will be rectified in the next M series updates - I really want to stay with Canon but have been tempted to switch a number of times recently


----------



## Philrp (Aug 5, 2020)

At the end of the day, Canon knows that people like me want good lenses (not ef-m) and can't afford or do not need full frame.

Like it or not. The 7D filled a space that no other camera did, and it was hugely successful. Canon knows this at least.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 5, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Are there specifications on the RF mount connectors and the protocols used to talk with RF lenses? Visually, the RF mount has the original 8 connection points from the EF mount, plus the additional 4. And if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the EF to RF adapter use those 8 connection points to communicate with adapted EF lenses? If that's the case, wouldn't it also be possible that RF lenses are using those same 8 connection points for basic lenses functions (aperture, auto-focus, lens info, etc)? I know there's a ton to look at here if that sort of thing can be dissected and looked into. But from a visual standpoint, there may be more backwards compatibility in the RF mount then Canon has showed us so far.



Of course there are specifications, but Canon are keeping them secret as they always do! It might be a fun experiment to cover up some of the pins on an RF lens and see what pins are actually needed, but yes it's these new four pins that do the high-speed communication the newer lenses rely on. And no, I very much doubt they'd work with only EF protocols sent to them.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 5, 2020)

Im dying to offload my m50, which ive never been able to get into a flow with. Its too light, too small. My M1 has been a workhorse for years, but even for that one, with a metal body, needed a photodiox metal plate grip to make it fully usuable.

My 11-22 also is so small the handling suffers. I dont have big hands but its also too small. Its still very new and the zoom is stiff as hell (not goign to break it in, likely just sell it also). Ive really come to appreciate lenses with internal focusing, as my 10-22 efs is still a joy to work with all these years later. (adapted to M bodys as well).

I tested the m6ii and aside from a full swivel, it handles beautifully. But it doesnt have ibis...i guess im goign to have to wait more. I REALLY want that camera! Help


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 5, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> Im dying to offload my m50, which ive never been able to get into a flow with. Its too light, too small. My M1 has been a workhorse for years, but even for that one, with a metal body, needed a photodiox metal plate grip to make it fully usuable.
> 
> My 11-22 also is so small the handling suffers. I dont have big hands but its also too small. Its still very new and the zoom is stiff as hell (not goign to break it in, likely just sell it also). Ive really come to appreciate lenses with internal focusing, as my 10-22 efs is still a joy to work with all these years later. (adapted to M bodys as well).
> 
> I tested the m6ii and aside from a full swivel, it handles beautifully. But it doesnt have ibis...i guess im goign to have to wait more. I REALLY want that camera! Help




Looks like internal focusing lenses are dying out in Canon's land. And internal zoom also


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 5, 2020)

A random thought I had--what if the camera itself took smaller batteries, but the extension grip was able to take LP-E6NH or possibly LP-E19? I know Nikon does that with some of their cameras being able to be powered by bigger batteries in a grip. Would allow the M7 to have a smaller internal battery for a small form factor, but for serious users they could get a full-size grip and much larger batteries.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I think the introduction of the M7 and M5 II will mark a clear division between the two two strands (body form factors) of the M range. The M200 and M6 to represent the compact end.
> 
> The other part will have built in EVF (which also makes a design statement). Then in order to fit two card slots, IBIS etc. the M7 and I guess the M5 II will end up putting on a bit of size and a hint of weight. I guess the bodies might be a bit taller, to accommodate the tech and our extra fingers. That would also help balance larger legacy glass via the adaptor. Think a slimmed mirrorless version of the 250D. Or something just a bit smaller than the RP. It would also add space for an additional wheel or two.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure in reading this whether you're confusing an M50-II with an M5-II. The rumor mentions the 50, but not the 5.


----------



## GadgetDave (Aug 5, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Of course there are specifications, but Canon are keeping them secret as they always do! It might be a fun experiment to cover up some of the pins on an RF lens and see what pins are actually needed, but yes it's these new four pins that do the high-speed communication the newer lenses rely on. And no, I very much doubt they'd work with only EF protocols sent to them.



The issue isn't electronics. The distance from the camera flange to the sensor on the EF-M mount is 18mm. The distance on the RF mount is 20mm. That means that the RF lenses are designed to focus the light on the sensor that is 20mm away from where they connect to the camera. 
I believe (I could be wrong!) that would mean that an adapter for EF-M to RF could only be 2 mm thick to make the lens the correct distance for the RF lenses to focus on the sensor in an M-series camera. I think the mounting flange itself might be almost 2mm thick, so probably impossible.

That being said, EF glass adapts amazingly well - I use my M6II regularly with my L series primes and they are fantastic. If the M7 is all that I'm probably a day 1 preorder too.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 5, 2020)

If the 7d Mk III is a stupid m camera, I will be sorely peeved. Canon, just make a pro build APS-C already!!!!


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 5, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> If the 7d Mk III is a stupid m camera, I will be sorely peeved. Canon, just make a pro build APS-C already!!!!



well, it's IQ won't be as high as a smart phone


----------



## reisi007 (Aug 5, 2020)

Just registered to say:

Please have the LP-6 battery ( for the M7 of course)


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 5, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'm not sure in reading this whether you're confusing an M50-II with an M5-II. The rumor mentions the 50, but not the 5.


Goops my bad. I meant the M50 ii.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 5, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> Im dying to offload my m50, which ive never been able to get into a flow with. Its too light, too small. My M1 has been a workhorse for years, but even for that one, with a metal body, needed a photodiox metal plate grip to make it fully usuable.
> 
> My 11-22 also is so small the handling suffers. I dont have big hands but its also too small. Its still very new and the zoom is stiff as hell (not goign to break it in, likely just sell it also). Ive really come to appreciate lenses with internal focusing, as my 10-22 efs is still a joy to work with all these years later. (adapted to M bodys as well).
> 
> I tested the m6ii and aside from a full swivel, it handles beautifully. But it doesnt have ibis...i guess im goign to have to wait more. I REALLY want that camera! Help


Why not put it in a Smallrig cage? It adds a nice amount of grip/size and weight IMO without overdoing it.


----------



## Chig (Aug 5, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I really hope this isn’t supposed to be a replacement for the 7D mark ii because the M bodies are terrible dinky little boxes that feel like a bridge camera and the M lenses are laughable 
A proper replacement for the 7D 2 needs to be a full size body with decent ergonomics similar to the R6 , ideally should be an R7 apc-s rf mount body with a cropped 17mp version of the R5 sensor and all the good stuff from the R6 like digic X processor,the new AF and animal eye af ibis ,etc


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 5, 2020)

Chig said:


> I really hope this isn’t supposed to be a replacement for the 7D mark ii because the M bodies are terrible dinky little boxes that feel like a bridge camera and the M lenses are laughable
> A proper replacement for the 7D 2 needs to be a full size body with decent ergonomics similar to the R6 , ideally should be an R7 apc-s rf mount body with a cropped 17mp version of the R5 sensor and all the good stuff from the R6 like digic X processor,the new AF and animal eye af ibis ,etc


Are any of the majors still announcing cameras like this?


----------



## kimster (Aug 5, 2020)

Could this be the A7SIII killer?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 6, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> If the 7d Mk III is a stupid m camera, I will be sorely peeved. Canon, just make a pro build APS-C already!!!!


Yep


----------



## tigers media (Aug 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I'm really hoping they introduce usb-c or thunderbolt port to it save the need for 2 cards and we can record straight to portable ssd be so much better and save the need for dongles to transfer to computer. other then that weatherproof the crap out of it so we can go full boonta in the bush, would be my number 1 pick!


----------



## lyleschmitz (Aug 6, 2020)

If the M7 has 10 bit 4:2:2, C-Log, a headphone jack, and a relocated HDMI port, consider me sold. Optional battery grip would be nice too - let me decide when to keep it small and portable and when to beef it up. The M line has been great for photography for a while (as long as you're okay with the limited native lens selection, which I am, for now at least), so I really just want to see some video bumps


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

sdz said:


> But we were told that Canon would ditch the M cameras. What gives?
> 
> /sarcasm






Ditboy said:


> I'm debating about switching to Fuji right now from the M system. I currently have 4-M5's and over 20 lenses I use with them. This camera, M7, if it is as currently rumored, would be the only thing that might stop me. Dual slot is a must for me for my next camera. But there is still the problem with lenses. Yes, the 32mm 1.4 is one of the secrets of the Canon world, but it is still mainly a plastic lens. Will it hold up over the years? I would definitely add the Sigma 16 & 56, which I already want. But sadly, I still see the EOS M line being dropped when the EF line is discontinued unless Canon introduces some kind of a speedbooster converter to allow RF lenses to be used on the EF-M bodies. I've used Canon for over 40 years, but my needs have changed and Fuji seems to be the better fit right now. October was when I was planning on the switch, so let's see what you got Canon!



The only people who think Canon will ditch the EOS M series anytime soon are the ones too ignorant to realize it is the best selling mirrorless interchangeable lens camera system on the planet.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

Canfan said:


> We need a RF to EF-M adaptor as well. Some guys who have the RF lens may want to use on it on a smaller camera as well, like EF and EF-S system



Due to the difference in throat diameters and only 2mm difference in registration distance, which is less than the thickness of the RF mount lugs behind the flange, an RF to EF-M adapter that allows infinity focus without additional optical elements is physically impossible.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 6, 2020)

Chig said:


> I really hope this isn’t supposed to be a replacement for the 7D mark ii because the M bodies are terrible dinky little boxes that feel like a bridge camera and the M lenses are laughable
> A proper replacement for the 7D 2 needs to be a full size body with decent ergonomics similar to the R6 , ideally should be an R7 apc-s rf mount body with a cropped 17mp version of the R5 sensor and all the good stuff from the R6 like digic X processor,the new AF and animal eye af ibis ,etc



I don't think you've actually used EF-M mount cameras and lenses seriously, have you?

Firstly, just because previous M bodies are "terribly dinky little boxes" doesn't mean that future ones have to be. Camera size tends to be dictated by marketing. The majority of M users want something small and lightweight. Clearly an 7D series replacement wouldn't be small and light - but it absolutely could use the EF-M mount.

M lenses are far from laughable. The EF-M prime lenses are fantastic, and the EF-M 11-18 ultra-wide angle zoom is superb. 

A premium APS-C camera targeted as an upgrade to 7D II users could easily be an EF-M camera. It would still work with every lens an 7D user would currently own.

Imagine something the same size body and ergonomics as the R5 or R6, but with EF-M mount, better thermal management (because of smaller sensor) and a bundled EF-M to EF adaptor (improved over the existing one, with weather sealing). There's also no reason why Canon couldn't produce new EF->EF-M adaptors with drop-in filters or control rings either.

Of course, Canon could still launch an R mount body instead. We can't rule out either option right now.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 6, 2020)

GadgetDave said:


> The issue isn't electronics. The distance from the camera flange to the sensor on the EF-M mount is 18mm. The distance on the RF mount is 20mm. That means that the RF lenses are designed to focus the light on the sensor that is 20mm away from where they connect to the camera.
> I believe (I could be wrong!) that would mean that an adapter for EF-M to RF could only be 2 mm thick to make the lens the correct distance for the RF lenses to focus on the sensor in an M-series camera. I think the mounting flange itself might be almost 2mm thick, so probably impossible.
> 
> That being said, EF glass adapts amazingly well - I use my M6II regularly with my L series primes and they are fantastic. If the M7 is all that I'm probably a day 1 preorder too.




The flange distance is the obvious reason, but don't discount the electronics issue which is just as big of a problem as the flange distance and would prevent things such as an RF->EF-M teleconverter being practical.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.



It would be fairly elementary for Canon to make RF lenses compatible with the EF-M protocol using only firmware updates for existing RF lenses. After all, both the EF-M and RF protocols are built upon the EF protocol. 

Sure, the RF connection has a faster bus speed. So does USB 3.1 vs. USB 2 or even USB 1, yet it's still possible to make USB 3.1 devices backwards compatible with USB 2 connections, even though USB 3 has more contacts inside the connectors than USB1/2 does.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 6, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think you've actually used EF-M mount cameras and lenses seriously, have you?
> 
> Firstly, just because previous M bodies are "terribly dinky little boxes" doesn't mean that future ones have to be. Camera size tends to be dictated by marketing. The majority of M users want something small and lightweight. Clearly an 7D series replacement wouldn't be small and light - but it absolutely could use the EF-M mount.
> 
> ...



And they might not be mutually exclusive either!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

nkak78 said:


> I think canon will use the eos M line as their mirroless apsc camera and the eos R line up for full frame mirrorless



I'd be very surprised if there isn't eventually an APS-C body in the RF mount. 

I'd also be very surprised if there is ever a FF camera in the EF-M mount.

EOS M will probably always be an APS-C only mount, but I don't think it will be the only mount for Canon APS-C cameras after EF/EF-S cameras and lenses are phased out.

I suppose anything could happen. But for the eight years the EOS M system has existed Canon has kept it in a specific size, weight, and price space aimed a specific demographic of buyers. 

Maybe Canon has decided to eventually expand the EOS-M system to take the place of APS-C EF/EF-S mount cameras and lenses? But I'd be very surprised if they introduce EOS M bodies or EF-M lenses much larger than what they've held the line at for the past eight years during the same time they're transitioning from EF to RF for their full frame cameras and lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> This really just takes a chip in the speedbooster, which I believe is already what many if not most have. Translating protocols isn't that big a deal although it raises the cost of the device.



It doesn't even need that if everything is made by Canon. They'd just need firmware updates for the RF lenses to allow the RF lenses to operate at slower speeds using the fewer connection points the EF-M system has.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The M6 Mark II is already pretty great. Just make a version with EVF, some weather sealing and a bit sharper and more detailed 4K video.
> And some AF improvements from the R5/R6.
> 
> Also we really need a better standard zoom for the M mount. Maybe a 15-60 F4 or F2.8- 4, weather sealed and sharp. And no plastic mount.
> ...



"More detailed 4K video" is where the R5 and R6 begin to get into heating issues. One would assume a smaller body would be even more susceptible to such heating issues.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

Max C said:


> Due to recent events, to which I vowed to myself to not speak of again... Ha
> 
> “all the bells and whistles” is the kinda statement that gets them in trouble... Because now I actually want a bell attached to my camera lololol
> 
> Ps for the dummies out there, I am aware it's not an official statement, please understand what a jest is! Lol



But, but, but... but just because it's a rumor published by someone not affiliated with Canon in any official capacity doesn't mean Canon is not totally touting this camera as having "all of the bells and whistles!" 

Canon must deliver on such promises or they are *******, I tell you, D - O - O - M - E - D, *******!!!!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Have you considered that the vast majority of buyers of the M system maybe buying into the M system because of the nice neat little lens in the collection?



The vast majority of folks here refuse to acknowledge that the EOS M series has been so successful precisely because it is aimed at a market that _does not include them_ as the target buyer.

They're apparently incapable of conceiving that compact, lightweight, and affordable is what has attracted buyers to the EOS M system in droves. Perhaps this is because compact, lightweight, and affordable are not the primary feature they care about in a camera and lens system? And that they can not conceive that they are in the minority of the world's population in this respect?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Is this 61mm rule official? I really hope they break it and release some bigger lenses.



In the eight years plus that the EOS M system has existed, every single EF-M lens they've released is 61mm in diameter, +/- 0.2mm or so. 

EVERY.SINGLE.LENS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sounds good. People who want Canon to discontinue this line for an “R” mount APS-C don’t understand why Canon kneels upgrading the cameras and continues to make new lenses for it. It’s pretty simp,e, as I keep telling them. This is a very popular camera line. Why should Canon abandon it for something else?



It's very popular _precisely_ because it appeals to buyers looking for compact, light, and affordable cameras and lenses. That is something that apparently most of the folks here find incomprehensible.

Just because Canon may introduce larger, more advanced APS-C bodies with more weather sealing into the RF system does not mean Canon _must_ stop making the compact, lightweight, and more affordable EOS M bodies and EF-M lenses as some folks here seem to believe!


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.


And how exactly do all your 7D lenses stop working?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

jam05 said:


> The M6 Mk II is the camera right now with Vloggers



That may well be the case, but that does not mean that vloggers in North America and Western Europe are buying those camera in numbers that are anything remotely more than a drop in the bucket when compared to the numbers of units bought by the hordes of more typical EOS M owners.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

tataylino said:


> I am still waiting for the EF-M equivalent of EF 50mm STM. I hope this will be the next lens and with about same price range.



For decades Canon APS-C shooters had been begging Canon for a cheap, fast 35mm "equivalent" instead of 80mm "equivalent" to the EF 50mm f/1.8. In other words, they wanted a cheap, fast EF-S 22mm lens, or even a 50mm "equivalent" 35/1.8 DX like Nikon offered.

So once the shorter registration distance of the EF-M mount made that possible without requiring a retrofocus design Canon gave them what they asked for in the EF-M 22mm f/2.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> "More detailed 4K video" is where the R5 and R6 begin to get into heating issues. One would assume a smaller body would be even more susceptible to such heating issues.



Not a smoking gun, but the 90D has a downsampling 4k mode, while the M6II line skips and upsamples. So same sensor, same digic and the bigger camera gets better quality video. That and the lack of EFCS in the M6II makes me think there's more in that camera that was disabled in software to make it perform to Canon reliability standards.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I have considered that.
> 
> But the people who'd buy this camera won't care. And neither would the people who like the 61mm form factor, either--none of those is going away! In fact, if they want to produce a whole raft more of lenses whose main feature is 61mm diameter, more power to them, but that shouldn't stop them from occasionally producing something bigger.
> 
> I hope they go to a situation where lots of lenses are consistently 61mm in diameter, but there are a few "advanced" lenses such as long zooms, or wide aperture primes 50mm and greater, that are a bit wider.



But why wouldn't Canon continue to steer potential buyers of such cameras and lenses to the RF system, where such lense certainly already exist now and will exist in even greater numbers in the near future?

Such buyers would almost certainly be tempted by many other things offered in the RF system that aren't included in the EF-M system. On the other hand, if such a buyer goes into the EF-M system, there's not much else up the scale to potentially sell to them.


----------



## Robbie_B (Aug 6, 2020)

For semi-serious amateur photography I have an EOS RP with three native lenses and adapters for Older EF lenses. However, when I go on a trip, perhaps when I USED to go on a trip before the Apocalypse, my single bag has M5, 4 or 5 lenses, spare batteries, charger, filters, gorilla pod, mini speedlight etc. And as a pensioner, I don't need a packhorse to lug the gear. THAT is the major benefit of the M mount camera system for me. I gave my M50 with the kit lens and 55-200 to my 13 year old granddaughter and she now is a hooked photographer/videographer. Canon has a winning system in the M Mount and i assume they will be with us for a long time.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 6, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> If the 7d Mk III is a stupid m camera, I will be sorely peeved. Canon, just make a pro build APS-C already!!!!


You can always use an R5 in APS-C mode. Or maybe Canon will add an APS-H mode in some future firmware upgrade. That's pretty close to Super-35 video size.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> In the eight years plus that the EOS M system has existed, every single EF-M lens they've released is 61mm in diameter, +/- 0.2mm or so.
> 
> EVERY.SINGLE.LENS.


And that's a mistake.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> In the eight years plus that the EOS M system has existed, every single EF-M lens they've released is 61mm in diameter, +/- 0.2mm or so.
> 
> EVERY.SINGLE.LENS.



That doesn't make it a rule, does it? It's a chicken/egg thing here. All the lenses are small because there are no larger EF-M bodies. Adding a larger EF-M body would make it more sensible to have larger lenses.

There's no physical limit on the size of an EF-M lens, it's just marketing.


----------



## GadgetDave (Aug 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> "More detailed 4K video" is where the R5 and R6 begin to get into heating issues. One would assume a smaller body would be even more susceptible to such heating issues.



Possibly - but the # of transistors certainly contributes to the heating - which is probably part of why the overheating problem on the R5 > R6 > A7s III. (We obviously know these sensors are the same physical size but only know MP counts, not transistor counts, so I'm guessing).

The additional thing is that an APS-C sensor is physically only about 38% the size of a FF sensor (332 mm2 vs 864 mm2), so the smaller size might also contribute to a difference in heating, all other things being equal (which we don't know if they are).

Certainly if it's only 4K video, one thing sony did to get "more detailed video" was increase the size of the photosensors, keeping the sensor at only ~ 12MP. So you have to wonder what you can do with the sensor in the M6II?


----------



## nchoh (Aug 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I have considered that.
> 
> But the people who'd buy this camera won't care. ...



Actually, it is quite an important factor that Canon is banking on. Coherence is a very big principle in marketing. When buyers look at the M series they see a small lightweight system that is uniformly designed. That's important to selling to a very large market. Add in some very big lenses to the M line up and what do you get? M series is generally small but if I want to do everything, I might have to get some big lenses. Very different sales message.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 6, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think you've actually used EF-M mount cameras and lenses seriously, have you?
> 
> Firstly, just because previous M bodies are "terribly dinky little boxes" doesn't mean that future ones have to be. Camera size tends to be dictated by marketing. The majority of M users want something small and lightweight. Clearly an 7D series replacement wouldn't be small and light - but it absolutely could use the EF-M mount.
> 
> ...



They going to make a 600 f4 M? I don't think so. The glass I use on my 7d mk II would not work on m. And, no, throwing in some adapter is not a solution! There are many, many problems introduced by an adapter. Poor weather resistance (ever used big glass in the surf, full of salty sand and water?), reduced function (even a marginal difference means missed shots in bird photography), and mount damage (this adds one more flex point and more leverage against a very small mount!) all pose huge problems. This is not remotely a 7d replacement! I would like a direct 7d replacement indeed, love a APS C or APS H pro body. No, crop mode in a fullframe is not the same. I want the camera to be optomized as a crop camera, not some sort of kludged afrerthought!


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 6, 2020)

The M7 will be my go to camera when i need more megapixels than the R6. I hope the M7 inherits a lot from the R6.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 6, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Actually, it is quite an important factor that Canon is banking on. Coherence is a very big principle in marketing. When buyers look at the M series they see a small lightweight system that is uniformly designed. That's important to selling to a very large market. Add in some very big lenses to the M line up and what do you get? M series is generally small but if I want to do everything, I might have to get some big lenses. Very different sales message.



I'm not sure how important "coherence" is. For better or worse, look at Fuji. They typically have lenses in the same focal length or range from slow and cheap(er) to fast and expensive. The Fuji X-t4, X-t30 and X-T200 all have different price points and capabilities but use the same lens mount. The sales message that Canon is sending now is that if you want to do "everything" with your canon M5 or M6-2, you need to use EF lenses or buy into the R system. I don't think Canon would lose much if they enlarged their 60mm diameter limit to 72mm. That's about the diameter of the Sigma 16f/1.4.


----------



## ctk (Aug 6, 2020)

Honestly, with the R6 video problems and 3rd party lens makers dragging their feet on RF glass, some IBIS equipped 32MP EF-M options sound a lot more appealing to me. EF-M lens selection still sucks, but there's just enough there that I could make it work in combo with my R or some other FF body. My main lens would be the Sigma 30 1.4; I could adapt an EF 85 for a nice little portrait/travel tele lens; and Laowa has that Zero-D 9mm for my travel architecture needs. Only real gap is a decent 24-xx equivalent standard zoom. An EF-M L zoom is a pipe dream but a 15-xx in the same vein of the 32 1.4 would be nice. I've always wanted Sigma to make something like a 15-45/2.8 to share across M43/E mount/EF-M/Fuji too. That would be great. No rush though, we will see what happens.


----------



## ctk (Aug 6, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm not sure how important "coherence" is. For better or worse, look at Fuji. They typically have lenses in the same focal length or range from slow and cheap(er) to fast and expensive. The Fuji X-t4, X-t30 and X-T200 all have different price points and capabilities but use the same lens mount. The sales message that Canon is sending now is that if you want to do "everything" with your canon M5 or M6-2, you need to use EF lenses or buy into the R system. I don't think Canon would lose much if they enlarged their 60mm diameter limit to 72mm. That's about the diameter of the Sigma 16f/1.4.



Yea coherence is not an issue at all. Most M mount users aren't venturing beyond kit glass in the first place, hence the lack of M lens development/selection.

I don't think big L glass is a great idea for the M system, and people who want it can just adapt EF glass. But if they are looking to make some more premium bodies, there definitely needs to be at least a semi-premium standard zoom to bundle with it. Sony E, Fuji, M43 and even Samsung all have/had a premium standard zoom, so I think one for EF-M is justifiable. If it has to be variable aperture and plastic to keep the price down I think that would be OK. Something like a 15-60 F/2.8-4 or something.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 6, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> They going to make a 600 f4 M? I don't think so. The glass I use on my 7d mk II would not work on m. And, no, throwing in some adapter is not a solution! There are many, many problems introduced by an adapter. Poor weather resistance (ever used big glass in the surf, full of salty sand and water?), reduced function (even a marginal difference means missed shots in bird photography), and mount damage (this adds one more flex point and more leverage against a very small mount!) all pose huge problems. This is not remotely a 7d replacement! I would like a direct 7d replacement indeed, love a APS C or APS H pro body. No, crop mode in a fullframe is not the same. I want the camera to be optomized as a crop camera, not some sort of kludged afrerthought!



And have they made a 600 F4 RF either? No. You might have to wait another 5 years for that.

The EF-RF adaptor is pretty well weathersealed, and there is no reduction in autofocus function with the adaptor. They'd need a new EF-EF-M adaptor with weathersealing for a pro body, but I'd guess they'd include that in the box IF they decide to do a pro 7D replacement.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 6, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm not sure how important "coherence" is. For better or worse, look at Fuji. They typically have lenses in the same focal length or range from slow and cheap(er) to fast and expensive. The Fuji X-t4, X-t30 and X-T200 all have different price points and capabilities but use the same lens mount. The sales message that Canon is sending now is that if you want to do "everything" with your canon M5 or M6-2, you need to use EF lenses or buy into the R system. I don't think Canon would lose much if they enlarged their 60mm diameter limit to 72mm. That's about the diameter of the Sigma 16f/1.4.



Well, if you compare what the M series competes against - I believe its the M43 system. The M43 system has lots of cameras and lots of lenses. Yet the M series sells well. I would say coherence works for the sales of M series to the market that they are after. Fuji cameras have their own appeal - tangible knobs for a more down to earth experience which neither Canon nor NIkon nor Sony matches.

But to answer the question; what will it take for Canon to break away from the 60mm rule? 1) the existing market for the M dries up [so reposition the M] 2) If Canon decides that R will never have an APS-C body [I don't think so, Canon will make an APS-C R so that they can sell smaller R glass... borrowed from the M]. 3) The M has been moved to the P&S team; this could be significant depending on how closely aligned the P&S team works with the DSLR/mirrorless team.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 6, 2020)

ctk said:


> Yea coherence is not an issue at all. Most M mount users aren't venturing beyond kit glass in the first place, hence the lack of M lens development/selection.
> 
> I don't think big L glass is a great idea for the M system, and people who want it can just adapt EF glass. But if they are looking to make some more premium bodies, there definitely needs to be at least a semi-premium standard zoom to bundle with it. Sony E, Fuji, M43 and even Samsung all have/had a premium standard zoom, so I think one for EF-M is justifiable. If it has to be variable aperture and plastic to keep the price down I think that would be OK. Something like a 15-60 F/2.8-4 or something.



You miss the point, coherence is a marketing concept. Determine the market and then build products for that market. 

The fact that majority of M buyers don't buy more lenses beyond the kit lens is even more reason for Canon to not develop more lenses let alone make lenses that moves away from the styling message that it current has. The fact that people like you and me use EF and EF-S lenses for our M cameras is a fact that is probably lost to Canon; how would they know? I use a 3rd party adapter with my EF and EFS lenses.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Aug 6, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> They going to make a 600 f4 M? I don't think so. The glass I use on my 7d mk II would not work on m. And, no, throwing in some adapter is not a solution! There are many, many problems introduced by an adapter. Poor weather resistance (ever used big glass in the surf, full of salty sand and water?), reduced function (even a marginal difference means missed shots in bird photography), and mount damage (this adds one more flex point and more leverage against a very small mount!) all pose huge problems. This is not remotely a 7d replacement! I would like a direct 7d replacement indeed, love a APS C or APS H pro body. No, crop mode in a fullframe is not the same. I want the camera to be optomized as a crop camera, not some sort of kludged afrerthought!



Every single word you typed is false. 

I do motorsport which includes rallying - a branch that is well known for being horrific on cameras. The M6 II has had little issues in those kind of enviroments so far. 

There is NO reduction in function. NONE. Full stop. 

There is NO mount damage. 

And yes, I have a 7D II. It''s been relegated to the backup to the M6 II. aka a M-Mount replaced the 7D II. I have said things I would like in a 7D III and frankly I havent given one second of a bother if it turns out it's a M mount camera. Becuase the M-Mount camera has already proven it's fine.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> ...Just because Canon may introduce larger, more advanced APS-C bodies with more weather sealing into the RF system does not mean Canon _must_ stop making the compact, lightweight, and more affordable EOS M bodies and EF-M lenses as some folks here seem to believe!



...Just because Canon may introduce larger, more advanced APS-C bodies with more weather sealing into the *M system* does not mean Canon _must_ stop making the compact, lightweight, and more affordable EOS M bodies and EF-M lenses as some folks here seem to believe!


----------



## dirk-jan (Aug 6, 2020)

A couple of years ago, I traveled with a 6D and a 7D, along with a bunch of EF glass (mostly L).
Since then, I've given the 7D to a friend to start their photography hobby and upgraded the 6D to an R.

Now, I'm contemplating the purchase of a 6D and (amongst others) the RF 100-500.
A crop camera like the M7 would definitely pull me over to fully invest in the RF line, as I like the option of the (perceived) extra reach along with its performance capabilities.

Oh, wait... Does that M7 take RF lenses? Guess not...

Let's wait until they really announce something. If there's not a 7D successor in the RF lineup, I might just as well do what I've been thinking of for quite a while but postponed all the time because I had hope Canon would bring out a camera in RF lineup that allowed me to travel with just one system instead of two...


----------



## SteveC (Aug 6, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Actually, it is quite an important factor that Canon is banking on. Coherence is a very big principle in marketing. When buyers look at the M series they see a small lightweight system that is uniformly designed. That's important to selling to a very large market. Add in some very big lenses to the M line up and what do you get? M series is generally small but if I want to do everything, I might have to get some big lenses. Very different sales message.



A couple of weeks ago I suggested they might create a new series of bodies, clearly upscale and less compact, and call them something that's _not_ M series, but which use the EF-M mount. Obviously lenses would be interchangeable between the M series and the not-M series, but the marketing could continue to make the distinction between compact/light/aimed at more casual users and the more serious crop frame not-M series. Anyhow, this not-M series could be aimed at the current 7D market. (Heck, I'd even include an adaptor in the box, since it's upscale. Maybe introduce a control ring?)


----------



## SteveC (Aug 6, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> The glass I use on my 7d mk II would not work on m.



Really? You can't stick your EF glass on an adapter?


----------



## nchoh (Aug 6, 2020)

dirk-jan said:


> A couple of years ago, I traveled with a 6D and a 7D, along with a bunch of EF glass (mostly L).
> Since then, I've given the 7D to a friend to start their photography hobby and upgraded the 6D to an R.
> 
> Now, I'm contemplating the purchase of a 6D and (amongst others) the RF 100-500.
> ...



Sounds like you do some BIF photography, hence the RF100-500? If you do you should quickly get the R5 with that lens. The animal eye focus of the R5 by all reports is super amazing and with the 45MP of the camera, BIF photography will be ho-hum is a few short years.


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 7, 2020)

AprilForever said:


> They going to make a 600 f4 M? I don't think so. The glass I use on my 7d mk II would not work on m. And, no, throwing in some adapter is not a solution! There are many, many problems introduced by an adapter. Poor weather resistance (ever used big glass in the surf, full of salty sand and water?), reduced function (even a marginal difference means missed shots in bird photography), and mount damage (this adds one more flex point and more leverage against a very small mount!) all pose huge problems. This is not remotely a 7d replacement! I would like a direct 7d replacement indeed, love a APS C or APS H pro body. No, crop mode in a fullframe is not the same. I want the camera to be optomized as a crop camera, not some sort of kludged afrerthought!



Hi AprilForever.

I have an M50 and that works very well with my Canon EF100-400 II and the 1.4 extender. OK it is out of balance unless one holds the lens and balances with the body. Generally I do use it with smaller EF and EF-S glass though.

The adaptor (mine cost £25.00) doesn't add any problems for me. Could you list the ones you have experienced?

Wouldn't you just be better buying up a stock of S/H 7D Mk IIs and just beating them to death or drowning them one by one?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> And that's a mistake.



Yeah, because the EOS M system is only the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the entire planet!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> That doesn't make it a rule, does it? It's a chicken/egg thing here. All the lenses are small because there are no larger EF-M bodies. Adding a larger EF-M body would make it more sensible to have larger lenses.
> 
> There's no physical limit on the size of an EF-M lens, it's just marketing.



In marketing image is everything.

Perception is reality.

Canon is a company that makes its money based on how well they design and produce products that can be marketed to potential buyers. As crazy as it may sound to the folks here, you are not the typical buyers of interchangeable lens cameras. Even with the shift to smartphone cameras by most people, there are still more buyers of ILCs that want what the EOS M system offers: a single body and two or three lenses that are compact, lightweight, and affordable, than there are potential buyers who want a closet full of various camera bodies and a drawer full of lenses.

One reason the EOS M system sells as well as it does is because Canon has carefully crafted a brand for it that says: "Compact, Lightweight, and Affordable that fits your on-the-go lifestyle."

They're crazy if they screw that up when it is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> ...Just because Canon may introduce larger, more advanced APS-C bodies with more weather sealing into the *M system* does not mean Canon _must_ stop making the compact, lightweight, and more affordable EOS M bodies and EF-M lenses as some folks here seem to believe!



But it would mean they would muddy the waters of the branding that has made the EOS M system the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

The kinds of cameras and lenses you want for the M system make much more sense in the RF mount and EOS R system. Both from branding/marketing perspective and from an engineering perspective.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> A couple of weeks ago I suggested they might create a new series of bodies, clearly upscale and less compact, and call them something that's _not_ M series, but which use the EF-M mount. Obviously lenses would be interchangeable between the M series and the not-M series, but the marketing could continue to make the distinction between compact/light/aimed at more casual users and the more serious crop frame not-M series. Anyhow, this not-M series could be aimed at the current 7D market. (Heck, I'd even include an adaptor in the box, since it's upscale. Maybe introduce a control ring?)



Perhaps, but I still think it makes more sense to develop and market those "upscale" bodies and lenses with the RF mount.


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 7, 2020)

I’ve had a thought. Don’t be shocked now it had to happen sooner or later.

If we look outside the Canon bubble for a moment, be strong people it won’t hurt I promise, which cameras would an M7 be competing against?

Answer is the XT-4 and the Sony A6600. Both have IBIS good face detect etc. And the XT-4 has twin card slots.

if you look the specs of those two, with some minor variations you have the M7.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I’ve had a thought. Don’t be shocked now it had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> If we look outside the Canon bubble for a moment, be strong people it won’t hurt I promise, which cameras would an M7 be competing against?
> 
> ...



Nah, in terms of marketing and the buyers it is aimed at, the EOS M system competes against Micro Four-Thirds. 

In case you haven't noticed, it's winning that war fairly handily.


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Nah, in terms of marketing and the buyers it is aimed at, the EOS M system competes against Micro Four-Thirds.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, it's winning that war fairly handily.



Hi Michael, interesting point. 

And with an M7 they will be going up against the 'cream of the crop frame cameras' from Sony and Fuji. In terms of size / performance and functionality an M7 would sit comfortably in a line up with those.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 7, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Why not put it in a Smallrig cage? It adds a nice amount of grip/size and weight IMO without overdoing it.



Yup great thinking and that was the plan, however now that has shifted to the next body ill replace it with. Smallcage rocks.  

I dont have much confidence in the m50, too many blurry images, so I no longer use it. Its the longest testing period for a camera ive ever had to to do (almost a year), but its never been reliable so off it goes.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> But it would mean they would muddy the waters of the branding that has made the EOS M system the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth.
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> The kinds of cameras and lenses you want for the M system make much more sense in the RF mount and EOS R system. Both from branding/marketing perspective and from an engineering perspective.


This "branding" exists only in the minds of camera geeks who waste time on this forum. The rest of the camera buying public could not care less about this supposed distinction. A top of the line M7 won't affect sales of the other M series cameras any more than the 7D affected the Rebels. 

For the record, though, I don't "want" any particular system. I'll consider whatever Canon produces, whether it is M, R, EF or EF-S mount. Actually, if the R5 performs as well at it's marketing claims, I could be content with that and just crop my images. 

I just happen to think that it makes sense for Canon to have one camera line that is full frame and one camera line that is APS-C. This seems to be the way they have been going with mirrorless and I think the handwriting on the wall is that they will continue down that road. As I've said before, given the average 7D user, they would only need to produce one or two lenses in the M mount for most buyers and I can't see them repeating the EF EF-S mess with different lenses for different size sensors in the RF system.

You keep hanging on to this idea that the "M" system is small and pocketable as somehow meaning they can not produce a larger body. That seems like a much smaller distinction than the one between APS-C and Full Frame sensors. 

Only time will tell though and I really don't care from a personal standpoint.


----------



## OremLK (Aug 7, 2020)

A new flagship M series body with IBIS is the camera I'm looking for, personally. Thought it was strange that the M6.II was not released alongside a camera with a built-in viewfinder. IBIS will also help with the small unstabilized primes that best suit a small APS-C system.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 7, 2020)

OremLK said:


> A new flagship M series body with IBIS is the camera I'm looking for, personally. Thought it was strange that the M6.II was not released alongside a camera with a built-in viewfinder.[..]



It was, alongside the 90D.


----------



## OremLK (Aug 7, 2020)

Also, my lens wishlist would include a compact, sharp zoom that starts ultrawide and extends to around 50mm (FF equivalent), like some of Panasonic's recent offerings. Something along the lines of 12-30mm would be great. Doesn't have to be bright as long as it's good optically. Basically, a better travel/landscape lens.



koenkooi said:


> It was, alongside the 90D.



Totally different system? If I wanted a camera the size of a 90D I wouldn't be buying anything APS-C, unless I already had a big stash of EF-S lenses (I don't).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> Hi Michael, interesting point.
> 
> And with an M7 they will be going up against the 'cream of the crop frame cameras' from Sony and Fuji. In terms of size / performance and functionality an M7 would sit comfortably in a line up with those.



It remains to be seen in full, but based on what we've seen so far in the RF system my take is that Canon's response to the Fuji and Sony APS-C models is, "That's cute. Here, try this FF camera in the same general price range."


----------



## nchoh (Aug 7, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I’ve had a thought. Don’t be shocked now it had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> If we look outside the Canon bubble for a moment, be strong people it won’t hurt I promise, which cameras would an M7 be competing against?
> 
> ...



Astute observation. With a shrinking camera market, Canon will most likely be going after all market segments. If Canon is taking the M to the fight, then look forward to more development with the M series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This "branding" exists only in the minds of camera geeks who waste time on this forum. The rest of the camera buying public could not care less about this supposed distinction. A top of the line M7 won't affect sales of the other M series cameras any more than the 7D affected the Rebels.
> 
> For the record, though, I don't "want" any particular system. I'll consider whatever Canon produces, whether it is M, R, EF or EF-S mount. Actually, if the R5 performs as well at it's marketing claims, I could be content with that and just crop my images.
> 
> ...



I'm no more hung up on the idea that the defining feature of the M system is that it fits a certain marketing profile than you are hung up on the idea that sensor size is more important than branding and marketing to sales results.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

OremLK said:


> A new flagship M series body with IBIS is the camera I'm looking for, personally. Thought it was strange that the M6.II was not released alongside a camera with a built-in viewfinder. IBIS will also help with the small unstabilized primes that best suit a small APS-C system.



The fact that the M6 Mark II was designed with absolutely no way to use an eye level viewfinder and control off-camera flash at the same time tells you all you need to know about where Canon sees the EOS M system from a marketing perspective.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Astute observation. With a shrinking camera market, Canon will most likely be going after all market segments. If Canon is taking the M to the fight, then look forward to more development with the M series.



I'd be very surprised if Canon chooses to take on the Fuji and Sony APS-C bodies with the M series.

Their strategy seems to be to compete with those systems with very affordable full frame bodies such as the EOS RP and an even cheaper FF body that is rumored to be coming once Canon has filled out the non-L portion of the RF lens ecosystem a bit more.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This "branding" exists only in the minds of camera geeks who waste time on this forum. The rest of the camera buying public could not care less about this supposed distinction. A top of the line M7 won't affect sales of the other M series cameras any more than the 7D affected the Rebels.
> 
> For the record, though, I don't "want" any particular system. I'll consider whatever Canon produces, whether it is M, R, EF or EF-S mount. Actually, if the R5 performs as well at it's marketing claims, I could be content with that and just crop my images.



And you are not wasting your time on this forum?

FYI, us forum dwellers are a very small group of camera buyers. Some of us spend a great deal of money on cameras. For these users, Canon sells the 5Ds and now the R5; expensive cameras. This makes them money and supports the pyramid of cameras from the 1D down to the M200. For the rest of the people, Canon sold Rebels and now M cameras. Canon will not trash one market segment for another.



> I just happen to think that it makes sense for Canon to have one camera line that is full frame and one camera line that is APS-C. This seems to be the way they have been going with mirrorless and I think the handwriting on the wall is that they will continue down that road. As I've said before, given the average 7D user, they would only need to produce one or two lenses in the M mount for most buyers and I can't see them repeating the EF EF-S mess with different lenses for different size sensors in the RF system.
> 
> You keep hanging on to this idea that the "M" system is small and pocketable as somehow meaning they can not produce a larger body. That seems like a much smaller distinction than the one between APS-C and Full Frame sensors.
> 
> Only time will tell though and I really don't care from a personal standpoint.



Why do you think it makes sense for Canon to have one camera line that is FF and one that is APS-C? 

I believe the current situation is only this way because the M is conceived and designed as a small compact and cheap camera, so it won't have a FF version, and because the R line is still not mature, that the time for Canon to release an APS-C R camera has not yet come. They might or they might not, but I can see no reason why Canon would make a rule - one line for APS-C and one line for FF.

Will the M7 affect sales of other M series cameras? Nomenclature does not. but the size and design of the M series will be determined by what Canon considers the market for M cameras.

I don't believe that anyone has said that Canon cannot produce a larger M body. I believe what has been said is that Canon probably does not want to produce larger M bodies due to design language.


----------



## ctk (Aug 7, 2020)

nchoh said:


> You miss the point, coherence is a marketing concept. Determine the market and then build products for that market.
> 
> The fact that majority of M buyers don't buy more lenses beyond the kit lens is even more reason for Canon to not develop more lenses let alone make lenses that moves away from the styling message that it current has. The fact that people like you and me use EF and EF-S lenses for our M cameras is a fact that is probably lost to Canon; how would they know? I use a 3rd party adapter with my EF and EFS lenses.


I get what coherence is in the context of marketing, I just don't see how it's relevant. I don't think EOS-M shoppers would be confused by an expanded lens lineup. EOS M has a decent amount of glass beyond kit stuff now; what damage would be done by some more?

I agree that changing the mount is a bad idea but a higher end body with some lenses to go with it would be fine.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, because the EOS M system is only the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the entire planet!


How would adding a higher end M body and higher end lenses reduce M system sales? (Although they might reduce sales of the RP.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> How would adding a higher end M body and higher end lenses reduce M system sales? (Although they might reduce sales of the RP.)



Have you ever studied marketing and branding?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

ctk said:


> I get what coherence is in the context of marketing, I just don't see how it's relevant. I don't think EOS-M shoppers would be confused by an expanded lens lineup. EOS M has a decent amount of glass beyond kit stuff now; what damage would be done by some more?
> 
> I agree that changing the mount is a bad idea but a higher end body with some lenses to go with it would be fine.



Higher end bodies and lenses would be even "finer" in the RF mount than the EF-M mount.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 7, 2020)

ctk said:


> I get what coherence is in the context of marketing, I just don't see how it's relevant. I don't think EOS-M shoppers would be confused by an expanded lens lineup. EOS M has a decent amount of glass beyond kit stuff now; what damage would be done by some more?
> 
> I agree that changing the mount is a bad idea but a higher end body with some lenses to go with it would be fine.



Firstly, I am not saying that Canon will not add more lenses or more capable cameras to the M series. What I believe is that Canon currently is following a certain market and thus a certain design language for the M series, so no large lenses [60 mm rule]. More EFM lenses yes, bigger ones? No.

It is also apparent that within the small form factor of the M cameras, Canon is playing around a lot with different body styles. M6 = premium with no built-in EVF, M5 = premium with built-in EVF with more buttons, M200= small form factor. A higher end body is in the works as per this article. But I believe that it will still be roughly around the small body size of its siblings.

But what is a higher end body? Better video capabilities? More buttons, wheels or thumbstick? Better sensor? IBIS? According to this article, IBIS is in the works for the next M camera. The sensor is already great. Video capabilities and more buttons is probably out as the size of the M body is pretty much full as per the M5.

I don't see that Canon would move out of their M market at the moment... as long as it sells well. Personally, I would bet that Canon will eventually come out with a smaller APS-C R body to fulfill a market segment. An APS-C R body would be able to take the EFS lenses, giving Canon impetus to update the EFS lenses line up, making them more money. Then they will come out with an R-S(?) lens line and fill out that lens line as well... making them more money.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 7, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever studied marketing and branding?


Not formally, but I'm quite certain you haven't either. Now, please answer my question.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 7, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Not formally, but I'm quite certain you haven't either. Now, please answer my question.



Send $250 to my paypal and I'll consider that an agreement to do what you want me to do.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 7, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> Yup great thinking and that was the plan, however now that has shifted to the next body ill replace it with. Smallcage rocks.
> 
> I dont have much confidence in the m50, too many blurry images, so I no longer use it. Its the longest testing period for a camera ive ever had to to do (almost a year), but its never been reliable so off it goes.


I'm curious why that is. I'm admittedly a novice, but if I take a few hundred shots only maybe a dozen come out blurry. What scenarios are you having issues with? The only stuff I'm finding challenging is low light.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 7, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I’ve had a thought. Don’t be shocked now it had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> If we look outside the Canon bubble for a moment, be strong people it won’t hurt I promise, which cameras would an M7 be competing against?
> 
> ...


You'd also be competing with the bottom end of the R system, maybe not even the bottom. Consider an M7 that is basically an R6 with a 24 or 32MP APS-C sensor and an M mount, selling for $1600. R system sales would likely decrease and Canon would have raised its engineering, production and marketing costs. The sales of the M system would almost certainly increase but Canon would make less money because of increased costs.

Got that Michael???


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 7, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> You'd also be competing with the bottom end of the R system, maybe not even the bottom. Consider an M7 that is basically an R6 with a 24 or 32MP APS-C sensor and an M mount, selling for $1600. R system sales would likely decrease and Canon would have raised its engineering, production and marketing costs. The sales of the M system would almost certainly increase but Canon would make less money because of increased costs.
> 
> Got that Michael???


I don't see why this would be an issue, honestly. People buy an R for features they won't ever get on the M mount. Full frame sensor, more 'pro' controls, access to better accessories, higher end lenses. Pricing a hypothetical high end M mount camera at, say, $1399 would not erode R sales, people who buy the R need what it brings. And those who are confused by the distinction aren't really R customers to begin with.


----------



## secant (Aug 8, 2020)

M7 sounds like a continuation of the 7D line which is the top of the line for Canon APSC DSLR to me I like that.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 8, 2020)

I wish Canon would drop the LP-E12 battery and just keep the LP-E17. The difference in size is minimal, only 1-2 mm.
In my opinion is pointless to have 2 separate battery types which are almost identical.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 8, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This "branding" exists only in the minds of camera geeks who waste time on this forum. The rest of the camera buying public could not care less about this supposed distinction. A top of the line M7 won't affect sales of the other M series cameras any more than the 7D affected the Rebels.
> 
> For the record, though, I don't "want" any particular system. I'll consider whatever Canon produces, whether it is M, R, EF or EF-S mount. Actually, if the R5 performs as well at it's marketing claims, I could be content with that and just crop my images.
> 
> ...



I agree for the most part. However, the main target of a 7D type of camera would be wildlife and sport shooters. Will Canon create pro quality telephoto lenses for the M system. Highly unlikely. So your only option will be to use "old and outdated" adapted EF lenses. That's why compatibility between RF and M mounts would be good and that's why "EF EF-S mess" made lots of sense.
You can use the same EF 100-400 on your 7D and 5D, whichever you wanted to shoot with on that particular day. Now with RF and M you cannot do that.

So the M will either will remain a "cheap" consumer line with $1000 cameras paired with $100 all-plastic lenses (m6II + 15-45) or with some decent lenses like a
lower grade 100-400/100-500 F8-11.

I think Sony's E mount and Nikons Z are much better solutions. Buy the Sony 200-600 and pick up a $300 A6000 and you have a killer APS-C wildlife kit.
Later add a A7R4 and now you have a 61MP full frame body compatible with the same 200-600 lens.


----------



## ctk (Aug 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever studied marketing and branding?


Why does one have to formally study marketing/branding to be able to discuss it? There are plenty of obviously bad marketing campaigns that were designed by experts.... you don't have to be in the industry to have a valid opinion.


nchoh said:


> Firstly, I am not saying that Canon will not add more lenses or more capable cameras to the M series. What I believe is that Canon currently is following a certain market and thus a certain design language for the M series, so no large lenses [60 mm rule]. More EFM lenses yes, bigger ones? No.
> 
> It is also apparent that within the small form factor of the M cameras, Canon is playing around a lot with different body styles. M6 = premium with no built-in EVF, M5 = premium with built-in EVF with more buttons, M200= small form factor. A higher end body is in the works as per this article. But I believe that it will still be roughly around the small body size of its siblings.
> 
> ...



I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going.

What would a higher end M body look like? IBIS, weather sealing, more controls, better EVF. A high end standard zoom lens and a weathersealed EF adapter. No need for an APS-C RF body, this would basically fit that role. This wouldn't be Canon "moving out" of the M's market, it would expand it. I use myself as an example. I have an R and wanted to get an R6 to complement it for video and low light work. With all the issues of the R6.... no sale. New crop sensor has proven itself as reliable, so a higher end M body with corresponding glass will net Canon a sale from me and keep me in their system. Otherwise I can easily leave Canon altogether. Better to cannibalize yourself than lose marketshare.


----------



## ctk (Aug 8, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I agree for the most part. However, the main target of a 7D type of camera would be wildlife and sport shooters. Will Canon create pro quality telephoto lenses for the M system. Highly unlikely. So your only option will be to use "old and outdated" adapted EF lenses. That's why compatibility between RF and M mounts would be good and that's why "EF EF-S mess" made lots of sense.
> You can use the same EF 100-400 on your 7D and 5D, whichever you wanted to shoot with on that particular day. Now with RF and M you cannot do that.
> 
> So the M will either will remain a "cheap" consumer line with $1000 cameras paired with $100 all-plastic lenses (m6II + 15-45) or with some decent lenses like a
> ...


How are EF lenses "old and outdated"? The majority of them are excellent and work great adapted to Canon's mirrorless bodies. Plus someone looking for a crop body is probably budget constrained and won't be able to afford the latest and greatest in the first place. Canon EF tele glass probably gives 90% of the performance for a much smaller fraction of the cost.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 8, 2020)

ctk said:


> How are EF lenses "old and outdated"? The majority of them are excellent and work great adapted to Canon's mirrorless bodies. Plus someone looking for a crop body is probably budget constrained and won't be able to afford the latest and greatest in the first place. Canon EF tele glass probably gives 90% of the performance for a much smaller fraction of the cost.



Old and outdated was in quotes for that reason. It's still amazing of course but not native EF-M lens and won't be as future proof as RF lenses are for example.
Plus needs an adaptor which adds length, bulk and additional failure points. Apart from that they are great, sure. Will there be updates tho, cause in 3 years even the amazing 100-400 will be 10 year old.

I love the M system for what is it and it's great for small travel kit and everyday shooting. I just don't think a high-end expensive M body makes much sense unless Canon will invest heavily in M lenses. And i have little hope for that from what happened so far and seeing some M lens patents (telephoto lenses with F8 apertures, etc).

In my opinion, keep the M mount for small and affordable cameras and add few higher quality zooms and primes to complete the lineup. 
And make an RF mount APS-C as 7D replacement.


----------



## ctk (Aug 8, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Old and outdated was in quotes for that reason. It's still amazing of course but not native EF-M lens and won't be as future proof as RF lenses are for example.
> Plus needs an adaptor which adds length, bulk and additional failure points. Apart from that they are great, sure. Will there be updates tho, cause in 3 years even the amazing 100-400 will be 10 year old.
> 
> I love the M system for what is it and it's great for small travel kit and everyday shooting. I just don't think a high-end expensive M body makes much sense unless Canon will invest heavily in M lenses. And i have little hope for that from what happened so far and seeing some M lens patents (telephoto lenses with F8 apertures, etc).
> ...


What does "future proof" mean for a lens? If you buy a new EF-M lens today, I'd wager it will last as long as a new RF lens. Right now the main lens on my R is the Sigma 50 1.4 from 2008. The EX, not the ART. Sure it's old, but I don't see why that matters. It works great and fit my budget and needs at the time.

For tele glass adapters don't add length or bulk; from ~40mm on lenses tend to be the same length _from the sensor._ If a mirrorless lens longer than 40mm is smaller than its DSLR equivalent it's because of design differences.

I don't see how or why a higher end M body would change what M mount is about. It's not like an M7 would prompt the discontinuation of everything under it. Canon can and has done both and they can do it here.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2020)

ctk said:


> I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going...



I agree. Of course no one on this forum really has any idea but I find the argument that the M system *has* to have *only* small, compact cameras not very convincing. Canon has a decision to make. Looking at all the possibilities they could:

Do nothing and expect APS-C birders and wildlife shooters to crop their images from the R5,
Release a 75+mp high resolution full frame R body that offers sufficiently fast autofocus and fps so that it can be cropped to equal the reach of the 90D,
Create a high-end APS-C body that is a one-off in the R system and leave it out there with no dedicated lenses (similar to what they did in the old days with APS-H),
Create a high-end APS-C body and create a few APS-C lenses that automatically crop on their full frame bodies,
Keep the M system as their APS-C line and create a high-end M7 and maybe add a couple of lenses, like a walk-around 15-85 and a long telephoto zoom,
Keep the M system as their APS-C line and create a high-end M7 but leave the lens lineup alone, expecting people to adapt EF lenses,
Shock everyone with a 7DIII,
Continue to enhance the 90D until it reaches feature parity with the 7DII but with new sensors.

Personally, I think an R system APS-C body is among the least likely options. It hinges on the idea that Canon is convinced that people buying into the M system *only* want small cameras and that none of the perceived reach advantages to crop sensor bodies has any appeal at all to M buyers.

It also assumes that releasing new longer telephoto zooms for the M system presents some sort of insurmountable obstacle that Canon cannot overcome. I find that a bit absurd, especially since Canon does not seem to mind releasing lenses that have a fairly small market appeal. I also wonder just how much more expensive it would be for Canon to take something like the new 500mm zoom and redesign it for the M mount.

In addition, I don't know where they price such a body. If it has all the features of the R5 (which 7D users would expect) is Canon going to price it anywhere near the 7DII price point? Probably not. An M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup has no price ceiling except what the market will pay. Since it is a different mount and the flagship, Canon has more flexibility in where they choose to price it.

I find it very plausible that Canon might prefer to keep a clear differentiation between their APS-C and full frame mount mirrorless lineups, so that buyers know that any lens they buy in the M mount is designed for APS-C and any lens they buy for the R mount is designed for full frame.

Obviously no one except Canon knows for sure, but I agree with you that a third crop system seems unlikely.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 8, 2020)

So strange that some seem to think that adding higher end bodies and glass to the M line would 'muddle the marketing' but that adding an APS-C body and a new line of glass just for that sensor would not 'muddle the marketing' for the RF line.

I think there is a lack of actual marketing knowledge and expertise in these discussion threads.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 8, 2020)

RP is only 0.6 in longer than M5, 0.2 in taller than M5. If the top of the linw M get slightly bigger, then the size difference between the RP and the upcoming "Top M" will be minimal. RP is already selling for $1000 at B & H. The upcoming "Top M" may not be far behind. The better faster EF-M lenses that a lot of people have asked in this forum will be comparable in size and price of the RF lenses. Under simliar condition, would you buy a FF or APS-C? Then the only people that will consider the "Top M" will be the birders. Most people will get the RP instead the "Top M"


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Rocky said:


> RP is only 0.6 in longer than M5, 0.2 in taller than M5. If the top of the linw M get slightly bigger, then the size difference between the RP and the upcoming "Top M" will be minimal. RP is already selling for $1000 at B & H. The upcoming "Top M" may not be far behind. The better faster EF-M lenses that a lot of people have asked in this forum will be comparable in size and price of the RF lenses. Under simliar condition, would you buy a FF or APS-C? Then the only people that will consider the "Top M" will be the birders. Most people will get the RP instead the "Top M"








Compact Camera Meter


Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.



j.mp





But it isn't all about the body.

Here are the two with equivalent 35/22mm prime lenses.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 8, 2020)

Rocky said:


> RP is only 0.6 in longer than M5, 0.2 in taller than M5. If the top of the linw M get slightly bigger, then the size difference between the RP and the upcoming "Top M" will be minimal. RP is already selling for $1000 at B & H. The upcoming "Top M" may not be far behind. The better faster EF-M lenses that a lot of people have asked in this forum will be comparable in size and price of the RF lenses. Under simliar condition, would you buy a FF or APS-C? Then the only people that will consider the "Top M" will be the birders. Most people will get the RP instead the "Top M"


The M5 is significantly smaller in all but one dimension, around 15% lighter, and has 7 lenses below $500 (vs 2 for the RF mount, all of which are larger and heavier). Canon would have to bring the price down considerably on RF lenses to be competitive with a hypothetical "Top M" camera. And even there the result would be a significant size/weight tradeoff when you consider the whole package, including lenses.

They really don't compete with each other and wouldn't even in the scenario described.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Continue to enhance the 90D until it reaches feature parity with the 7DII but with new sensors.



The 32 MP sensor in the 90 D is already pretty damned good. I don't know if it's possible to do _everything_ an R5 does with its sensor, with the 32MP sensor, but there shouldn't be that much of a gap if there is one.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 8, 2020)

The RF 35mm compare to EF-M 22 is not fair. RF 35 is a Macro lens atf1.8 with IS while Ef-M 22 is f2 without IS without macro. it is a given that FF lens will be bigger than APS-C. That is part of the price to pay for FF. M5 with 20mm is barely coat-pocketable. Any bigger it will not be coat-pocketable anymore.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 9, 2020)

Rocky said:


> The RF 35mm compare to EF-M 22 is not fair. RF 35 is a Macro lens atf1.8 with IS while Ef-M 22 is f2 without IS without macro. it is a given that FF lens will be bigger than APS-C. That is part of the price to pay for FF. M5 with 20mm is barely coat-pocketable. Any bigger it will not be coat-pocketable anymore.


Then why are you comparing the two systems? This is the point, they have different purposes. Even a high end M7 is going to have advantages in size/weight/price compared to the RF.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 9, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The 32 MP sensor in the 90 D is already pretty damned good. I don't know if it's possible to do _everything_ an R5 does with its sensor, with the 32MP sensor, but there shouldn't be that much of a gap if there is one.


A lot of the additional R5 features which are better than the 32MP APS-C bar I think come from the Digic X. Certainly the AF improvements do, image processing, etc (IBIS calculations may be done in Digic - not sure on that one).

So yes, I agree, pair a Digic X with a 32MP APS C sensor and there would be a significant improvement in features...


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 9, 2020)

I own an M6 II and back in UK there are a couple of M5s gathering dust.. I also own the R, a 5D IV, a 1DX and imminently a R5 (I won't list the others - ha ha). Once upon a time, I owned APS C variants (cause that was all that Canon offered).... Certainly different batteries / chargers / mounts are a little more troublesome than I would prefer (although in my case I think my 1x series days are over, so 1 less)

Whether all the above makes me atypical for an M6 I don't know. I also don't know how many M6 users here cover the spectrum of M users.... The largest lens I want to put on the M6 II is the EF-S 55-250mm. I've not tried the 70-300mm L that others have mentioned, but I worry about the weight imbalance. Certainly if an average M user as suggested only has 1 lens, then I would guess most users here with an M don't fall into this category. Thus I wonder how significant we are in terms of Canon decisions as we will break most of their segment "rules".

All the options are valid in terms of keep it small, introduce a variant larger model but still using an EF-M mount, introduce an R with an APS-C. But none of them are the clear winner - they all have downsides. Canon definitely doesnt want to introduce another system or even a partial in a shrinking market. If they produce a bigger M body (for bigger lenses), would that not require larger batteries? Borrow them from the R line? Hmmm.... Stick with an M size, and try to introduce a longer reach lens (320mm f/4) - think they will need to be careful on the balance between lens and body, so that means less metal in the lens. And would that be good enough for a 7D II users? Dunno. Ditto 90d users. Introduce an APS sensor into an R body - dedicated APS C RF lenses when they haven't filled out the RF FF? Expect APS C users to bring their EF and adapt (weather sealing possibly an issue but easiest to solve). Will a R5S keep the 7D II brigade happy? I think the pricing would break this option for the moment (can't see a 60MP or above R series being at a price point much different from the current R5).

Shove an APS-C sensor into an R body but with an EF mount - ha ha. Better than an EF lens via an adapter (weather sealing). No conversion required, but no upsell to R lenses. Less costs for development vs another dSLR body. A new partial line.

Ultimately it depends on how large the APS C market is for Canon, and how much data Canon have to help guide them out of the pickle they have created with the M and R mounts which now means any solution now isn't going to be as clean as on the dSLR side. I honestly think at the moment, Canon are not entirely sure on how to make the best out of it.

I think they have focused on the more profitable R series and the M cause it is selling well, and then they will decide on how to address the APS C - presumably they will have some good data for the 90d, and maybe the problem will have diminished by the time they turn their attention to it and thus they won't worry.

We'll all just have to see what Canon announce towards the end of the year.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> You'd also be competing with the bottom end of the R system, maybe not even the bottom. Consider an M7 that is basically an R6 with a 24 or 32MP APS-C sensor and an M mount, selling for $1600. R system sales would likely decrease and Canon would have raised its engineering, production and marketing costs. The sales of the M system would almost certainly increase but Canon would make less money because of increased costs.
> 
> Got that Michael???



So now you're agreeing that an M7 makes less sense for Canon than an R7?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ctk said:


> Why does one have to formally study marketing/branding to be able to discuss it? There are plenty of obviously bad marketing campaigns that were designed by experts.... you don't have to be in the industry to have a valid opinion.



Exactly where did I use the word _formally_?

Project much?



ctk said:


> I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going.



Who says an APS-C RF body made for a highly specialized task requires an entire system of cameras and lenses at every price point?

Most 7D Mark II shooters used FF lenses with them, specifically telephoto lenses. Most of those were L lenses.

APS-C does not have to equate to "entry level general purpose camera."



ctk said:


> What would a higher end M body look like? IBIS, weather sealing, more controls, better EVF. A high end standard zoom lens and a weathersealed EF adapter. No need for an APS-C RF body, this would basically fit that role. This wouldn't be Canon "moving out" of the M's market, it would expand it. I use myself as an example. I have an R and wanted to get an R6 to complement it for video and low light work. With all the issues of the R6.... no sale. New crop sensor has proven itself as reliable, so a higher end M body with corresponding glass will net Canon a sale from me and keep me in their system. Otherwise I can easily leave Canon altogether. Better to cannibalize yourself than lose marketshare.



It still seems to make more sense to make such an advanced APS-C camera in the RF mount, where the kinds of lenses it would need to attract buyers either already exist or will exist in the very near future. An M7 would cannibalize sales of RF lenses compared to an R7, which would cannibalize nothing from the EOS M system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think Sony's E mount and Nikons Z are much better solutions. Buy the Sony 200-600 and pick up a $300 A6000 and you have a killer APS-C wildlife kit.
> Later add a A7R4 and now you have a 61MP full frame body compatible with the same 200-600 lens.



Knock yourself out, as long as you don't need the most advanced AF in the world to shoot sports/action/wildlife.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ctk said:


> What does "future proof" mean for a lens? If you buy a new EF-M lens today, I'd wager it will last as long as a new RF lens. Right now the main lens on my R is the Sigma 50 1.4 from 2008. The EX, not the ART. Sure it's old, but I don't see why that matters. It works great and fit my budget and needs at the time.
> 
> For tele glass adapters don't add length or bulk; from ~40mm on lenses tend to be the same length _from the sensor._ If a mirrorless lens longer than 40mm is smaller than its DSLR equivalent it's because of design differences.
> 
> I don't see how or why a higher end M body would change what M mount is about. It's not like an M7 would prompt the discontinuation of everything under it. Canon can and has done both and they can do it here.



Can Canon do that? Sure they could.

Would Canon maximize profitability doing that? They don't seem to think they would.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Knock yourself out, as long as you don't need the most advanced AF in the world to shoot sports/action/wildlife.



AF improves all the time. I was happy shooting with a 7DII with it's much more primitive AF system. Of course the R5's AF is great but combined with the 100-500 lens, that's a $7000 kit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> So strange that some seem to think that adding higher end bodies and glass to the M line would 'muddle the marketing' but that adding an APS-C body and a new line of glass just for that sensor would not 'muddle the marketing' for the RF line.
> 
> I think there is a lack of actual marketing knowledge and expertise in these discussion threads.



Only because you can't see that the EOS M system is designed for and marketed to a very large audience who all want a fairly narrow range of characteristics.

On the other hand, the EOS R system is designed to be a much broader system aimed at a much smaller number of potential buyers who each desire something more specialized for the exact way they use their cameras and lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I agree. Of course no one on this forum really has any idea but I find the argument that the M system *has* to have *only* small, compact cameras not very convincing. Canon has a decision to make.



It seems to me they already made that decision about the EOS M system several years ago. It also seems to me they are unlikely to change their mind in the way you seem convinced they are going to, all "no one knows except Canon" disclaimers notwithstanding.



unfocused said:


> Personally, I think an R system APS-C body is among the least likely options. It hinges on the idea that Canon is convinced that people buying into the M system *only* want small cameras and that none of the perceived reach advantages to crop sensor bodies has any appeal at all to M buyers.



No, it hinges on the idea that Canon has decided to design and market the EOS M system to a specific type of buyer that doesn't care about those things like extra reach with telephoto lenses or features that require larger, heavier, more expensive bodies. Canon isn't really concerned if a few others who do care about those things buy EOS M products, but they're not going to change the entire philosophy of the EOS M system to go after those kinds of potential buyers who are much more limited in numbers than their targeted audience for the EOS M system. They've already created the EOS R system to go after those other types of buyers.




unfocused said:


> It also assumes that releasing new longer telephoto zooms for the M system presents some sort of insurmountable obstacle that Canon cannot overcome. I find that a bit absurd, especially since Canon does not seem to mind releasing lenses that have a fairly small market appeal. I also wonder just how much more expensive it would be for Canon to take something like the new 500mm zoom and redesign it for the M mount.



No one is suggesting Canon can't make larger, heavier, more expensive cameras or lenses in the EF-M mount. Certainly no one is saying they can't do those things for technological reasons.

The question isn't whether it is technically possible for Canon to do such things.

The question is whether Canon thinks they can maximize profitability by doing such things or by not doing such things.



unfocused said:


> In addition, I don't know where they price such a body. If it has all the features of the R5 (which 7D users would expect) is Canon going to price it anywhere near the 7DII price point? Probably not. An M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup has no price ceiling except what the market will pay. Since it is a different mount and the flagship, Canon has more flexibility in where they choose to price it.



Again, for the umpteenth time: How was the 7D Mark II (2014) priced with all that it offered that was far superior to everything except sensor size that the 6D (2012) and 6D Mark II (2017) offered? How did the 7D Mark II (2014) compare to the 5D Mark II (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) that sold for roughly twice its price?



unfocused said:


> I find it very plausible that Canon might prefer to keep a clear differentiation between their APS-C and full frame mount mirrorless lineups, so that buyers know that any lens they buy in the M mount is designed for APS-C and any lens they buy for the R mount is designed for full frame.



And I find it more plausible that Canon is more concerned with developing products that appeal to different types of buyers for each system that they are concerned with what size sensor each camera in each system has.



unfocused said:


> Obviously no one except Canon knows for sure, but I agree with you that a third crop system seems unlikely.



Of course no one except Canon knows what their plans for the future are today, but even they may not know for sure what might happen in the future.

Yet you keep arguing that only one option could possibly make sense to the decision makers at Canon because you have decided it is the only option that makes sense to you.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> So now you're agreeing that an M7 makes less sense for Canon than an R7?


You certainly do jump to conclusions a lot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Then why are you comparing the two systems? This is the point, they have different purposes. Even a high end M7 is going to have advantages in size/weight/price compared to the RF.



Not if they add all of the buttons, battery capacity, video modes that generate more heat, etc. that everyone seems to think can be done without making it larger, heavier, and more expensive.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> A lot of the additional R5 features which are better than the 32MP APS-C bar I think come from the Digic X. Certainly the AF improvements do, image processing, etc (IBIS calculations may be done in Digic - not sure on that one).
> 
> So yes, I agree, pair a Digic X with a 32MP APS C sensor and there would be a significant improvement in features...



That all depends on the readout speed of the 32 MP sensor. It may or may not be up to the task.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> You certainly do jump to conclusions a lot.



I ask a question for clarification of your position and you think _I'm_ jumping to conclusions?

That's rich!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

Rocky said:


> The RF 35mm compare to EF-M 22 is not fair. RF 35 is a Macro lens atf1.8 with IS while Ef-M 22 is f2 without IS without macro. it is a given that FF lens will be bigger than APS-C. That is part of the price to pay for FF. M5 with 20mm is barely coat-pocketable. Any bigger it will not be coat-pocketable anymore.


It is 100% fair and relevant because it is the only choice we are given. When I walk with my M5 it has the 22mm on it, when I get an R series it will have the 35 F1.8 on it. So whilst the specs might not be 100% directly equivalent the point is if I want to walk with a ‘35mm’ prime (or equivalent) that is the choice I have.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I ask a question for clarification of your position and you think I'm jumping to conclusions?
> 
> That's rich!


To clarify my position, I have an R5, control ring adapter and 24-240 lens on order. That's all the information you get.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That all depends on the readout speed of the 32 MP sensor. It may or may not be up to the task.


That is fair point, I don't truly know as Canon doesnt publish that info to my knowledge. I'm basing it on reading the full 32MP at up to 14fps which the M6 II can do, and honestly, if it needed more speed than that just for doing AF then that's an issue. The image processing side can handle 45MP at 20fps on the R5, so I don't think the M6 II will have issues there (as in, it won't contrain any image processing). IBIS calculations - well that would I believe be separate from the sensor, and thus ok. I'm ignoring video modes.

Can the APS C sensor supply all that data (for 14fps) and additional information about AF etc. Again, I can't be sure. But given how much Canon re-uses existing tech as much as possible, again, I am assuming that if another Mx range is imminent it will be using much the same as the body released only a year ago, and therefore similarly, to support IBIS (only in the Digic X) that will be the combination in a new Mx. Maybe they will drop the frame rate to 12fps and have to adjust a few other things back so they don't have another heat issue - as with more processing there may be more heat generation...

And yep, I could well be wrong...


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Only because you can't see that the EOS M system is designed for and marketed to a very large audience who all want a fairly narrow range of characteristics.
> 
> On the other hand, the EOS R system is designed to be a much broader system aimed at a much smaller number of potential buyers who each desire something more specialized for the exact way they use their cameras and lenses.


You already acknowledged you aren't in marketing, so your opinions are as speculative as anyone else in this thread. You are welcome to your opinion, but I and others don't need to share it. We are no less right or wrong than you, and no more or less informed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> You already acknowledged you aren't in marketing...



I'd like to see the post where I made that admission.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd like to see the post where I made that admission.







__





Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]


I have had multiple reports over the last few months that Canon plans to announce two new EOS M cameras in 2020. Recently I was given a bit of information about the two models. Unfortunately, I have been unable to confirm this information with a source I'd consider above [CR1], so please treat...




www.canonrumors.com





It was a yes or no question. You deferred. There really is no more to say to that, you aren't in marketing and it's not your background, you toss around the terms because it's borrowed authority.

Your posts have a habit of saying enough on something to *imply* you are an expert on such, but never enough to be caught directly admitting something is just your opinion.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Deferred? Really? If someone is going to share their expertise shouldn't they get paid for that expertise?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Your posts have a habit of saying enough on something to *imply* you are an expert on such, but never enough to be caught directly admitting something is just your opinion.



That sounds like a trained marketer to me...


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Deferred? Really? If someone is going to share their expertise shouldn't they get paid for that expertise?


You haven't demonstrated any expertise and were directly asked if you had such. You dodged. And quite frankly most of the things you say about marketing are tropes people believe based on how it is portrayed in media. "Perception is reality!" like every dumb book or tv show I've watched claims. I can appear to be an expert in a lot of things if I just repeat what pop culture tells me about it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> You haven't demonstrated any expertise and were directly asked if you had such. You dodged. And quite frankly most of the things you say about marketing are tropes people believe based on how it is portrayed in media. "Perception is reality!" like every dumb book or tv show I've watched claims. I can appear to be an expert in a lot of things if I just repeat what pop culture tells me about it.



I guess it all depends upon if you believe something like "perception is reality" is just a pop culture trope that emerged sometime in the past decade or so (or even that Lee Atwater was the first to suggest it in 1988) or if you have studied the history of philosophy, particularly the tension between ontology and epistemology since the 16th century.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> ...Yet you keep arguing that only one option could possibly make sense to the decision makers at Canon because you have decided it is the only option that makes sense to you.



No, actually I keep arguing that an M7 successor to the 7D makes sense, not that it is the only option. In fact, I have listed a number of other options. I'm making that argument largely because I rather enjoy the outrage it engenders. However, I'm getting a little tired of these circular arguments. I'm going to try really hard not to engage on the topic further until we see a CR3 rumor.


----------



## secant (Aug 10, 2020)

I think in order to compete with Sony, Canon should incorporate animal eye AF onto their upcoming APSC mirrorless system, at least the M7 should have it. The Sony A6400 already has animal eye AF and its really good my dad has it and it's able to follow my family dog's eyes which has black hair and black eyes. Even his Nikon D500 couldn't focus its eyes accurately with focus point right on its eyes but the A6400 is able to follow it no problem its so good.

Canon more or less caught up with the competition (mainly with Sony) with the R5 and R6 but it's still lagging imo in terms of APSC. The M6 II is good but it still doesn't have IBIS and animal eye AF vs the A6400 and A6600. The M7 would compete with the A6600 and X-T4 and should have those features at least to be relevant.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 10, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I guess it all depends upon if you believe something like "perception is reality" is just a pop culture trope that emerged sometime in the past decade or so (or even that Lee Atwater was the first to suggest it in 1988) or if you have studied the history of philosophy, particularly the tension between ontology and epistemology since the 16th century.


I wonder why one would have studied this, but wouldn't have studied logic. There is a difference between "reality is perception" and "perception is reality".

Or is logic counterproductive to marketing?


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 10, 2020)

SPOTTED TODAY:

My local camera store is listing (awaiting stock) a Sigma USB Dock for Canon EF-M mount. Since they only produce 3 EF-M lenses at the moment this suggests that more are in the pipeline. Probably going to port over their Sony lenses. (I see they also listing, same status) a dock for Sony L mount.

My bet is all the crying on here about a lack of M mount glass could well have been wasted energy.

Bring on the M7 to compete with the A6600.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 10, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> SPOTTED TODAY:
> 
> My local camera store is listing (awaiting stock) a Sigma USB Dock for Canon EF-M mount. Since they only produce 3 EF-M lenses at the moment this suggests that more are in the pipeline. Probably going to port over their Sony lenses. (I see they also listing, same status) a dock for Sony L mount.
> 
> ...


When Sigma entered the L-mount coalition, they announced that they intended to make APS-C L-mount cameras. My guess is that they intended to make an interchangeable lens version of their DP0 thru DP3 but are having more problems with the Foveon sensors. Anyway, they would likely have to make wide and normal zoom lenses for it and also could make M-mount and Sony versions of those lenses.


----------



## ctk (Aug 10, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Exactly where did I use the word _formally_?
> 
> Project much?


I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?





Michael Clark said:


> Who says an APS-C RF body made for a highly specialized task requires an entire system of cameras and lenses at every price point?
> 
> Most 7D Mark II shooters used FF lenses with them, specifically telephoto lenses. Most of those were L lenses.
> 
> APS-C does not have to equate to "entry level general purpose camera."


Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.





Michael Clark said:


> It still seems to make more sense to make such an advanced APS-C camera in the RF mount, where the kinds of lenses it would need to attract buyers either already exist or will exist in the very near future. An M7 would cannibalize sales of RF lenses compared to an R7, which would cannibalize nothing from the EOS M system.


An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad _for consumers?_


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2020)

ctk said:


> ...From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad _for consumers?_



Nicely done. Succinct and to the point. I tip my hat to you sir!


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 10, 2020)

ctk said:


> An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.
> 
> From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad _for consumers?_



The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.

FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 10, 2020)

ctk said:


> Why does one have to formally study marketing/branding to be able to discuss it? There are plenty of obviously bad marketing campaigns that were designed by experts.... you don't have to be in the industry to have a valid opinion.



I didn't read anyone on this forum thread saying that you had to study marketing to discuss it. But it certainly helps understand some of the decisions that Canon makes.



> I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going.



EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system might incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. If Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, if Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 10, 2020)

ctk said:


> From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad _for consumers?_



That's the exact sense I got when I first joined this forum...there were a lot of 7D users pining after that super expensive RF glass.

Now that the R5 is out, which could be used in crop mode for 17 megapickles, that's unsuitable because IT is expensive. Of course the people who I described in the previous paragraph might be a different group than the people who complain the R5 is too expensive to substitute for a 7D, but if THAT is the case Canon can only serve them all be introducing both a high-end EF-M mount camera (note I don't call it an "M") with a robust/weathersealed adapter, AND a crop RF--not necessarily with line of crop R lenses.


----------



## Fris (Aug 10, 2020)

If the 85 equivalent is usable at f/1.8, unlike the EF 50mm STM on an APS-C camera, I would totally be on board.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 10, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I'm curious why that is. I'm admittedly a novice, but if I take a few hundred shots only maybe a dozen come out blurry. What scenarios are you having issues with? The only stuff I'm finding challenging is low light.



That's the thing, ive never been able to pinpoint the problem. 

It's just been a bizarre experience. I am very much used to testing bodies ( i have 5) and can usually pinpoint the issue in 2 weeks or less...not so with this camera. I chalk it up to the heavy shutter slap, which was an issue with the M3 i bought years before. The camera is very light, + shutter slap + high density sensor = trouble in sharpness land.

These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 10, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> That's the thing, ive never been able to pinpoint the problem.
> 
> It's just been a bizarre experience. I am very much used to testing bodies ( i have 5) and can usually pinpoint the issue in 2 weeks or less...not so with this camera. I chalk it up to the heavy shutter slap, which was an issue with the M3 i bought years before. The camera is very light, + shutter slap + high density sensor = trouble in sharpness land.
> 
> These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.


Old trick from good old film days to combat mirrow slap and shutter shock: Put a lead plate ( about 500g) at the bottom of the camera.


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.
> 
> FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.


I don't really see how owning a FF R body changes the equation. If someone can afford a bag of big RF whites they can probably afford an R5 too. If they can afford a FF R body and a hypothetical R7 they could just replace both with an R5. I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body. Etc. etc. So I just can't piece together a scenario where an R7 is better than a reach focused kit built around EF glass for someone on a budget, or an R5 with long RF glass for someone with deep pockets.


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> I didn't read anyone on this forum thread saying that you had to study marketing to discuss it. But it certainly helps understand some of the decisions that Canon makes.


So again, what constitutes "studying" marketing? It just seems like Michael threw that line out to discredit anyone who disagreed with him.



nchoh said:


> EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system might incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. If Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, if Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many?


You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.



A fictitious dialogue but based on stuff I've read here:

R7 monger: I want to put all that awesome, expensive RF glass to use on a crop body! I don't want to have to process huge files!
Me: Well now you have an R5 which will give you access to that RF glass and has a crop mode that gives you 17 MP. It's just as good as a hypothetical R7, maybe even better
R7 monger: Oh, but that's too expensive!
Me: So you can afford all that $2000+ fancy glass, but you cant afford an extra $2000 for the body!

Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.


----------



## hamish (Aug 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.



7DII and if you substitute EF-S glass, then I'm pretty much the person you're talking about. Earlier this year I upgraded 200D -> 2nd hand 7DII, and will sell this gear to upgrade to M7 if/when it comes out. I'll never be able to afford R5 + RF. I'll continue to use my EF-S glass until I can afford to upgrade to native M, or better EF using the M-EF/S adapter. 

So yeah, it seems I'm pretty much THE target shooter for this rumoured M7. AMA!


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 11, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Old trick from good old film days to combat mirrow slap and shutter shock: Put a lead plate ( about 500g) at the bottom of the camera.



That's exactly what i did for the M1, and it has been my sidekick for years (fotodiox meta grip). Ive been disappointed that the old Korean and chinese cheap manufacturers haven't bothered creating these for the M for the last several years. I would purchase immediately. There was a youtuber (or he marketing on youtube) who created a very odd looking grip/case thing for the m50, but unfortunately it looked fairly bootleg.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 11, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.


On the one hand, I can't see how they can fit the better digic and the IBIS into a body the size of the M6 II and not have heat issues.

On the other hand, this might lend support to people suggesting the M7 may well be a bigger body - just for thermal management.

if Canon can produce an acceptable fix for the R5/R6 through firmware, well the new products coming down the line may well continue on the release schedule (bar covid). But if they can't, I wonder if there may be some slight changes to designs if the new products have the same workings.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With the M series, I can put EF and EF-S glass. But unless Canon changes their approach on the M lenses, then as you suggested, people are going to just use their (existing) EF glass. No upsell, bar the body. At least when they had 7DII, Canon could attract buyers to the L series and upsell. M7, no such opportunity. Yes, I accept they could produce better EF-M glass, but then I think they will have to change batteries, and body size (lens plus heat) and haven't they just designed an R7? With a M7, I now have this bigger body and only teeny existing EF-M lenses which will look quite funny. Canon never developed a big range of EF-S lenses. I think they are doing the same on the EF-M.

Design an R7? Take an existing R6, change the sensor (assuming the current 32M can cope) and voila. Price it higher than the R6. It will take EF and you can upgrade to shiny better RF lenses. Use the new RF 800mm with an APS sensor? Yep. Ergonomics for the larger EF lenses? Tick on the R, not so much on the M. Re-use existing tech / design (maybe all you need to do is change the sensor) given the M6 II can do 14fps. Tick. M7 would be quite a few changes. Have your APS-C sensor (R7), and when you replace your lenses you will have lenses which work on the R FF range (another upsell). You can use legacy EF-S or EF, there is the same upsell at first, but then there's some RF glass which you can use alongside (upsell). I dont think you need to produce any RF APS lenses, just use your legacy or buy new RF. Cause that's what any 7D II user wanted if they needed good glass.

I don't think either is a clean option, but I don't see a massive change for the M range. Slighly bigger M? Sure, I can see that. If they put in IBIS and Digic X, they may have no choice. Something designed to take good sized EF glass? Personally, I don't see that.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> [EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system *might *incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. *If* Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, *if *Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many? ]
> 
> You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.



Did I? How did I contradict myself? For starters, did I state that the camera industry is not in free fall? Did I say that everything is selling well?

I believe that EF-S is on it's way out because due to falling camera sales, Canon will have to consolidate and the most likely path is to deprecate the EF-S line.

Also because the M line is selling well and that Canon is introducing better M bodies and lenses, the EF-S system will soon be bested in most way by the M cameras. As well, being mirrorless, the M cameras are generally cheaper to manufacture. Canon released a new EF_S body with minor incremental improvements. Yes, Canon can and will do that as long as North America does not embrace the M, but I am pretty sure that if the Rebel sales start to fall off, Canon will happily stop producing them.


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Did I? How did I contradict myself? For starters, did I state that the camera industry is not in free fall? Did I say that everything is selling well?
> 
> I believe that EF-S is on it's way out because due to falling camera sales, Canon will have to consolidate and the most likely path is to deprecate the EF-S line.
> 
> Also because the M line is selling well and that Canon is introducing better M bodies and lenses, the EF-S system will soon be bested in most way by the M cameras. As well, being mirrorless, the M cameras are generally cheaper to manufacture. Canon released a new EF_S body with minor incremental improvements. Yes, Canon can and will do that as long as North America does not embrace the M, but I am pretty sure that if the Rebel sales start to fall off, Canon will happily stop producing them.



So put a timeline on it... when do you see Canon discontinuing EF-S production/sales/support? Why do your "beliefs" hold more weight than the release of the 90D? Even in the market's abysmal state Canon is still selling hundreds of thousands if not millions of EF-S bodies. Companies aren't infallible or omniscient but I'd be curious to hear what you know or see that Canon doesn't.


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> With the M series, I can put EF and EF-S glass. But unless Canon changes their approach on the M lenses, then as you suggested, people are going to just use their (existing) EF glass. No upsell, bar the body. At least when they had 7DII, Canon could attract buyers to the L series and upsell. M7, no such opportunity. Yes, I accept they could produce better EF-M glass, but then I think they will have to change batteries, and body size (lens plus heat) and haven't they just designed an R7? With a M7, I now have this bigger body and only teeny existing EF-M lenses which will look quite funny. Canon never developed a big range of EF-S lenses. I think they are doing the same on the EF-M.
> 
> Design an R7? Take an existing R6, change the sensor (assuming the current 32M can cope) and voila. Price it higher than the R6. It will take EF and you can upgrade to shiny better RF lenses. Use the new RF 800mm with an APS sensor? Yep. Ergonomics for the larger EF lenses? Tick on the R, not so much on the M. Re-use existing tech / design (maybe all you need to do is change the sensor) given the M6 II can do 14fps. Tick. M7 would be quite a few changes. Have your APS-C sensor (R7), and when you replace your lenses you will have lenses which work on the R FF range (another upsell). You can use legacy EF-S or EF, there is the same upsell at first, but then there's some RF glass which you can use alongside (upsell). I dont think you need to produce any RF APS lenses, just use your legacy or buy new RF. Cause that's what any 7D II user wanted if they needed good glass.
> 
> I don't think either is a clean option, but I don't see a massive change for the M range. Slighly bigger M? Sure, I can see that. If they put in IBIS and Digic X, they may have no choice. Something designed to take good sized EF glass? Personally, I don't see that.


Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?

There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".


----------



## nchoh (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> So put a timeline on it... when do you see Canon discontinuing EF-S production/sales/support? Why do your "beliefs" hold more weight than the release of the 90D? Even in the market's abysmal state Canon is still selling hundreds of thousands if not millions of EF-S bodies. Companies aren't infallible or omniscient but I'd be curious to hear what you know or see that Canon doesn't.



Yes, I am reaching a bit in my forecast. I reality, the XXD, XXXD and XXXXD are fully mature product lines and require minimal effort for Canon to update and release, so it is possible that they will keep doing it. As I have said, as long as there is a market.

But the main thrust of my argument is where Canon is going with respect to DSLR, M and R lines. This thread is getting kind of windy and long, so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?
> 
> There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".


It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....

By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range. 

I'm not saying Canon won't go this route, I just think it's not giving them as many opportunities as an R to upsell and would look like an R in every way but the name. Plus with the M mount, there is a small lens range which atm, Canon doesnt show any more willingness to invest then they did in the EF-S ie enough to keep them sort of happy. Hence why many users picked up EF glass.

What I also find surprising is that they intend to iterate and produce a higher end M range having produced the M6 II only a year ago and said it replaced the M5 as well. Can they do a u-turn, of course they can. Would I like IBIS and an integrated EVF? Yep, I purchased the M5 over the M6 for that reason, but still have the M6 II.

The RP shows how cheap they can make a FF camera. The 7D II replacement probably needs to come in at 2 to 2.5K. Take your existing EF / EF-S glass, and attach it to a body designed to take larger glass with an adapter. Lure them with the fact that they can pick up a 600mm or an 800mm RF for less than a grand. What are you luring them with on an M7? What upsell is there for Canon past the body?

I dont even think they need to worry about APS lenses in RF - the users of the 7x have shown they will buy the FF lenses, and likely have them. So they will bring those with them, and maybe pick up an RF lens in the right price bracket in future.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range.


Oh and no one in the range has a 32MP sensor capable of producing 14fps do they? Not that I keep up with competitors. Better AF as in Eye Focus? Possibly. So Canon's APS is better in some features and behind on some others. That's kind of normal right?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....
> 
> By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range.
> 
> ...


I thought that giving a cheap 600/F11 and 800/F11 glass to wildlife photogs was the Canon‘s upgrade plan for those stepping up from the 7 series to EOS R?


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I thought that giving a cheap 600/F11 and 800/F11 glass to wildlife photogs was the Canon‘s upgrade plan for those stepping up from the 7 series to EOS R?


I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.



The really frugal/tight budget APS-C folks, however, will want to bring their EF lenses over, and that can happen in either EF-M or RF, so they'll want a body that economizes because it's not built for a big sensor (either present or not present)


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.


Longest glass for the M7 would be the EF1200mm f/5.6L.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.


Canon 7d2 Users: can we have an EOS R series 7D2 replacement please?
Canon: introducing RF 1000 F16 lens...


----------



## nchoh (Aug 11, 2020)

Kit. said:


> I wonder why one would have studied this, but wouldn't have studied logic. There is a difference between "reality is perception" and "perception is reality".
> 
> Or is logic counterproductive to marketing?



Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.

For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....
> 
> By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range.
> 
> ...


OK, this is a much more logical take in the context of Canon.... but I still don't see the upside for a 7D2 shooter, outside of the..... "opportunity"..... to buy some expensive and exotic RF glass. The ability to use all their old EF glass and LP-6x batteries while also getting a small selection of native mirrorless glass seems like a win-win for the user. Maybe I am looking at this too logically


----------



## ctk (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.
> 
> For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.


If marketing could trump logic no product would ever fail. Blaming marketing is something people do when they don't understand or are unwilling to admit why a product they don't like is successful and popular.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.
> 
> For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.


As if their abuse of the monopoly power given to them by IBM had nothing to do with it...

There are some areas where marketing can afford to ignore logic. Hopefully, this forum is not one of them.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.
> 
> For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.


Um, as someone who has spent 25 years in the industry including a decade at Microsoft this is a garbage take. MS has been on top for a number of reasons, among them (but not all of them) -

- Intense focus on corporate client needs, they have long been light years ahead in terms of software manageability and hardware support in almost all industries
- Strong support of third parties for hardware
- Aggressively reducing the overall cost of the PC, especially in the 80's and 90's
- Standardization, again especially on the hardware side (ACPI, HID, multiple other interoperability standards)
- Yes, aggressive and at times illegal tactics against competitors, also mostly in the 80's and 90's
- Extremely lengthy support standards for API's resulting in a lot of software written in the 80's still working on PC's produced today

Things that were not a factor -

- Marketing. They have been slaughtered on this front since day one, that is a space Apple has always owned. They are one of the biggest examples of a corporation succeeding despite thier marketing department rather than because of it. Unless you really think names like "Windows XP Media Center Edition" are fantastic branding. The only brand they ever got right was Xbox.

When I moved on from Microsoft to Amazon the deficit in terms of MS marketing was even more stark, and played a large role in their defeat in the mobile space.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 11, 2020)

ctk said:


> If marketing could trump logic no product would ever fail.
> 
> 
> > Huh?
> ...





ReflexVE said:


> Um, as someone who has spent 25 years in the industry including a decade at Microsoft this is a garbage take. MS has been on top for a number of reasons, among them (but not all of them) -
> 
> - Intense focus on corporate client needs, they have long been light years ahead in terms of software manageability and hardware support in almost all industries
> - Strong support of third parties for hardware
> ...



All the bullet points you gave do not say that MS was a superior product.

From the days of DOS, MS was not the greatest DOS product Dr DOS was arguably better. Programs like DBase was way better than MS offerings. SQL Server was also a poor performer when compared to DB2 and Oracle. Excel was a copy of Lotus 123. Word was crap compare to Word Perfect. The various flavors were Windows were really poor up to Windows 97 was bad, 2000 was bad... yet every time I had to support other products, it was also in comparison to Microsoft and any variance from Microsoft was considered bad by end users that I supported.

Good positioning is part of good marketing. Good marketing understand clients and creates product and services that your customers want, such as corporate customers and support for third party support. Marketing is just about advertisements, if that is what you are thinking. It also includes segmentation and positioning. Yes Apple was a design power house and consequently it marketing was gorgeous. But to say that MS sucked at marketing is definitely wrong.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> All the bullet points you gave do not say that MS was a superior product.


I never said it was. In many ways it was inferior.



> From the days of DOS, MS was not the greatest DOS product Dr DOS was arguably better.


Yes it was, and that is where a lot of questionable and at times illegal conduct occurred. The history of DOS and how MS owned that market is basically a scandal.



> Programs like DBase was way better than MS offerings. SQL Server was also a poor performer when compared to DB2 and Oracle.


DBase and DB2 were too expensive, MS competed with them on price. Oracle never lost ground and still is a powerhouse. SQL Server has a niche but it does not compete at the high end.



> Excel was a copy of Lotus 123. Word was crap compare to Word Perfect.


WordPerfect died because they refused to embrace Windows until it was dominant, and then when they did WP6.1 was a buggy mess. Lotus and other office products were killed by Microsoft Office, which bundled everything for much cheaper than the individual apps used to cost. Again, MS won on price and availability, not marketing.



> The various flavors were Windows were really poor up to Windows 97 was bad, 2000 was bad... yet every time I had to support other products, it was also in comparison to Microsoft and any variance from Microsoft was considered bad by end users that I supported.


"Windows 97" was only a product in Asia and it was actually Windows 95 with the OSR2 update rolled in. Windows 98SE was the only truly good version of Win9x IMO, but that line was groundbreaking in a lot of ways for its time. Windows 2000 was a solid product, I don't know what your issue with that is.

Users use what they are familiar with. MS's strategy was to saturate the corporate market so that when corporate users went home they would want something that worked like the computers they were used to at work. That turned out to be an effective strategy along with low overall pricing.



> Good positioning is part of good marketing. Good marketing understand clients and creates product and services that your customers want, such as corporate customers and support for third party support. Marketing is just about advertisements, if that is what you are thinking. It also includes segmentation and positioning. Yes Apple was a design power house and consequently it marketing was gorgeous. But to say that MS sucked at marketing is definitely wrong.


You are expanding the definition of marketing to fit the results you want. Product positioning is an entire discipline of it's own, and to gain that position marketing is often, but not always a part. Pricing, access, featuresets, engineering, these also play substantial roles and if your argument is that they are all also 'marketing' then fine, you win the discussion by simply defining everything into that singular bucket to make your case.

MS marketing has always been objectively mediocre to bad. It has little to nothing to do with where they are. Go watch old advertisements for MS products someday then compare against ads for their competitors. The difference is obvious.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 11, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I never said it was. In many ways it was inferior.
> 
> 
> Yes it was, and that is where a lot of questionable and at times illegal conduct occurred. The history of DOS and how MS owned that market is basically a scandal.
> ...



There has been a lot of discussion about whether marketing is relevant to Canon and probability that Canon will expand the M series to replicate the 7D II. The point I was trying to make is that marketing is important. It's not about winning or losing.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 11, 2020)

nchoh said:


> There has been a lot of discussion about whether marketing is relevant to Canon and probability that Canon will expand the M series to replicate the 7D II. The point I was trying to make is that marketing is important. It's not about winning or losing.


I totally agree marketing is important. And I'm not accusing you of this, but some in this thread are pretending to be marketing experts when they are not (nor am I).


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 12, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> On the one hand, I can't see how they can fit the better digic and the IBIS into a body the size of the M6 II and not have heat issues.
> 
> On the other hand, this might lend support to people suggesting the M7 may well be a bigger body - just for thermal management.
> 
> if Canon can produce an acceptable fix for the R5/R6 through firmware, well the new products coming down the line may well continue on the release schedule (bar covid). But if they can't, I wonder if there may be some slight changes to designs if the new products have the same workings.



Didn't some old G series have stabilization? I feel like I've seen it in the spec before...too lazy to look now


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Longest glass for the M7 would be the EF1200mm f/5.6L.


Did you read my bit about balance & ergonomics? I can hand hold a 600mm f.4 II with a R or 5D series because of the design. I can't add on M5 to that and get any sort of usability out of it.

I've tried my 100-400mm on it, and the only way it worked comfortably was to put the lens on a monopod. 

Now I know some birders prefer to use a monopod, except if you're giving them IBIS perhaps they would want to drop that. I'd like to see how many people would be comfortable with a 100-400mm or maybe a 200-500mm etc on a tiny M body for extended periods.

Technically, yes, that is the longest glass. Practically?


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 12, 2020)

ctk said:


> OK, this is a much more logical take in the context of Canon.... but I still don't see the upside for a 7D2 shooter, outside of the..... "opportunity"..... to buy some expensive and exotic RF glass. The ability to use all their old EF glass and LP-6x batteries while also getting a small selection of native mirrorless glass seems like a win-win for the user. Maybe I am looking at this too logically


I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying here. They get a selection of native glass whether they go M or R, they can attach their EF lenses to both bodies.

With the R they can take their batteries. With the M they cannot.

The R has more lenses that appeal to a birder or a sports shooter which is using a 7x series.

And they get the same balanced body / ergonomics / layout on a new R body.

Potentially for both bodies (ignoring heat):

They get a better sensor (both size, 32MP, and DR). They get a slightly faster fps.

Most importantly, they get Animal AF.

If they price it in the same range as the 7x was sold for with NPV, then what's not to like? Take all your existing kit, get a more modern system, better AF, cleaner images, subject tracking, plus the opportunity to add a lightweight 600mm or 800mm lens for less than a grand.

Is that any less compelling than the R5 and R6 for existing FF dSLR users?


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 12, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> Didn't some old G series have stabilization? I feel like I've seen it in the spec before...too lazy to look now


I don't believe in the body, maybe in the lens or maybe digital?


----------



## dcm (Aug 12, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I don't believe in the body, maybe in the lens or maybe digital?



In lens optical image stabilization, starting with the G7 in 2006.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> I wonder why one would have studied this, but wouldn't have studied logic. There is a difference between "reality is perception" and "perception is reality".
> 
> Or is logic counterproductive to marketing?



Whether one considers it "reality is perception" or "perception is reality" when comparing ontology and epistemology all depends upon whether one is primarily an epistemologist or an ontologist.

Marketing attempts, for the most part, to manipulate a prospective buyer's emotions. Since well done emotional appeals result in more sales than well done appeals to logic, it's perfectly logical to do so.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?



Studying a subject systematically until one becomes proficient enough in an area of knowledge to be able to exercise that knowledge in the marketplace. Abraham Lincoln, for example, passed the Illinois Bar without ever having any formal legal education, or even formal secondary or higher education. He studied law on his own, not formally.

My brother-in-law graduated from college in 1982 with a B.S. in Business Administration that included few computer science courses, all of which were based on mainframe systems, and none concerned with networking. He now works as a certified (MS, Cisco, etc.) network administrator. He pursued all of those certifications on his own apart from any formal educational institution.



ctk said:


> Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.



You assume a potential R7 body would be aimed at budget shooters who want a single APS-C body to use as a general purpose camera. That's not what the 7D Mark II was (Rebels filled that role), and it's not what an R7 would be. The RP and its successors are and will continue to be the entry level budget cameras in the RF system.

There's no need for wide angle APS-C RF lenses if the prospective buyer/user base of a niche camera intended for a specific role is primarily interested in using such a body for the "reach" it provides with telephoto lenses. We've had this conversation on various threads here several times. Very few users of 7D MarK II bodies ever put anything wider than a 70-200mm on it. Those who want to shoot wide with an APS-C body tend to stick with the x0D series or the Rebels. The x0D cameras are better general purpose cameras for most people than the 7-Series is.

The only time a lens any wider than 70mm has been on my 7D Mark II was over half a decade ago when I did AFMA calibration with a 24-105mm for future use in a potential emergency situation that has yet to materialize. If I want to go wide angle, or even normal or short telephoto, I use one of my FF bodies.



ctk said:


> An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.



Again, you're assuming those who would buy such a camera would only own that one camera. That's not been my experience at all with pretty much every 7D owner I know. Most also own FF bodies as well or only shoot sports at longer focal lengths. They use the 7D as a specific tool for a specific use case, not as a general purpose camera.

You're also assuming that either an M7 or R7 would be cheaper than an RP or the rumored even cheaper FF RF camera coming in the future. I don't think either an R7 or an M7 would be a budget, entry level camera cheaper than the FF RP and its successors. By the end of the year or early in 2021 we should also have budget conscious non-L 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm RF lenses as well as the existing non-L 24-105mm and non-L 24-240mm.

An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass *will not work worth squat* for a reach focused shooter on a budget who wants to use the RF 600mm and RF 800mm lenses, which are the extreme in budget conscious telephoto reach anywhere within the entire Canon ecosystem. If Canon plans to make an M7 to be a camera for the reach focused shooter on a budget, they should have made the 600/11 and 800/11 as EF-M, not RF, lenses.



ctk said:


> From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad _for consumers?_



Nah, the desire for an R7, rather than an M7, is because most potential R7 buyers are either already in the RF system or plan to be in the future with a FF body in addition to a potential R7 body. They want an R7 as an additional body for a specific use case, not as a single general purpose body.

But that is all beside the point I've been making _ad nauseum_ that you folks refuse to acknowledge:

*I'm not talking about what a very small number of consumers, compared to the much larger number of consumers already in the EOS M system, want. I'm talking about what Canon thinks will be more profitable to Canon!*


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.
> 
> FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.



The R5 also costs over twice the original price of the 7D and 7D Mark II. So there goes the "limited reach on a budget" argument, particularly when compared to something like a 32MP crop sensor in a potential R7 for around $2,000.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Nicely done. Succinct and to the point. I tip my hat to you sir!



Except that very few to none of those who would like to see an R7 aren't already in the RF system with an EOS R, RP, or R5 body or plan to be with one of those or an EOS R6 body in the near future.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's the exact sense I got when I first joined this forum...there were a lot of 7D users pining after that super expensive RF glass.
> 
> Now that the R5 is out, which could be used in crop mode for 17 megapickles, that's unsuitable because IT is expensive. Of course the people who I described in the previous paragraph might be a different group than the people who complain the R5 is too expensive to substitute for a 7D, but if THAT is the case Canon can only serve them all be introducing both a high-end EF-M mount camera (note I don't call it an "M") with a robust/weathersealed adapter, AND a crop RF--not necessarily with line of crop R lenses.



Using the R5 in crop mode is also not a real solution to those who use multiple bodies at the same time. 

It's usually a FF for the "wide" body and sometimes an APS-C for the "long" body. For the budget guys doing that, an EOS R for the wide body (which does not need to be as fast) and a potential R7 for the "long" body would be the successor to those who might use a 5DIII/IV or even 6DII for a "wide" body and a 7DII for their "long" body. Even if one chooses to use an R5 as their general purpose FF camera, a 32MP R7 to use as a long body would be cheaper and more suitable than a second R5 body cropped to 17MP would.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> I don't really see how owning a FF R body changes the equation. If someone can afford a bag of big RF whites they can probably afford an R5 too. If they can afford a FF R body and a hypothetical R7 they could just replace both with an R5. I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body. Etc. etc. So I just can't piece together a scenario where an R7 is better than a reach focused kit built around EF glass for someone on a budget, or an R5 with long RF glass for someone with deep pockets.



You're still thinking in terms of a general purpose body owner who only has a single body. That's not who the vast majority of 7D users were, and not who would be interested in an R7.

The usefulness of the 7D Mark II for the sports/action shooters was that it could work with a 70-200/2.8 under a lot of youth/high school/small college lights that would have required a 300/2.8 with a FF body (and *another* body with a 70-200 for when the action got too close for the 300mm). Many of those users also have a 5-Series body that they used as their "wide" body while using the 7D as their "long" body.

5D Mark IV + 24-105 and 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 IS II = $8,000

5D Mark III + 24-105 and 5D Mark IV + 70-200/2.8 IS II and 5D Mark IV + 300/2.8 IS II = $20,000 
Add another $2,500 to use a 1D X II with the 300/2.8.

For the youth/high school/small college sports shooter, the difference between $8K and $20K in gear is the difference between making more than you spend doing it and spending more than you can make doing it.

For the birders it is a bit different. But even there, the difference between using a 7DII at $1,800 plus a 400/4 IS DO at $6,900 versus using a 1D X Mark II at $6,000 plus a 600/4 at $13,000 is also significant in terms of cost ($8.7K vs $19K ). That $10K will pay for a few more nice trips to chase exotic birds.

*"I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body."*

I can't see anyone being able to use an M7 with their budget RF600 and RF800 lenses, either.

Or using a telephoto lens and a wide/normal lens on the same body simultaneously, as many 2 or even 3 body shooters do.

I also can't see how the R5 cropped to 17MP is somehow the equivalent of a 32MP or so R7.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You're still thinking in terms of a general purpose body owner who only has a single body. That's not who the vast majority of 7D users were, and not who would be interested in an R7.
> 
> The usefulness of the 7D Mark II for the sports/action shooters was that it could work with a 70-200/2.8 under a lot of youth/high school/small college lights that would have required a 300/2.8 with a FF body (and *another* body with a 70-200 for when the action got too close for the 300mm). Many of those users also have a 5-Series body that they used as their "wide" body while using the 7D as their "long" body.
> 
> ...



Why are you assuming that these folks who had two bodies in the EF system wouldn't be happier with ONE body that could fulfill both roles under the RF system?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> So again, what constitutes "studying" marketing? It just seems like Michael threw that line out to discredit anyone who disagreed with him.



Actually, what I *asked* was, "Have you ever studied marketing?" in reply to a suggestion that Canon is about to change directions with regard to what Canon's marketing department has carefully and consistently guided what the EOS M series is in the eight years it has been on the market. I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.



ctk said:


> You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.



No one expecting an R7 (or something more like an R90) thinks it will necessitate a full line of RF-S lenses. That's not the kind of camera it would be. Canon's budget entry level models in the RF mount will continue to be FF models. So will their budget RF lenses.

The EOS M system, on the other hand, is a fairly narrow system aimed at a lot of people who only want a single camera and not very many lenses that are compact, lightweight, and affordable (and who are not interested in in an arsenal of cameras and lenses that each have specific niche tasks they are designed to do). That's who Canon designs and markets the EOS M system to and that's who, for the most part, buys them.The few enthusiasts in North America and Western Europe who buy EOS M cameras are far from the typical EOS M buyer in the Pacific Rim and emerging countries like India where the vast majority of EOS M cameras are sold.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> A fictitious dialogue but based on stuff I've read here:
> 
> R7 monger: I want to put all that awesome, expensive RF glass to use on a crop body! I don't want to have to process huge files!
> Me: Well now you have an R5 which will give you access to that RF glass and has a crop mode that gives you 17 MP. It's just as good as a hypothetical R7, maybe even better
> ...



If you are referring to me, that's not what I've been saying at all. I don't lust after using any of the high end and expensive wide angle and normal RF glass on a potential R7. Why would I do that when the RP (and now, even the EOS R) is available for less than any R7 or R90 would cost?

I don't even lust after an R7 to use with the RF 70-200/2.8.

What I would most like to see is a 7D Mark III in EF mount, but it's been fairly clear for a while that is not going to happen.

What I keep repeating and no one wants to hear, apparently because it's not near as fun or easy to disagree with and argue against, is that *if Canon is working on a 7D (or even 90D) kind of mirrorless body aimed at current 7D users, it seems to me to fit more into the overall planned breadth of the EOS R system with many specialized lenses and a few specialized bodies (EOS Ra, for example) for niche use cases than it fits within Canon's much more narrowly defined EOS M system. *

EOS M seems to be based more on marketing to a more numerous type of camera buyer who all fit the same particular profile.

The EOS R system, on the other hand, is shaping up to be a much broader system aimed at a more limited number of buyers who want a lot more than a single compact, lightweight, affordable general use camera. They want specific cameras and lenses for specific use cases.



SteveC said:


> Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.



But what she can't do is use those new budget telephoto RF 600/800 lenses on that EF-M mount body! Those lenses already exist right now! If Canon were planning to make an "M7" body for the 7D crowd, they should have made the RF600/800 f/11 lenses in EF-M instead of RF mount.

It also seems to me that the type of buyer who would even be interested in an "M7" type of camera to use with long glass would more likely be the type of buyer for which Canon has created the RF system than the type of buyer for which Canon has created the EOS M system and made it the best selling mirrorless interchangeable camera system on the planet. If it's an M7, there's nowhere upstream for Canon to lead that buyer.

The EOS M system is all about selling cameras to folks who are not likely to be led upstream any time soon. They're the "one and done" type of buyer, but there are a lot more of them than there are buyers who want a closet full of cameras and lenses for different use cases.

If it's an R7, there's all kinds of future sales potential in it for Canon from the type of buyer who would be interested in a 7D replacement.

Yes, the initial RF lenses were eye-wateringly expensive, but they are now beginning to add more budget oriented lenses to the RF line, just as they have now added more upmarket bodies to the initial EOS R And EOS RP bodies with lower capabilities.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Why are you assuming that these folks who had two bodies in the EF system wouldn't be happier with ONE body that could fulfill both roles under the RF system?



Because we often use *both* at the same time! A 7DII + 70-200/2.8 _*and*_ a 5DIV with a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Using the R5 in crop mode is also not a real solution to those who use multiple bodies at the same time.
> 
> It's usually a FF for the "wide" body and sometimes an APS-C for the "long" body. For the budget guys doing that, an EOS R for the wide body (which does not need to be as fast) and a potential R7 for the "long" body would be the successor to those who might use a 5DIII/IV or even 6DII for a "wide" body and a 7DII for their "long" body. Even if one chooses to use an R5 as their general purpose FF camera, a 32MP R7 to use as a long body would be cheaper and more suitable than a second R5 body cropped to 17MP would.



An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible. 

If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible.
> 
> If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.



That latter would be handy too if one finds one's self wishing it were a 1.5 crop because the subject was just a teeny, tiny bit too large to fit in 1.6, e.g., a BIF whose wingtip went outside the box at the exact instant the shutter tripped.

If I understand it, the R5 crop mode really does NOT record anything outside the crop area, unlike the 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 ratios, where the entire frame is written to the raw file but the JPG (if you have jpegs turned on) is cropped to the desired ratio.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2020)

I tried, I really tried, to drop this conversation...but...



Michael Clark said:


> What I keep repeating and no one wants to hear, apparently because it's not near as fun or easy to disagree with and argue against, is that *if Canon is working on a 7D (or even 90D) kind of mirrorless body aimed at current 7D users, it seems to me to fit more into the overall planned breadth of the EOS R system with many specialized lenses and a few specialized bodies (EOS Ra, for example) for niche use cases than it fits within Canon's much more narrowly defined EOS M system. *



I think people hear your argument. They just don't find it convincing. 

It rests on your definition of what the EOS-M system is and presumes that the EOS-M system can _only_ ever be what you think it is. 

My counter argument is that it's Canon's line of cameras and lenses and they can do anything they want with it. 

Like you, my personal preference would be a 7DIII. But, I'm simply more willing to entertain the notion that it is at least a 50/50 proposition that Canon, if they ever again make a high-end sports/wildlife focused APS-C camera, will chose to keep the APS-C and Full Frame lines separate.

You completely reject the notion that there is value in keeping the APS-C line and the full-frame line separate. I happen to think that there is at least some merit in such a decision and that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Canon may go that route. 

Much of your argument is also based on what lenses Canon currently makes for the RF mount. But, Canon can also make whatever lenses they want. If they decide to make a long telephoto lens in the M mount, they can do it. Having lenses in the RF mount doesn't preclude them from making lenses in other mounts. And, given the low prices for some of those new RF mount lenses, it doesn't seem like retail price would be a barrier to offering similar lenses in an M mount. 

Finally, I'm not even sure if Canon would make an APS-C R7 at a price point that would be reminiscent of the 7D series. The 7DII and the 5DIII came out before Canon changed it's sensor fabrication to on-chip ADC. With their more modern sensor fabrication, the cost of a full-frame sensor seems to have significantly dropped (based on the pricing of the EOS R and RP.) Could they make a feature-packed R7 at a price point significantly below the R5? Would they? Would they be better off putting those features into an M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup with no ceiling, instead of somewhere in the middle of the R lineup? Would that increase sales, because it would appeal to M buyers who want to own the best in the line, rather than R buyers who want a second body? Only Canon knows.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I tried, I really tried, to drop this conversation...but...
> 
> 
> 
> I think people hear your argument. They just don't find it convincing.



Yep.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 16, 2020)

Just a personal opinion based on owning or having owned R and M cameras and EF, RF and M lenses. I have no idea what Canon might do, nor what they should do.

For me, based on my experience, putting out a crop R series camera as a 7D successor has the following benefits:

Larger body closer in size, weight, button layout to the 7D.
Much easier to use existing EF telephoto lenses on a larger camera with bigger grip.
Users can buy RF lenses and use them.
Canon need not create any APC-S line of lenses - patents already exist for lenses that would be fine for both FF and crop, such as a 17-70mm lens.

Drawbacks of creating an R series crop camera:

Having both FF and APS-C cameras in the same system might cause some confusion.

Advantages of an M series successor to the 7D:

A clear defining line between their FF and crop cameras.

Drawbacks of creating an M series successor to the 7D:

Possible confusion at having an M body that would need to be (in my opinion) twice the size and weight of all the other M models.
The need to create M series telephoto lenses
RF lenses will not work on the camera

If they decide to keep the body small to be consistent with the other M cameras:

Ergonomically awful (base on my experience) to use almost any EF lens on a tiny camera. Personally, I found even relatively small or light lenses such as the old EF 28-105 or the EF-S 55-250mm to be uncomfortable to the point where I sold those lenses when I got the M-5. I found only M series lenses were a good match with the M series camera.

Ergonomically awful to create any telephoto lens larger than the 55-200 that exist now, making it ergonomically awful for any wildlife, sports or any of the major uses that 7D owners now use their cameras.

If the target consumer for the M series camera is someone looking for the smallest, lightest system, good for tourists, casual users and vloggers, then putting out an M series successor to the 7D makes no sense. My guess is that a large segment of this target consumer group won't care if the camera is crop or FF - or even knows what the difference is. To them, camera size is what the differentiating factor is - not sensor size. 

If the target consumer for a 7D successor is a pro or high level enthusiast looking for a camera (and lenses) with extra reach for wildlife and sports, then an R series crop camera makes much more sense, in my opinion. *Mainly, because Canon already has lenses for that consumer and will no doubt develop more in the RF line.*


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> So put a timeline on it... when do you see Canon discontinuing EF-S production/sales/support? Why do your "beliefs" hold more weight than the release of the 90D? Even in the market's abysmal state Canon is still selling hundreds of thousands if not millions of EF-S bodies. Companies aren't infallible or omniscient but I'd be curious to hear what you know or see that Canon doesn't.



Notice this rumor comes along just short of one year after the announcement/introduction of the 90D. I think Canon hoped the 90D would attract a lot of 7D Mark II users. It doesn't seem to have attracted many of them. The 90D was not exactly the hottest selling camera in Canon's non-Rebel lineup, even before the R5 and R6.

Canon may be rethinking their strategy re: keeping 7D Mark II users in the Canon fold.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?
> 
> There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".




RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM is the FF equivalent of an APS-C 15-65mm crappy kit lens. Whether Canon makes an R7 or not, the EOS RP and its successors will be the entry level into the RF system.

Not all RF glass is the premium L glass with eye watering prices. By the end of this year or early 2021 we will have non-L 35, 50, 85 primes along with the 24-105 and 24-240 zooms. The only one not currently available is the RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM. Oh yeah, and we already have those non-L 600/800mm telephoto lenses for less than $1K.

The EOS R currently floats just above your $1,500 price point depending on instant rebates.

Based on the comparative prices of the 6D/6D Mark II and the 7D/7D Mark II, an R7 would come in slightly cheaper than the R6. Probably right around $2K.

The M market is big, but most of the owners in that system have no desire for a premium zoom lens or Canon would have already offered one in the 8+ years the EOS M system has existed. *The only conceivable explanation for why Canon has not offered high end lenses in the EOS M system over the past eight years is because Canon does not want to.* Maybe that will change in the future, but we've seen no indication that is the case at this point. All of the high end lenses released since early 2018 - the 70-200mm f/2.8 I refresh (which was barely an update and more a revision) and the two Big Whites (400/600 which were total redesigns) - are in the RF mount. There was plenty of time to release premium EF-M lenses between 2012 and 2018 when the RF lenses started dropping.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I thought that giving a cheap 600/F11 and 800/F11 glass to wildlife photogs was the Canon‘s upgrade plan for those stepping up from the 7 series to EOS R?



And there will be a niche body to go with it eventually. It may be FF, it may be APS-C. But it will be cheaper than an R5 and higher resolution than an R6 and have IBIS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> OK, this is a much more logical take in the context of Canon.... but I still don't see the upside for a 7D2 shooter, outside of the..... "opportunity"..... to buy some expensive and exotic RF glass. The ability to use all their old EF glass and LP-6x batteries while also getting a small selection of native mirrorless glass seems like a win-win for the user. Maybe I am looking at this too logically



Canon is more concerned with what is a win-win for *Canon*.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ctk said:


> If marketing could trump logic no product would ever fail. Blaming marketing is something people do when they don't understand or are unwilling to admit why a product they don't like is successful and popular.



There have been plenty of superior products who lost the marketing war.

The classic example is VHS vs. BETAMAX.

Or Tucker vs. GM/Ford/Chrysler.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> As if their abuse of the monopoly power given to them by IBM had nothing to do with it...
> 
> There are some areas where marketing can afford to ignore logic. Hopefully, this forum is not one of them.



This forum does not make Canon's design and marketing decisions.


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 16, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Just a personal opinion based on owning or having owned R and M cameras and EF, RF and M lenses. I have no idea what Canon might do, nor what they should do.
> 
> For me, based on my experience, putting out a crop R series camera as a 7D successor has the following benefits:
> 
> ...



Hi Czardoom.

If you go and take a look at the crop frame Fuji X-T 4 you will see pretty much what Canon needs to aim for. The body dimension are on a par with the RP. It weighs about 600 grammes with battery and SD cards. Excellent IBIS. It is weather sealed, has twin SD card slots. Excellent video, though with overheating in 4K. Burst rates good enough for sports and BIF. Range of lenses with many weather sealed.

Viltrox (and others) produce adaptors to mount a load of Canon EF and EF-S lenses with full auto focus in stills, though there are restrictions for video.

So essentially for all the hot air expended on this thread, a fair amount of it mine admittedly, another company has already produced the camera equivalent to that which has stirred such debate and passion whilst only a glimmer in the eye of Canon (Rumours). It can all be done in a smallish body that would balance nicely with Canon legacy glass, of which we probably all have rather more than we should.

I've plans, currently deferred due to the wretched virus, to do a couple of serious walking trips in mountainous terrain and at the moment my M50 is too small and neither that or the RP are whether sealed. I'm not confident Canon will come up with the goods in time for me (I figure I'm looking at Autumn 2021 at the earliest because of Covid) the Sony 6600 looks Ok on paper but doesn't cut it in the flesh, so I may have to invest in Fuji.

Funny old world.

By the way, my EF-S 15-85 balances well and works nicely on the M50.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> Didn't some old G series have stabilization? I feel like I've seen it in the spec before...too lazy to look now



Yes, but it was lens based IS. Even some lower tier PowerShots had it. But it was always lens based, not sensor based.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible.
> 
> If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.



Maybe for sports (but then again, maybe not). But for the birders sensor size is irrelevant, it's all about pixel density. If there is an R7, it will be at least 32 MP which is the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor. The R5 doesn't begin to approach that.

If the EOS R5s ever gets released and can shoot at the same frame rates as the R5 and R6, I can see the argument there that, other than price, it makes an R7 redundant. But the R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. So why change at all as long as 7D Mark II bodies are available?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That latter would be handy too if one finds one's self wishing it were a 1.5 crop because the subject was just a teeny, tiny bit too large to fit in 1.6, e.g., a BIF whose wingtip went outside the box at the exact instant the shutter tripped.
> 
> If I understand it, the R5 crop mode really does NOT record anything outside the crop area, unlike the 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 ratios, where the entire frame is written to the raw file but the JPG (if you have jpegs turned on) is cropped to the desired ratio.



The R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. Why change at all? 

Most birders rarely have an issue with the target being too large compared to it being too small due to distance. Maybe a 500:1 ratio between the two situations?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. Why change at all?
> 
> Most birders rarely have an issue with the target being too large compared to it being too small due to distance. Maybe a 500:1 ratio between the two situations?



20.2 vs 17.6, so: true. But of course there's zero reason 7D folks cannot continue to use their old cameras, at least until they fall apart from heavy use. At which point it's buy a used unit, or switch to some other model, or even brand.

Yeah, I realized what I said was not even consistent with my example. So let me amend my hypothetical: one COULD benefit from capturing a BIF that would otherwise have been partially outside of frame (regardless of whether it could fit if the camera were centered on it) because the bird "jinked" while you were following it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I tried, I really tried, to drop this conversation...but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They never kept APS-C, APS-H, and FF separate in the EF system.

Why do people dismiss so easily the possibility that the difference between EOS-M and EOS R is something other than sensor size? It's like deja vu from 10-20 years ago when the only thing that mattered was megapixels.



unfocused said:


> You completely reject the notion that there is value in keeping the APS-C line and the full-frame line separate. I happen to think that there is at least some merit in such a decision and that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Canon may go that route.



No, I do not completely reject the notion. But there are plenty of voices here who argue that position, I see no need to repeat again what they continually post here.

I do think it is more likely than not the defining difference between the EOS M system and the EOS R system is not sensor sensor size. It seems to me far more likely, based on what Canon has done so far with both systems, the differences are about which types of buyers they want to attract with each system.



unfocused said:


> Much of your argument is also based on what lenses Canon currently makes for the RF mount. But, Canon can also make whatever lenses they want. If they decide to make a long telephoto lens in the M mount, they can do it. Having lenses in the RF mount doesn't preclude them from making lenses in other mounts. And, given the low prices for some of those new RF mount lenses, it doesn't seem like retail price would be a barrier to offering similar lenses in an M mount.



It's based on what Canon has done for two decades with APS-C, APS-H, and FF DSLR bodies and EF/EF-S lenses and what Canon has thus far done with both EOS M bodies/EF-M lenses as well as EOS R bodies /RF lenses.

Canon has had eight years to introduce EF-M lenses to the EOS-M system. If they wanted to sell premium EF-M lenses in the EOS-M system they have had more than ample time to introduce them.



unfocused said:


> Finally, I'm not even sure if Canon would make an APS-C R7 at a price point that would be reminiscent of the 7D series. The 7DII and the 5DIII came out before Canon changed it's sensor fabrication to on-chip ADC. With their more modern sensor fabrication, the cost of a full-frame sensor seems to have significantly dropped (based on the pricing of the EOS R and RP.) Could they make a feature-packed R7 at a price point significantly below the R5? Would they? Would they be better off putting those features into an M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup with no ceiling, instead of somewhere in the middle of the R lineup? Would that increase sales, because it would appeal to M buyers who want to own the best in the line, rather than R buyers who want a second body? Only Canon knows.



The EOS 5D Mark IV was the same price in 2016 that the EOS 5D Mark III was in 2012.

The EOS 90D was introduced at the same price in 2019 as the 80D in 2016 and the 70D in 2012.

*Canon's pricing has always been market driven, not cost driven. Always.*

The pricing of the EOS R and EOS RP were based on where Canon wanted to place them in terms of price points. Also, both sensors were retreads from the 5D Mark IV and 6D Mark II, respectively. That decision may have been based as much on how many they already had stockpiled on hand due to less than projected sales of the 5DIV and 6DII than on the cost of making them.

If Canon can't make a product at a desired price point they don't raise the price and keep the design, they change the design until it can be sold profitably at the desired price point.

But even if it were cost driven, if producing a FF sensor is cheaper post-2015 than pre-2016, then that would apply all the more to APS-C sensors. This argues against an R7 having to cost more relative to the R5 and R6 than the 7D and 7D Mark II cost compared to the 5D Mark III and 6D/6D Mark II.

The 7D and 7D Mark II sat squarely in the middle of the EF lineup. It was three times the cost of the entry level Rebels. It was one-third the cost of the 1-Series. Why do you think a mirrorless equivalent has to be "king" of its mount?

The typical M buyer outside North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe doesn't care about a ceiling. They are like most Rebel buyers a decade ago. They bought one and used it without worrying about the next Rebel coming down the pike. I've got friends still shooting with Rebel XTi and T3i bodies. I've got friends still shooting with Nikon D50 and D90 bodies. They all do tend to use their phone more than their cameras, though. But so do many EOS M owners. They only grab the camera when they're going to a special event like a birthday party or taking a trip, in much the same way that most other Rebel owners once did. The vocal Rebel users who wasted money (that could have been spent on lighting, better lenses, etc.) on every single upgrade that inhabit these forums are not the typical Rebel buyer.

Sure only Canon knows for sure what their current plans are. But history can be a pretty good indicator, especially for a company as conservative as Canon.

History is filled with generals and football coaches and baseball managers who were successful because they understood their opponents past history and tendencies better than their opponents understood theirs.

Clemson won the National Championship game in football in 2017 because their coaches did their homework about how lenient the Big12 crew calling the game had been all season long with letting offensive receiver throw picks. It caught Alabama off guard because neither SEC officials nor ACC officials had allowed the same thing.

One reason the Civil War lasted as long as it did was because Lee and the other Southern generals knew their northern counterparts, whom they had been instructed by at West Point and under whom they had fought the Mexican-American War, better than the Northern commanders knew themselves. The tide of the war only turned when Lincoln replaced his commanders with "unknown" generals like Grant, Sherman, and Custer who were as unpredictable to their foes as their foes were to them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yep.



You can lead a mind to knowledge, but you can't make them think.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2020)

I think any discussion or theorizing on the future of APS-C/EOS-M/7D III/RF and potential for an RF crop should really look at how the market evolved into what we knew and where the technology is now.

For a start the earliest general mass market APS-C Canon cameras were the D30, D60 and the breakout 10D, these were not EF-S cameras and the crop sensor was forced into the larger EF cameras because of cost, don't forget the 10D was $1,999 at launch nearly 20 years ago back when $2,000 was a lot more money! Canon realized there was a sizable market who wanted digital sensors but couldn't afford larger than the APS-C so they started introducing EF-S lenses a full four years and four iterations after the first general mass market APS-C cameras were released.

This general mass market did serve as a feeder market for some users to grow into mixed APS-C and FF ownership but don't forget unlike Nikon, who moved to FF sensors much more slowly, Canon crop camera lenses never worked, or even fitted, onto FF bodies so somebody with a comprehensive EF-S system effectively started from scratch when they bought their first FF body anyway. But the EF-s cameras were always very much aimed at the mass market at numerous price points, it really was something of an accident that niche users like the birders who wanted pixel density and affordable reach bought into the sensor size too.

Canon have transitioned to MILC's with two systems aimed at two very different market segments just as they had with APS-C/EF-s and FF/EF, the core difference being the mounts are different and the lenses have been optimized for their respective market segments. But they started this transition with a cleaner slate and comparatively little considerations for interoperability just mindful of people transitioning from the ubiquitous EF, that is why EF lenses fit EF-M and EOS R. I believe Canon see the major selling feature/advantage of EOS-M is the size, ergo no big lenses fit into the marketing system ethos. Enthusiasts/pros might own an M camera and lenses but they are for very different uses than the EOS R system and they know it, but the point is the M system is better suited to them as customers for that use because of the size, weight and price and those M sales still make up the larger part of the mass market.

But what of our niche birders, what did they have and what might they end up with? If they have stuck with Canon most probably still have the venerable 7D II and probably the 100-400 L II for their price and focal length limited situations, maybe a Tamron or Sigma 150-600 and some might have the 90D. If the former on brand Canon gave them 20mp on an effective 640mm at f9 with 10fps. $1,800 body and $2,200 lens, $4,000 total. An R6 and 800 f11 gives them 20mp, effective 800mm at f11 with 12fps, $2,400 body and $899 lens, $3,200 total. So effectively 160mm longer and 2/3 stop slower with much newer and better AF ISO performance etc etc for $800 less. Of course this says nothing of the IQ differences between the lenses, the 100-400 II is legendary and the 800mm relatively modest, but it does put then and now into perspective.

Given that along with the fact that the camera market is still going through a massive contraction I think the probability of Canon expanding ranges is extremely unlikely. I believe they knew where they wanted the EOS-M when they designed and made it and they are happy with the market it attracts. I believe the same is true with the RF system, if you want a more 'serious' system with capabilities that stretch beyond small and light then RF is it, M will remain inside that key system feature of small and light.

I believe Canon see the future clearly. 
1: EOS-M = small, light and comparatively cheap APS-C camera system aimed at the worlds mass market for non phone cameras.
2 EOS R = bigger more complex and expensive full frame camera system to cover everything.
3: EOS EF = pain in the butt carry over legacy products they need to maintain and service with the minimum of effort and commitment but enough to keep entrenched, holdover and inheriting owners happy for a reasonable amount of time. However EF does give the R lens development teams some breathing room especially for many of the exotic EF lenses that will take forever to transition to R, like TS-E's, MPE, 8-15 etc etc that many pros rely on but can keep using with a variety of functionally useful adapters.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You can lead a mind to knowledge, but you can't make them think.



Your repeating the same points over and over and asserting your authority as someone with (claimed) marketing know how, is not "knowledge."


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There have been plenty of superior products who lost the marketing war.
> 
> The classic example is VHS vs. BETAMAX.
> 
> Or Tucker vs. GM/Ford/Chrysler.


As usual, lots of throwing around of 'marketing' without any basis in facts.

VHS vs BETA: Beta was more expensive for both the players and tapes, it's video and audio quality improvements were minor and not able to be discerned except on the highest end home theater setups, and most importantly, it's recording times were half of VHS which was a huge issue given the price of the tapes was also higher. It lost on price and features, not due to 'marketing'.

As for Tucker, starting a car company was hard and they engaged in some shady business practices which resulted in an SEC investigation. The demise of that company is again much more complicated than 'marketing' and they were actually innovative at that aspect for their time.


----------

