# A higher end EOS M body is in the pipeline [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2020)

> I have been told previously that two EOS M bodies were coming in 2020 (which may be impacted by current events), one of which would be a follow-up to the highly popular Canon EOS M50.
> The second body I’m told again will be a “flagship” EOS M body above the EOS M6 Mark II.  It apparently won’t be a flagship such as an EOS-1D X Mark III, but it will be an EOS M body of “greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.
> I’m not going to guess at the moment what any of this means, but I do expect some more information on this in the near future.



Continue reading...


----------



## Warrenl (Apr 27, 2020)

New 7D??? So the R will be full frame, and M line to be the crop format?


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 27, 2020)

So would that be the M equivalent to a 7D3? Does Canon make it larger, perhaps Fuji X-T4 size?


----------



## Whowe (Apr 27, 2020)

Warrenl said:


> New 7D??? So the R will be full frame, and M line to be the crop format?


That is my guess also.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 27, 2020)

Given Canon's apathy towards M mount, I would really like to see crop RF camera.


----------



## JohnC (Apr 27, 2020)

This is one of the more interesting topics lately to me. I have the M6II and have found myself completely sold. I haven't used my 5DIV in months now, and shoot the M6II daily with native and adapted lenses (EVF stays attached). What started as a travel camera has become the one I reach for.

A more capable version with a built in EVF would get my money.


----------



## Mark3794 (Apr 27, 2020)

If they call it EOS M7 Mark III i could die from laughter

Fixed EVF, bigger weather sealed body with optional battery grip, dual cards, M6 mark ii internals and here's your 7D mark III


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 27, 2020)

JohnC said:


> This is one of the more interesting topics lately to me. I have the M6II and have found myself completely sold. I haven't used my 5DIV in months now, and shoot the M6II daily with native and adapted lenses (EVF stays attached). What started as a travel camera has become the one I reach for.
> 
> A more capable version with a built in EVF would get my money.


Interesting, what do you like about the M6II over the 5DIV?


----------



## Treyarnon (Apr 27, 2020)

Could it be an M5 Mark 7?


----------



## TMHKR (Apr 27, 2020)

Warrenl said:


> New 7D??? So the R will be full frame, and M line to be the crop format?


Reminder: As long as the official adapters exist, EF / EF-S lenses are viable options for both mounts. This alone increases the ecosystem ten fold, even while the native options are still slim.


----------



## i_SH (Apr 27, 2020)

We are waiting for the M7 and lenses 7-14 / 4.5, 14-70 / 2.8-4 and 70-350 / 4-5.6!


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 27, 2020)

So if this happens (and I hope that it does), the chances of an APS-C R mount camera are pretty close to zero.

I think this is the right move. RF lenses for full frame, EF-M lenses for APS-C, EF lenses for M users if they think they might want to invest in glass first and upgrade to FF later.


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 27, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> Reminder: As long as the official adapters exist, EF / EF-S lenses are viable options for both mounts. This alone increases the ecosystem ten fold, even while the native options are still slim.



even the most basic of EF/EF-s lenses with an adapter on the M5 make it pretty much an ergonomic nightmare

my hands are in no way big but putting something like the 15-85 makes the camera unholdable with the small grip and my pinky left hanging

the 60 macro is ok but if i add any flash it's again too much for the small grip

the 55-250 STM on the other hand handles beautifully


----------



## sdz (Apr 27, 2020)

This makes sense to me. Treat the M Mount line as the dedicated crop sensor line while supporting EF lenses. This move could remove the need for Canon to support the RF Mount on consumer grade cameras while providing the M Mount with a top end crop sensor model. 

I never trusted the claims that had the M Mount dieing.


----------



## Mars1954 (Apr 27, 2020)

The move to mirrorless exclusively over time is evident. RF mount and M mount for crop sensors The EF mount slowly is being phased out. I would think that it will take several years before EF lenses and the E F mount cameras begin to become antiquated.As the owner of two 5D Mk Iv's and a 5D Mk.III and many Canon EF L lenses I am so thankful for the EF to RF adapter!


----------



## jvillain (Apr 27, 2020)

Will there ever be an M camera where you can use both an EVF and a flash trigger at the same time?


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 27, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> even the most basic of EF/EF-s lenses with an adapter on the M5 make it pretty much an ergonomic nightmare
> 
> my hands are in no way big but putting something like the 15-85 makes the camera unholdable with the small grip and my pinky left hanging
> 
> ...


I have pretty good sized hands and actually like the 70-200 f4 L IS II on the m6 II. My main complaint is still the external EVF. I will buy this camera. My only issue is that I wish there was the opportunity to adapt RF glass to the mount so you could use this as a backup to your R line of cameras.


----------



## Joules (Apr 27, 2020)

jvillain said:


> Will there ever be an M camera where you can use both an EVF and a flash trigger at the same time?


Can the M50 and M5 not deliver that?


----------



## Danglin52 (Apr 27, 2020)

Joules said:


> Can the M50 and M5 not deliver that?


I really liked the m5, but the overall throughput from acquisiion of focus through writing to the hard drive was not very responsive. Fine for static objects, but not a good fit for action shots. I always felt it need a performance boost, like the m6 II which works very will. I NEVER use the m6 II without the EVF and that is my biggest issue with the m6 II. I would like weather sealing, a little bigger body, etc.


----------



## mpb001 (Apr 27, 2020)

Seems like Canon is putting some resources into the M line if they are coming out with a higher spec body than the M6II. Hopefully, some higher end M lenses will follow.


----------



## CombatWombat (Apr 27, 2020)

It’s not a perfect camera, but my M50 is the one I grab whenever I leave the house these days; I usually have the 55-200 attached and a stack of close-up lenses handy. My 6D Mark II “Big Boy” camera gets dusted off whenever I’m on a photo mission, but the size and weight of the M camera makes it more attractive much of the time. I realize the M6 II has a few performance advantages, but that external finder makes no sense; it’s just another expensive add-on. Also, as a still photographer, I use Canon’s fully articulated screen a lot; the simpler M6 screen would do me no good. Make me a better M50 and I’ll be interested; make an RF-M adapter and I’d be really interested.


----------



## deanmejos (Apr 27, 2020)

my thoughts:
bigger/beefier M5-styled body (something like Fuji's X-T line in size)
M6 II internals, single card slot
fixed EVF
same LP-E17 but with an optional grip to use two batteries
a bit of weather-sealing 
$1500 body only


----------



## SteveC (Apr 27, 2020)

jvillain said:


> Will there ever be an M camera where you can use both an EVF and a flash trigger at the same time?



Maybe they could create an external EVF with a hot shoe on top. Then it could simply pass through to whatever you'd normally put on the hot shoe.


----------



## TMHKR (Apr 27, 2020)

jvillain said:


> Will there ever be an M camera where you can use both an EVF and a flash trigger at the same time?


The M cameras seem too light / small for full-fledged flash units to me. Don't they appear top-heavy?


----------



## AlexV (Apr 27, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> If they call it EOS M7 Mark III i could die from laughter
> 
> Fixed EVF, bigger weather sealed body with optional battery grip, dual cards, M6 mark ii internals and here's your 7D mark III



faster focus, more control and buttons


----------



## unfocused (Apr 27, 2020)

I would not count on a 7D replacement. Instead, I would expect a camera more along the line of the Fuji X-T or X-Pro series.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 27, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> The M cameras seem too light / small for full-fledged flash units to me. Don't they appear top-heavy?


This is the reason why I really like the EX90 flash. It can be used as optical master to control slaves. So, no need to have a big flash or a big transmitter ontop of the EOS M series cameras.

Frank


----------



## Ale_F (Apr 27, 2020)

Canon releases 90D and M6 at the same time.
M5 and 7D3 why not?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 27, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> The M cameras seem too light / small for full-fledged flash units to me. Don't they appear top-heavy?


But the ST-E3-RT fits perfectly.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Apr 27, 2020)

sdz said:


> This makes sense to me. Treat the M Mount line as the dedicated crop sensor line while supporting EF lenses. This move could remove the need for Canon to support the RF Mount on consumer grade cameras while providing the M Mount with a top end crop sensor model.
> 
> I never trusted the claims that had the M Mount dieing.



A great many of the 'claims' that the M mount was 'dying' have emanated from this very website.

I very much enjoy reading CR pretty much every day...but on their best day the CR 'staff', charitably speaking, seems to troll the M system.

The M format is simply wonderful for what it does...not the least of which is its appeal to younger, beginning photographers.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 27, 2020)

Warrenl said:


> New 7D??? So the R will be full frame, and M line to be the crop format?



That looks like what Canon is doing.
Not too sure that is a good strategy if someone wants both FF and APSC they will need two lens systems.
Big mistake.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 27, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Given Canon's apathy towards M mount, I would really like to see crop RF camera.



Exactly.
At this point the M series could piss users who do not understand that M and R have nothing in common except for the name. I would be really pissed buying an M and a couple of lenses then 3 years down the road I have to start over to go FF.
Nikon has it right this time as far as mirrorless in keeping APSC and FF on the same mount.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Apr 27, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Exactly.
> At this point the M series could piss users who do not understand that M and R have nothing in common except for the name. I would be really pissed buying an M and a couple of lenses then 3 years down the road I have to start over to go FF.
> Nikon has it right this time as far as mirrorless in keeping APSC and FF on the same mount.



...nahhh...the R mount is best for what it does...and the M mount, too, is best for what it does.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 27, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> ...if someone wants both FF and APSC they will need two lens systems...



This is further evidence that we need to take Canon at their word that the EF lens system isn't going anywhere. A higher end M body makes sense only in a world where customers can buy EF lenses that will work on all Canon bodies.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 27, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> That looks like what Canon is doing.
> Not too sure that is a good strategy if someone wants both FF and APSC they will need two lens systems.
> Big mistake.


Having owned both EF FF and M cameras, I never once wanted to use a large EF lens on my M camera. M is meant for those looking for small and light. It might be a mistake, but I think not. If you want two very different sized systems, you will gladly get the right lenses for each system, in my opinion.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 27, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This is further evidence that we need to take Canon at their word that the EF lens system isn't going anywhere. A higher end M body makes sense only in a world where customers can buy EF lenses that will work on all Canon bodies.


People on forums seem to forget that more DSLRs were sold last year than mirrorless. In Canon's case, my guess is that they still sell a LOT more DSLR cameras and lenses. So, I doubt that EF lenses will be going away any time soon. I am not convinced that Canon will sell more mirrorless than DSLRs in the next 3-5 years. When the 5D V is released it will be very interesting to see if they sell more 5D V's or R5's. My guess is that the 5D V will still sell more, but chances are we will never know those specific numbers.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 27, 2020)

I am pleased Canon looks like continuing the EOS M series range, there is clearly a place for them in the market. Unlike Sony and other brands the M series is so different to each other for example every M body is totally different i.e. M5, M6, M50 and M200, some have EVR’s some don’t, some have tilty flippy screens, some have pull out screens, they vary in size and weight and it’s obvious they have a very good following.

Second-hand values particularly on the M200 and M50 are extraordinarily strong I have been watching on eBay and even the prior models to the M200 i.e. M100 and M10 make incredible money when sold used and as for used M50’s well they are almost making current new price.

I do like the sound of an M7 an enthusiast sports camera, but we are all just having fun guessing right now


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 27, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Nikon has it right this time as far as mirrorless in keeping APSC and FF on the same mount.



Only to a certain point, keeping the same mount means Nikon cannot make a small compact crop sensor camera from the Z mount.

Nikon Z’s will basically all look much the same because of the mount size. This could be good if someone wants a larger and possibly more durable crop sensor camera, but those days many of the people who buy APSC cameras want small and compact cameras with lenses to match, this isn’t going to happen on a Z mount.

It is easier to make a larger body around a small mount rather than make a small body around a larger mount.


----------



## GadgetDave (Apr 27, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Interesting, what do you like about the M6II over the 5DIV?



I can't speak for the OP, but I have a similar experience. I still use my 5DIV regularly (especially in quarantine time projects), but the M6II is fantastic. If it was the M5II with the same performance, and integrated EVF and still a hot shoe, it would be about the perfect travel camera. When I need to be VERY light the 18-150 is a one-lens solution, if I have a little space then you can throw in things like the 11-22 (optically very good), the sigma 30mm f/1.4, etc. But I can fit that in almost any suitcase for a trip (work or other), and have a very full-featured camera, where as travelling with the 5D and a couple of lenses means compromises elsewhere.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Apr 27, 2020)

For people wondering if this would be a 7D II replacement.....

Where are the native lenses that would support such a camera?

Yeah sure no argument adapted lenses just work. But as Canon well knows, 7D's sold a LOT of top end glass. And that's why it wont happen on the M-mount. If a real 7D III is coming it's RF.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Apr 27, 2020)

I just finished selling all my M cameras, glass and adapters and have moved to RF ... and as much as I've loved the M line over the years, if I'm going to have a 2nd lens system for APS-C it's probably gonna be Fuji. That is, unless it's an M5 mk ii with, among other things, dual cards and a better/larger viewfinder.


----------



## lexptr (Apr 27, 2020)

7D level would be very nice. However, it will have the same problem, as 7D line: no native sealed lenses.
May be I'm somewhat obsessed but, after I had a failed lens due to humidity getting inside in the middle of travel, I avoid non-sealed equipment, where possible. I would consider EOS M line with EF-M lenses in addition to full-frame set, if they were sealed. That would be great for light travel.


----------



## Aaron D (Apr 28, 2020)

This could be a wonderful travel camera. Better still if they could ditch the metal barrel restraint and make a few L lenses for it, compact and relatively fast. And while I'm making requests how about a range-finder style body with a pop-OUT EVF (as opposed to pop-UP).

Though honestly, I'm going to be committed to the RF mount. If I have two bodies, one's gotta be a back-up to the other.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Given Canon's apathy towards M mount, I would really like to see crop RF camera.



Stop projecting your apathy for the EF-M mount system on Canon. 

It's one of the few bright spots that has been keeping them profitable as the low end DSLR market has eroded away. It's by far the best selling mirrorless camera system on the planet for the past several years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

CombatWombat said:


> It’s not a perfect camera, but my M50 is the one I grab whenever I leave the house these days; I usually have the 55-200 attached and a stack of close-up lenses handy. My 6D Mark II “Big Boy” camera gets dusted off whenever I’m on a photo mission, but the size and weight of the M camera makes it more attractive much of the time. I realize the M6 II has a few performance advantages, but that external finder makes no sense; it’s just another expensive add-on. Also, as a still photographer, I use Canon’s fully articulated screen a lot; the simpler M6 screen would do me no good. Make me a better M50 and I’ll be interested; make an RF-M adapter and I’d be really interested.



An RF → EF-M adapter is physically impossible due to the differences in throat diameter and the depth behind the flange of the lugs on the RF mount.


----------



## dslrdummy (Apr 28, 2020)

If Fuji can do compact f1.4 lenses for the X-T/X Pro series, you would think Canon could do likewise for their M's. Some faster, high quality lenses would make the system a very attractive APS-C option. An integrated EVF and weather sealing would be mandatory for me though. I don't care about 2 card slots.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> The M cameras seem too light / small for full-fledged flash units to me. Don't they appear top-heavy?



Flash triggers for controlling off camera flashes tend to be smaller and lighter than shoe mount flashes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> But the ST-E3-RT fits perfectly.



Or a hot shoe to PC adapter that's smaller than the detachable EVF for the M6 Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> That looks like what Canon is doing.
> Not too sure that is a good strategy if someone wants both FF and APSC they will need two lens systems.
> Big mistake.






unfocused said:


> This is further evidence that we need to take Canon at their word that the EF lens system isn't going anywhere. A higher end M body makes sense only in a world where customers can buy EF lenses that will work on all Canon bodies.



Not as much as one might think. I regularly use both 5D Mark IV, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II bodies.

But I rarely use the same lenses on both cameras.

Pretty much the only lens that is ever on the 7D Mark II is the 70-200/2.8 unless I'm testing a 135/2 or 135/2 + 1.4 or some such thing for calibration as an emergency backup measure. All of my primes (24/35/50/85/135) and wide to normal zooms (17-40, 24-70, 24-105) get used on the 5D Mark IV or 5D Mark III (or even the old 5D Mark II). I used to occasionally use the 70-200/2.8 on a FF body, but lately I tend to use the 135/2 instead unless I absolutely have to have the zoom range out to 200 and am only using a single body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> People on forums seem to forget that more DSLRs were sold last year than mirrorless. In Canon's case, my guess is that they still sell a LOT more DSLR cameras and lenses. So, I doubt that EF lenses will be going away any time soon. I am not convinced that Canon will sell more mirrorless than DSLRs in the next 3-5 years. When the 5D V is released it will be very interesting to see if they sell more 5D V's or R5's. My guess is that the 5D V will still sell more, but chances are we will never know those specific numbers.



My guess is that the R5 will sell more if it is released before there's even a credible hint from Canon that a 5D Mark V will ever even happen. A lot of folks who might choose a 5D Mark V over an R5 if they came out at the same time will have already bought an R5 by the time the 5D Mark V might be confirmed as a real thing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 28, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> For people wondering if this would be a 7D II replacement.....
> 
> Where are the native lenses that would support such a camera?
> 
> Yeah sure no argument adapted lenses just work. But as Canon well knows, 7D's sold a LOT of top end glass. And that's why it wont happen on the M-mount. If a real 7D III is coming it's RF.



I tend to see it the other way around. I think a _LOT_ of 7D Mark IIs were sold to people who would have had top end glass (read: big white Super Telephoto lenses) anyway and wanted to see if the extra "reach" and higher frame rate were worth the smaller sensor than their full frame 5-Series cameras.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that a "high end M-series camera" necessarily means a 7D equivalent.


----------



## melgross (Apr 28, 2020)

That’s good. It shows that Canon has a line that’s popular enough to continue advancing. It’s very likely that it’s the reason they’re defying everyone so far by not having an APS-C version of the R series.


----------



## melgross (Apr 28, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> For people wondering if this would be a 7D II replacement.....
> 
> Where are the native lenses that would support such a camera?
> 
> Yeah sure no argument adapted lenses just work. But as Canon well knows, 7D's sold a LOT of top end glass. And that's why it wont happen on the M-mount. If a real 7D III is coming it's RF.


Canon has been working on the glass too. And we’re finally seeing some third parties coming out with M lenses.


----------



## canonmike (Apr 28, 2020)

CombatWombat said:


> It’s not a perfect camera, but my M50 is the one I grab whenever I leave the house these days; I usually have the 55-200 attached and a stack of close-up lenses handy. My 6D Mark II “Big Boy” camera gets dusted off whenever I’m on a photo mission, but the size and weight of the M camera makes it more attractive much of the time. I realize the M6 II has a few performance advantages, but that external finder makes no sense; it’s just another expensive add-on. Also, as a still photographer, I use Canon’s fully articulated screen a lot; the simpler M6 screen would do me no good. Make me a better M50 and I’ll be interested; make an RF-M adapter and I’d be really interested.


I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## canonmike (Apr 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> My guess is that the R5 will sell more if it is released before there's even a credible hint from Canon that a 5D Mark V will ever even happen. A lot of folks who might choose a 5D Mark V over an R5 if they came out at the same time will have already bought an R5 by the time the 5D Mark V might be confirmed as a real thing.


I have to echo your sentiments.


----------



## tigers media (Apr 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


ive been talking about this happening on my channel for a while now i really hope it happens hopefully the rf mount or at least add style body so built proof and some spec bumps would be great. def the ibis will be a he deal for it as its easily the most used blogging camera in the market that alone would see huge sales increases in the model. But they do need better glass sigma has helped them out by giving us those awesome prime lenses. September cant come soon enough for the announcement but probably xmas now due to virus issues.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 28, 2020)

There's definitely a place for a higher end / better built EOS M camera. The M5 and M50 are great cameras incorporating their EVFs along with screen and flash capability.

I have owned several APS-C DSLRs and used FF DSLRs over the years too. The people who say/write that there is no or limited 'native' glass for APS-C do not seem to be aware of the selection of dedicated EF-S lenses (both Canon and third party lenses). The benefits in size and weight (particularly for ultra wide, wide and standard lenses) and reduction in cost are/were the main attractions for APS-C DSLRs. The APS-C mirrorless line obtain a more significant "reduction in size and weight" advantage

There is little use having lenses over 200/250mm in dedicated APS-C lenses though. So that's why the 7D and 7DmkII were used by many photographers with many long EF lenses including L and super-teles.

I love my M5 as a more portable solution, and would be interested in a "higher end M" upgrade. The M6mkII has indicated there is some great tech available for this line. And as I have said/written many times before, the EF-M lenses are great for what they do, the primes in particular. 

Even though I plan to get a R5 and some RF glass, I expect to also maintain photography gear from the EOS M / EF-M range, for more portability.
Good times to be a photographer! Enjoy the light! 

PJ


----------



## LSXPhotog (Apr 28, 2020)

For the love of all that is holy!!!! I will be first in line to buy this camera. I'm absolutely smitten with the EOS M cameras for my APS-C cameras.


----------



## dcm (Apr 28, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> The M cameras seem too light / small for full-fledged flash units to me. Don't they appear top-heavy?



Had a 600EX-RT on the M6II the other day for a few quick shots. Wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Too lazy to pull out the 320EX from its case when the other was already out on the 1DXII. I’ve used 430EX/320EX/90EX flashes handheld on the M5 with no problems - easier with the built in EVF. Smaller is usually better, unless the I need the power. But usually I’m mounting the ST-E3-RT on the M’s for off camera flash with 430/600 if I need more than the 90 or 320 so it doesn’t really matter.


----------



## slclick (Apr 28, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Having owned both EF FF and M cameras, I never once wanted to use a large EF lens on my M camera. M is meant for those looking for small and light. It might be a mistake, but I think not. If you want two very different sized systems, you will gladly get the right lenses for each system, in my opinion.


Well you missed out on some great IQ and some great ergonomics. I had awesome success on the M5 with the 40, the 135 and the 200 2.8.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 28, 2020)

melgross said:


> That’s good. It shows that Canon has a line that’s popular enough to continue advancing. It’s very likely that it’s the reason they’re defying everyone



FULL STOP.

Everyone? Speak for yourself, please.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 28, 2020)

Excellent News.
I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange focal distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
My guess is that they will make one soon.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 28, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> Reminder: As long as the official adapters exist, EF / EF-S lenses are viable options for both mounts. This alone increases the ecosystem ten fold, even while the native options are still slim.


That's true. While I would like some EF-M f/4.0 20-60 IS with 1:2 reproduction ratio @ 60mm and "close EF-M 32 image quality" in a compact built @ 700 EUR/$ as a very flexible "universal lens" I really appreciate the compatibility of my M50 with the EF-S 60 and the EF 70-200 IS which both give high class IQ. And with a high IQ constant f/4 70-200 zoom the zoom lens dominates the size.

And if you go out with a M50, two EF(-S) lenses and two EF-M lenses ... buy two EF2EF-M adapters to have all lenses fitted with EF-M mount. Same goes for the R system: If you use e.g. two bodies, two RF lenses and two EF lenses like 14-24 and 2.8 200 buying two EF2R adapters isn't the dominating factor in terms of money!


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 28, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Excellent News.
> I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
> My guess is that they will make one soon.


It isn't that easy - the difference of flange distance is very tiny, around 2mm and routing of the electrical data has to be done too not compromising the strength of the adapter for e.g. a 28-70 2.0.

But I thought ~ two days ago about some patent with a "shiftable" mount. Maybe an EF-M mount which can be retracted by 3mm to make a 5mm thick RF2EF-M adapter possible? 3mm travel seems possible.

Just checked it:
18 mm EF-M flange distance 
20 mm RF f.d.
difference is 2mm mentioned above


----------



## jedy (Apr 28, 2020)

Not sure how this new EOS-M can be a 7D replacement. With a totally different lens mount there are no high end lenses to use with it other than the less than ideal option of adapting EF lenses. Besides this camera is simply ‘higher end’ and no indication it’s 7D level higher end. I’d say FF with a crop mode will take care of real high end crop duties.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Apr 28, 2020)

I think Canon has this right R = FF and M = APS-C I know we cannot swap lens from R to M, but we have fantastic adaptors meaning we can use all EF glass on both R and M bodies. Admittedly I am not a massive fan on adapting lenses, but it does give us great flexibility if needs must.

I no longer have an EF mount camera body, but I have kept some of my EF glass as I don’t mind adapting lenses I only use occasionally.

Wrongly or rightly but let’s face it DSLR’s are coming to the end of their life span. The 5D and 6D look like being replaced with R5’s and R6’s, however this does leave a gap for likes of the 90D and much loved 7D so this could be Canon filling this gap with a chunkier better build M Series body, this could work!

So, the M Series bodies could become remarkably diverse from the tiny compact M200 up to a much bigger M7 and all the other combination of bodies we currently enjoy such as the M50 M6 and M5.

This could mean for some users having M glass for casual everyday use and for certain types of more specialist tasks such as sports photography popping on an adaptor and taking advantage of all that fantastic but fast becoming redundant EF glass.

I for one, could live with adapting my EF 70-200 2.8 on a chunkier M body especially if that body had IBIS, lightning fast AF tracking and could shoot 14-16 FPS.


----------



## ildyria (Apr 28, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> even the most basic of EF/EF-s lenses with an adapter on the M5 make it pretty much an ergonomic nightmare
> 
> my hands are in no way big but putting something like the 15-85 makes the camera unholdable with the small grip and my pinky left hanging
> 
> ...



I totally disagree with the ergonomic nightmare (and I have long fingers).



Me with my m50 + viltrox speedbooster + EF 70-200 f/2.8. The trick is that I carry and balance all the weight with my left arm.

I never really understood this complain of front heavy, I actually found the 5D series etc back heavy... 

The speedbooster (x0.71) basically converts my m50 in a FF camera (no kidding). That is my opinion is the biggest advantage of the EF-m mount over the EF-s.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 28, 2020)

I just can't imagine Canon raising the bar for APS cameras (M6 II, M5 II) without producing some new high-quality lenses.
Presently, we only need to wait a little more...for the EF-M 32 f1,4 siblings !


----------



## maniacalrobot (Apr 28, 2020)

It will be interesting to see how canon distinguish a new “prosumer” M body with the “consumer” RP. I think a good approach would be to make a flagship M a fashion statement. Get some exposed metal and leather, and beat the fuji xt series for looks


----------



## Kit. (Apr 28, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> For people wondering if this would be a 7D II replacement.....
> 
> Where are the native lenses that would support such a camera?


100-400L II will be the default lens on such a camera for quite a lot of people.



Cat_Interceptor said:


> Yeah sure no argument adapted lenses just work. But as Canon well knows, 7D's sold a LOT of top end glass. And that's why it wont happen on the M-mount.


Why?


----------



## Kit. (Apr 28, 2020)

maniacalrobot said:


> It will be interesting to see how canon distinguish a new “prosumer” M body with the “consumer” RP. I think a good approach would be to make a flagship M a fashion statement. Get some exposed metal and leather, and beat the fuji xt series for looks


"Prosumer" means "consumer that produces".

"Consumer that uses the camera as a fashion statement" is something else.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Apr 28, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Why?



Where's the actual L quality glass for mirrorless esp at the lengths the 7D II was so good with? It's all RF. A prosumer 7D followup makes far more sense with the mount that has the top line glass.


----------



## jedy (Apr 28, 2020)

Kit. said:


> 100-400L II will be the default lens on such a camera for quite a lot of people.


The lens you mention isn’t a native EOS-M lens. It’ll have to be adapted. I still think FF R cameras with a crop mode will take over any pro crop duties. Seems pointless having a dedicated crop R camera with current mirrorless technology. Also, I can’t imagine a pro photographer carrying a high end M with adapted EF lenses and FF R with RF lenses. With DSLR, the advantage having a 7D and 5D/1D using the same lenses made much more sense.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 28, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Where's the actual L quality glass for mirrorless esp at the lengths the 7D II was so good with? It's all RF.


Oh, really?

Ship me all that worthless L glass that you used with 7D II. I'll find a proper way to dispose it.



jedy said:


> The lens you mention isn’t a native EOS-M lens. It’ll have to be adapted.


You sound like somebody who would refuse to use this lens on 7D II because it "isn't an EF-S lens".



jedy said:


> I still think FF R cameras with a crop mode will take over any pro crop duties.


Maybe. But they won't cost like a 7D II for quite a long time.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 28, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Interesting, what do you like about the M6II over the 5DIV?


I also own the 5DIV and M6II. The obvious advantages of the M6II are size, weight, FPS, face/eye tracking in EVF, and, well, the EVF if you like them. I am actually very pleased with the IQ and how the files handle in post processing with the M6II. I see it occasionally mentioned, but that was one of the big improvements going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV, easier post processing. The M6II is actually fairly similar. Also worth pointing out, the M6II has more DR at low ISOs than the 5DIII (but not 5DIV). Battery life has been better than advertised. Perhaps it is because I used the EVF a lot, but I am ~500-600 images per battery charge.

Overall, it is a great little camera. I have really enjoyed it. 

As for Cons and why I see room for a higher end M camera, but AF in servo mode needs just a bit of work, particularly with single point and spot. Zone is actually the most responsive AF option, or at least that is how it seems to me. The Eye-Face tracking is actually very good, and quicker than on the 5DIV in Liveview. Also, that pixel density. Ooof. You really need to be ~2x or higher equivalent focal length to get tact sharp images. Even with "stabilized lenses," if I pixel peep, I am seeing some pixel level blur unless I use high shutter speeds. So, IBIS should help.


----------



## dcm (Apr 28, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Having owned both EF FF and M cameras, I never once wanted to use a large EF lens on my M camera. M is meant for those looking for small and light. It might be a mistake, but I think not. If you want two very different sized systems, you will gladly get the right lenses for each system, in my opinion.



I agree, most of the time. I have found myself using the M6II body instead of the 1DXII when I need a silent shutter while using my EF lenses, such as shooting low light in a church during the service with EF85/1.4L. The available M lenses were not up to this challenge. It’s nice the M6II can step up in that role which isn’t my normal use case for the M. I’ll be first in line for a high-end M to upgrade my M5. I expect it will get some use as a backup to my 1DXII now that I no longer have a 6D for that role.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> even the most basic of EF/EF-s lenses with an adapter on the M5 make it pretty much an ergonomic nightmare



Well, I wouldn't want to use a big white on one (although I did try out the EOS M3 with the original EF 400mm f/2.8 just for a laugh)

There are many lenses I find perfectly comfortable using with the M series.

The light primes. EF 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4, 85mm f1/.8 
Macro lenses: EF 100mm f/2.8L IS (actually I really like this lens with the M bodies), MP-E 65 (having the lightweight body is a great benefit for macro work)
Zooms: The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is surprisingly easy to use with the M series cameras, whereas the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II isn't for some reason.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 28, 2020)

CombatWombat said:


> It’s not a perfect camera, but my M50 is the one I grab whenever I leave the house these days; I usually have the 55-200 attached and a stack of close-up lenses handy. My 6D Mark II “Big Boy” camera gets dusted off whenever I’m on a photo mission, but the size and weight of the M camera makes it more attractive much of the time. I realize the M6 II has a few performance advantages, but that external finder makes no sense; it’s just another expensive add-on. Also, as a still photographer, I use Canon’s fully articulated screen a lot; the simpler M6 screen would do me no good. Make me a better M50 and I’ll be interested; make an RF-M adapter and I’d be really interested.


Last year before the G5X and G7X updates came out, I looked at the M50 as a possible choice for my travel camera. I was quite favorably impressed, but decided to wait for the G models and decide then. In the end, pocketability won out, and I bought the G5X II. I like the pop-up viewfinder for when the sunlight is too bright to compose the picture on the screen. I also looked at a roughly equivalent Sony, but they went the wrong direction for my purposes. They made the zoom longer and the lens slower. When traveling, I need the speed in interiors, and if anything need something wider than 24mm. Cropping from 120mm works well enough for the rare times I wish I had a longer lens. If I traveled with an M camera, I'd get the 11-22mm zoom, or adapt my EF-S 10-22, as well as something longer and maybe faster. At 24mm equivalent view, I do a fair amount of stitching back home of interiors and scenic vistas.

For me, though, a travel camera should let met take good pictures and stay out of the way. The point is for me not to become obsessed with photography and miss seeing and doing the things I went there for. For closer to home, and especially when photography is the point of what I'm doing, and not just incidental, the 6D2 doesn't seem cumbersome at all. OK, wearing it around my neck most of the day with the 100-400mm lens gets a bit old, but I don't do that often.

So I liked the M50, and would consider buying something in that line, but don't know what I'd use it for in real life. For this part of my life, the G5X II takes care of my mirrorless needs.


----------



## tron (Apr 28, 2020)

GadgetDave said:


> I can't speak for the OP, but I have a similar experience. I still use my 5DIV regularly (especially in quarantine time projects), but the M6II is fantastic. If it was the M5II with the same performance, and integrated EVF and still a hot shoe, it would be about the perfect travel camera. When I need to be VERY light the 18-150 is a one-lens solution, if I have a little space then you can throw in things like the 11-22 (optically very good), the sigma 30mm f/1.4, etc. But I can fit that in almost any suitcase for a trip (work or other), and have a very full-featured camera, where as travelling with the 5D and a couple of lenses means compromises elsewhere.


I do something similar using DSLRs. When I go out for birding the weight is too much to carry a FF body with 24-105 and 16-35 so sometimes I get 200D with 10-18 and 18-55 (now I got 15-85 used so I will use this in the future instead). 200D with small zooms is a little nice camera.


----------



## Philrp (Apr 28, 2020)

I really want this "M7" / 7D III mirrorless camera from Canon, but it must be RF mount or it's no good to me.

Yes my glass is worth over 4 times the body, but that's how I roll


----------



## SteveC (Apr 28, 2020)

Philrp said:


> I really want this "M7" / 7D III mirrorless camera from Canon, but it must be RF mount or it's no good to me.
> 
> Yes my glass is worth over 4 times the body, but that's how I roll



That is as it should be. But if you end up getting the R5 and using it in crop mode, your glass will still be worth more than the body.


----------



## ozturert (Apr 28, 2020)

“greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”. 
Wouldn't be difficult...


----------



## DogpackChris (Apr 28, 2020)

ozturert said:


> “greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.
> Wouldn't be difficult...


Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.


----------



## melgross (Apr 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> FULL STOP.
> 
> Everyone? Speak for yourself, please.


Oh, you know what I meant. You don’t have. To get so stuffy about it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2020)

DogpackChris said:


> Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.


I dropped mine, well the wrist strap broke and it fell on a concrete airport floor (solid as can be) and in my attempt to catch it kicked it across the terminal. It hasn’t missed a beat, the 22mm f2 that was on it has a slight tight spot on the focus ring but that’s it.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 28, 2020)

A couple of years ago I retired the wife's Canon XSi. I replaced it with the Olympus E-M5 Mark II. How I wish I'd just got her a Canon M. The M4/3 Kool-aid didn't kill me, but the menus have left me sick.  Since I almost never use the Olympus, it is extremely difficult for me to retain where things are found. The familiarity of Canon's menu system would be wonderful.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 28, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Having owned both EF FF and M cameras, I never once wanted to use a large EF lens on my M camera. M is meant for those looking for small and light. It might be a mistake, but I think not. If you want two very different sized systems, you will gladly get the right lenses for each system, in my opinion.



If you are aware of this. Too many consumers are not or do not fully understand. Like Nikon 5xxxx cameras could not use AF lenses so when the owner bought one they were screwed.


----------



## ozturert (Apr 29, 2020)

DogpackChris said:


> Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.


M5 is good, but I was thinking about 7D level body.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Excellent News.
> I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange focal distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
> My guess is that they will make one soon.



Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in. 

And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.

It might be possible for a future M body to understand R protocols (and I'm sure the R protocols are just a more advanced version of the EF-M protocols anyway) but not now.

If you want to use RF glass you're going to need an R body.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> If you are aware of this. Too many consumers are not or do not fully understand. Like Nikon 5xxxx cameras could not use AF lenses so when the owner bought one they were screwed.



Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.

This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in.
> 
> And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.
> 
> ...


I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."



You can make an adapter if you put some glass in it, a hollow tube won't work due to the bayonet sizes and layout. Hold an RF lens in front of an M camera and you'll see why.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."



Just because you really really want something doesn't mean it's possible


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in.
> 
> And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.
> 
> ...



canon EF flange distance is 44mm
nikon F flange distance is 46.5mm
there are plenty of adapters for nikon lenses on canon cameras.
MECHANICALLY it's perfectly possible. putting electronics and electrical pins/contacts there is..problematic but certainly not impossible


----------



## Etienne (Apr 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Just because you really really want something doesn't mean it's possible


Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that it's impossible.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You can make an adapter if you put some glass in it, a hollow tube won't work due to the bayonet sizes and layout. Hold an RF lens in front of an M camera and you'll see why.



And there's absolutely zero point of an adapter with glass in it which will ruin the fine optical properties of any RF lens. They were acceptable back in the film days when you needed such an adaptor to get an FD lens to focus to infinity on an EOS body but not so much today.

I've got a speed-booseter for EF->EF-M and yes, it's quite fun and it is useful, but there are always prices to pay for throwing more glass in front of the lens.

So, it's possible Canon could do an RF->EF-M speed-booster type adaptor for a future M body, but Canon really don't like to create lenses or adaptors that physically can connect to older devices but don't work. They'd need a 2nd revision of the EF-M mount.

Perhaps RF-M ? 

And that seems a lot of effort to go through just for the handful of people who want to use expensive RF glass on an EF-M body. I wouldn't waste my time developing it if I were Canon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> canon EF flange distance is 44mm
> nikon F flange distance is 46.5mm
> there are plenty of adapters for nikon lenses on canon cameras.
> MECHANICALLY it's perfectly possible. putting electronics and electrical pins/contacts there is..problematic but certainly not impossible



NIKON F is NARROWER than EF.

RF is WIDER than EF-M

So no, you are wrong.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 29, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that it's impossible.


I can imagine a solution (already mentioned above), but NOT something that would fit into the 2mm that the original message talked about!


----------



## Pape (Apr 29, 2020)

M7 ,EF- M 100-500mm f5,6 kit for 3000E, and nobody would want put expensive RF lenses to M


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Apr 29, 2020)

Seeing as the M200 and M6 Mark II were released last year, its only natural for an M50 Mark II and M5 Mark II to be the next ones. The M6 Mark II moved up quite a bit in performance vs. the original M6 (which was an upgrade from the M3). As such, it seems Canon will be giving an "R5 like" treatment to the M line with the M5 Mark II. Features like 5-Axis IBIS, weather sealing, and duel card slots are all possible for the M5 Mark II, along with a bump in shoot-to-shoot performance.

To address the gap with EF-M and RF lenses, Canon may release an adapter along side the M5 Mark II to allow RF lenses to work on an M series camera. Granted, its been discussed heavily that a simple EF-M to RF adapter like the current EF-M to EF adapter is not physically possible due to the very small 2 mm difference between EF-M and RF mount flange distance. Though that doesn't rule out an EF-M to RF adapter with lenses elements to refocus RF lenses onto the smaller APS-C sensor from a further flange distance (sort of like current speadbooster adapters).

If Canon is to continue the M series cameras along side the RF series, then the mount gap needs to be addressed by Canon for this to make sense. Example: The RF 24-105 F/4 L lens is superior to the EF 24-105 F/4 L II lens. Does it make sense for an M series user to buy the EF version to adapt to there camera now, then have to sell off everything if/when they decide to go to a full frame RF camera? Yes, they could adapt that EF 24-105 F/4 L II lens to an RF camera, but does that really make sense? Wouldn't someone buying a lens as expensive as an L lens want the RF version with better performance and features?


----------



## jedy (Apr 29, 2020)

Kit. said:


> You sound like somebody who would refuse to use this lens on 7D II because it "isn't an EF-S lens".


That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.


----------



## jedy (Apr 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.
> 
> This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.


I would say with mirrorless, a crop mode on FF cameras will be the way to go for high end crop, almost like having two cameras in one. Your anecdotal experience with Sony isn’t enough to counter the same lens mount advantage for both crop and FF, as it works really well for DSLR and crop lenses aren’t meant for FF DSLR’s anyway. If Canon do produce a 7D EOS-M, the lens mount will be an issue for higher end users.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Apr 29, 2020)

I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
Someone with enough budget could get additional FF gear and keep the APS-C gear as second system (leigtweigt and travel).

I guess people with the upgrade path wish are a minority. And I think this is more or less an argument to declare Canon ******* if they do not deliver a APS-C -> FF upgrade path.

Frank


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 29, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.
> 
> This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.



We shall see.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 29, 2020)

Photorex said:


> I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
> If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
> So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
> People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
> ...


Only Canon really knows how many people who start with an APS-C camera "upgrade" to full frame. With the price of full frame having dropped significantly in recent years, the number may be fewer than it once was.

Your point is valid for wide angle lenses, but many APS-C users have always bought full frame telephoto lenses. In fact, there are very few telephoto lenses available that are APS-C only. So, people are used to being able to use their telephotos on both full frame and APS-C bodies. Before, the upgrade path was much simpler. You could buy an APS-C body and one good EF-S lens like the 15-85mm and then everything else could be EF. It's not so simple with mirrorless and it remains to be seen if this will be a problem for Canon or not. It appears that Canon doesn't think it will be.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Apr 29, 2020)

Photorex said:


> I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
> If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
> So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
> People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
> ...



True, the need for an upgrade path is not something everyone wants or needs when buying into a system. Many may stick with APS-C, or some may just jump right into FF when deciding on what fits their needs. But not having that upgrade path for Canon could be make or break for at least some people when deciding on what company's mirrorless system to buy into. Both Sony and Nikon have an APS-C to FF upgrade path for their mirrorless systems, so it would be wise for Canon to at least try to tie the EF-M and RF systems together in some way.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 29, 2020)

jedy said:


> That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.


You may call me "silly", but I have no immediate plans to buy RF lenses for my EOS R5 to be. So far, there are no RF lenses I am interested in.


----------



## dcm (Apr 29, 2020)

Or maybe Canon could bring out a body with switchable mounts for EF, EF-M, and RF. Start with some form of universal mount that can accommodate adapters for all three. Would likely need to be an APS-C model, but who knows. I don't really expect to see something like this, particularly in a low end body, but you never know.

Just throwing it out there....


----------



## koketso (Apr 29, 2020)

sdz said:


> This makes sense to me. Treat the M Mount line as the dedicated crop sensor line while supporting EF lenses. This move could remove the need for Canon to support the RF Mount on consumer grade cameras while providing the M Mount with a top end crop sensor model.
> 
> I never trusted the claims that had the M Mount dieing.


I've been saying this is exactly what Canon is doing.

The XXXD market don't buy many lenses, and when they do - its usually the nifty fifty (EF-M 32mm), wide angle (22mm) or a macro lens (EF-M 28mm). All that's missing is a portrait lens and ultra-wide and that's game for the non-sports APS-C market. Its only the camera nerds and bloggers who keep shouting "Canon needs to make an APS-C RF body" - and they think if they keep shouting loud enough Canon will ignore their R&D and cede to the people who make up 10% of their numbers.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 29, 2020)

koketso said:


> I've been saying this is exactly what Canon is doing.
> 
> The XXXD market don't buy many lenses, and when they do - its usually the nifty fifty (EF-M 32mm), wide angle (22mm) or a macro lens (EF-M 28mm). All that's missing is a portrait lens and ultra-wide and that's game for the non-sports APS-C market. Its only the camera nerds and bloggers who keep shouting "Canon needs to make an APS-C RF body" - and they think if they keep shouting loud enough Canon will ignore their R&D and cede to the people who make up 10% of their numbers.



I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.


----------



## sdz (Apr 29, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.


I have had no problems with my M-Mount adapter. Canon made it work.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 30, 2020)

People are going to have to accept the fact that the only thing that M series and RF series cameras have in common is EF lenses...


----------



## SteveC (Apr 30, 2020)

brad-man said:


> People are going to have to accept the fact that the only thing that M series and RF series cameras have in common is EF lenses...



Of which, there are what...sixty or so?

Waaaaaay too limiting!


----------



## clbayley (Apr 30, 2020)

EF-M 500mm f/5.6 DO....amiright?


----------



## Pape (Apr 30, 2020)

clbayley said:


> EF-M 500mm f/5.6 DO....amiright?


sounds good follower for ef 400mm 5,6


----------



## SteveC (Apr 30, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.



The more interesting question is whether they should release an APS-C RF _body_. I'm thinking: no.


----------



## Joules (Apr 30, 2020)

I can't see them moving the 7D line to the M series. The M series is such a special system. Unless it is only meant as a temporary replacement. Use your EF Tele on a larger APS-C mirrorless, until the RF system has the native lenses and bodies you want. The R5 almost matches the 7D II in terms of reach, and probably surpasses it in anything but build quality. That 32 MP sensor is intriguing, but if they scale that up to FF, what's left for EF-M to offer that RF won't?

From what I understand the 7D is really just a niche for the folks who liked to minimize the compromize on build quality and AF performance without paying 1D series-cash. Both qualities made it well suited for wildlife applications, together with the inherent crop of APS-C. But for that, you'd certainly use a huge lens. And that's just the opposite of what Canon seems to see in the M series. Mind you that the only Tele lens patent we saw was for a lens that was 360 mm f/7.1 on the long end. Not quite what a 7D guy would use, although it of course fits into Canon standard EF-M dimensions.

And would they really pollute their quirky system of lenses that all have the same outer diameter (which is also the outer mount diameter) with a proper Tele just for one niche type of customer? That could probably spend the money on a higher level RF body to use with their existing EF Tele?

It would be nice. At least offer two lens sizes Canon, that would be something. I'm really interested in where they take this.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 30, 2020)

Joules said:


> I can't see them moving the 7D line to the M series. The M series is such a special system. Unless it is only meant as a temporary replacement. Use your EF Tele on a larger APS-C mirrorless, until the RF system has the native lenses and bodies you want. The R5 almost matches the 7D II in terms of reach, and probably surpasses it in anything but build quality. That 32 MP sensor is intriguing, but if they scale that up to FF, what's left for EF-M to offer that RF won't?
> 
> From what I understand the 7D is really just a niche for the folks who liked to minimize the compromize on build quality and AF performance without paying 1D series-cash. Both qualities made it well suited for wildlife applications, together with the inherent crop of APS-C. But for that, you'd certainly use a huge lens. And that's just the opposite of what Canon seems to see in the M series. Mind you that the only Tele lens patent we saw was for a lens that was 360 mm f/7.1 on the long end. Not quite what a 7D guy would use, although it of course fits into Canon standard EF-M dimensions.
> 
> ...



I think we'll see a situation where the 7D folks have a choice between a fancy M, and a high res RF full frame run in crop mode.

Whether Canon will ever decide to offer even *slightly* wider (I mean physical width) lenses for the M is another issue; they may be starting to realize that not just rank beginners are using the system, and there are a lot of compact lenses, and they may decide it's okay to offer something slightly less compact in addition to what's there.


----------



## tapanit (Apr 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> An RF → EF-M adapter is physically impossible due to the differences in throat diameter and the depth behind the flange of the lugs on the RF mount.


Not quite. It would obviously be possible with an optical element or possibly by giving up focus on infinity, as some FD-EF adapters did. Whether or not they could be made well enough and cheap enough, I don't know, but I rather expect someone will try even if Canon won't.


----------



## koketso (Apr 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.


Agreed. I have the adapter too, had it since the vanilla M and now on my M5. It works and it works well, everytime.
But the nerds will always complain. They complained that you had to buy the adapter for M mount. Now, when Canon launched RF mount bodies with the EF-RF adapter in the box, they still complained.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Excellent News.
> I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange focal distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
> My guess is that they will make one soon.



It's not doable because the throat diameter of the RF mount is much larger than the throat diameter of the EF-M mount and the lugs on RF lenses protrude more than 2mm behind the flange plate.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Where's the actual L quality glass for mirrorless esp at the lengths the 7D II was so good with? It's all RF. A prosumer 7D followup makes far more sense with the mount that has the top line glass.





jedy said:


> The lens you mention isn’t a native EOS-M lens. It’ll have to be adapted. I still think FF R cameras with a crop mode will take over any pro crop duties. Seems pointless having a dedicated crop R camera with current mirrorless technology. Also, I can’t imagine a pro photographer carrying a high end M with adapted EF lenses and FF R with RF lenses. With DSLR, the advantage having a 7D and 5D/1D using the same lenses made much more sense.



Meh.

I still shoot the EF mount using a 7D Mark II and 5D Mark IV, III, and II. It's very rare (as in pretty much NEVER) for the lenses I use on the FF cameras to be attached to the 7D Mark II. Every once in a blue moon I might use the 70-200/2.8 on a FF body if I'm only able to use one body and need that focal length range. But lately I'm just as likely to use the 135/2 on a FF body If I need to shoot light.

Most of the time the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is on the 7D Mark II. All of my other lenses (24/35/50/85/100/135 primes and 17-40/24-70/24-105 zooms) are used on one of the FF bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

tapanit said:


> Not quite. It would obviously be possible with an optical element or possibly by giving up focus on infinity, as some FD-EF adapters did. Whether or not they could be made well enough and cheap enough, I don't know, but I rather expect someone will try even if Canon won't.



I'm pretty sure in this context we're talking about an adapter without optics or focal length changes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

jedy said:


> That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.



They are native adapted lenses. The EF-M and RF protocols are extended versions of the EF protocol. No EF lens loses any capability it has when used on a EF or EF-S mount camera when it is used on an RF mount body or on an EF-M body. Zilch.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

Photorex said:


> I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
> If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
> So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
> People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
> ...



Exactly.

I've owned an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens since 2011. I bought it at the same time I got my first FF Digital SLR.

I've owned a 50D since 2009, a 7D since 2012, and a 7D Mark II since 2016.

I've not taken a single photo with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on one of the APS-C cameras other than a handful of test/AFMA calibration shots in case I ever needed to use such a combination in a backup role should something break.

Not once have I ever taken a "real world" image with such a combination.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Only Canon really knows how many people who start with an APS-C camera "upgrade" to full frame. With the price of full frame having dropped significantly in recent years, the number may be fewer than it once was.
> 
> Your point is valid for wide angle lenses, but many APS-C users have always bought full frame telephoto lenses. In fact, there are very few telephoto lenses available that are APS-C only. So, people are used to being able to use their telephotos on both full frame and APS-C bodies. Before, the upgrade path was much simpler. You could buy an APS-C body and one good EF-S lens like the 15-85mm and then everything else could be EF. It's not so simple with mirrorless and it remains to be seen if this will be a problem for Canon or not. It appears that Canon doesn't think it will be.



Yes, a few folks did that.

But an awful lot of other folks who bought Canon APS-C cameras never bought any EF lenses, other than the nifty-fifty. They never moved up to FF. They had the kit 18-55mm, maybe an EF-S 55-250mm and/or an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Of which, there are what...sixty or so?
> 
> Waaaaaay too limiting!



Well over a hundred.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 30, 2020)

Joules said:


> From what I understand the 7D is really just a niche for the folks who liked to minimize the compromize on build quality and AF performance without paying 1D series-cash. Both qualities made it well suited for wildlife applications, together with the inherent crop of APS-C. But for that, you'd certainly use a huge lens. And that's just the opposite of what Canon seems to see in the M series. Mind you that the only Tele lens patent we saw was for a lens that was 360 mm f/7.1 on the long end. Not quite what a 7D guy would use, although it of course fits into Canon standard EF-M dimensions.



There are also a lot of 7D Mark II shooters using them for youth/high school sports with, at most, an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS/IS II/IS III). There's probably far more of them than the number of 7D wildlife shooters. It's just that the sports guys aren't on forums like these. They're spending all of their time on social media trying to sell images and getting several thousand images a week up on their SmugMug or Zenfolio website. (At least they were before the SARS-CoV-2 virus hit.)

Some even use third party 70-200/2.8 or EF 70-200mm f/4 variations to reduce costs. The economics of youth/high school sports does not really support the cost of a fast FF camera (1D X series) and an EF 300/2.8 in addition to a 70-200mm f/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II = $3,800
1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II =$13,500

Even 5D Mark IV + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S = $6,200+ for the first 3+ years the 5D Mark IV was on the market.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The more interesting question is whether they should release an APS-C RF _body_. I'm thinking: no.



It does seem a backwards step. I doubt an APS-C R body would sell well, but then I'm often wrong on these things.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 30, 2020)

tapanit said:


> Not quite. It would obviously be possible with an optical element or possibly by giving up focus on infinity, as some FD-EF adapters did. Whether or not they could be made well enough and cheap enough, I don't know, but I rather expect someone will try even if Canon won't.



It would be complicated and expensive. Remember the RF protocols are 30 years more advanced than the EF protocols, and the M bodies don't understand RF protocols. So you'd need a CPU fast enough to be able to understand the RF protocols and convert them back into EF/EF-M protocols. You need glass to correct the difference in flange distance but this has to somehow be good enough to justify using a $3000 lens on a $800 camera. 

It's probably going to be cheaper to buy an EOS RP than to buy an adaptor.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF-M and RF protocols are extended versions of the EF protocol.



Not entirely right, the RF protocol is very different to EF (runs at a far higher clock speed for example) but the RF bodies are designed from the start to talk both RF and EF protocols, so EF lenses and RF lenses both work natively. The adaptor for the EF-RF lenses simply allows physical connection.

This is why third parties can do "RF" lenses because they are using the mount with the older EF protocols. No-one yet understands the RF protocols outside Canon, which is why you won't see third party lenses with control rings.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 30, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> No-one yet understands the RF protocols outside Canon, which is why you won't see third party lenses with control rings.


There's a control wheel on Metabones speedbooster EF to RF adapter.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There are also a lot of 7D Mark II shooters using them for youth/high school sports with, at most, an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS/IS II/IS II). There's probably far more of them than the number of 7D wildlife shooters. It's just that the sports guys aren't on forums like these. They're spending all of their time on social media trying to sell images and getting several thousand images a week up on their SmugMug or Zenfolio website. (At least they were before the SARS-CoV-2 virus hit.)
> 
> Some even use third party 70-200/2.8 or EF 70-200mm f/4 variations to reduce costs. The economics of youth/high school sports does not really support the cost of a fast FF camera (1D X series) and an EF 300/2.8 in addition to a 70-200mm f/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.
> 
> ...


A few years ago I attended a large Kelby seminar. It happened that the folks around me were parents of high school football players. The guy sitting next to me shot a lot of pictures at the games and sold them to other parents. I was not familiar with the 7D. I was still in Rebel territory in those days and hadn't looked into other models. The parents around me were in two categories: those who had a 7D, and those who were planning to get one.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 30, 2020)

clbayley said:


> EF-M 500mm f/5.6 DO....amiright?


Why not EF 500 f/5.6 DO?? The size and weight of long telephotos is dominated by the front elements so the two variations should be about the same size and weight.


----------



## clbayley (May 1, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Why not EF 500 f/5.6 DO?? The size and weight of long telephotos is dominated by the front elements so the two variations should be about the same size and weight.


Just a little snark on my end. There are lots off comments about small EF-M lenses being all that is needed. I was just poking that there are those of us who use a crop with long lenses. EF makes the most sense, but if the M mount will be the only APS-C camera, then make a dedicated crop long lens to match!


----------



## Pape (May 1, 2020)

I guess EF-M 400mm F5,6 DO would make more sense . Canon havent upgraded ef version 20 year so i guess they havent intrest doing so small big whites.
And it wouldnt make any full frame shooter too yealous


----------



## SteveC (May 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yes, a few folks did that.
> 
> But an awful lot of other folks who bought Canon APS-C cameras never bought any EF lenses, other than the nifty-fifty. They never moved up to FF. They had the kit 18-55mm, maybe an EF-S 55-250mm and/or an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm.



Not to forget the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 which was also a kit lens.

Edit: I mean 75-300.


----------



## tron (May 1, 2020)

clbayley said:


> Just a little snark on my end. There are lots off comments about small EF-M lenses being all that is needed. I was just poking that there are those of us who use a crop with long lenses. EF makes the most sense, but if the M mount will be the only APS-C camera, then make a dedicated crop long lens to match!


As mentioned that kind of lens wouldn't be smaller. Given than there are also EF-S and EF mounts that do not have this kind of lens it is only logical that this lens made first for EF mount. That would have a lot of buyers (at least much more than the M users only).


----------



## Skux (May 2, 2020)

An M6 II with an EVF is all I want.


----------



## Pape (May 2, 2020)

Skux said:


> An M6 II with an EVF is all I want.


and new digic with +1 stop jpg improvement and bird eye focus


----------



## tron (May 3, 2020)

Skux said:


> An M6 II with an EVF is all I want.


Hmm, how about a M6II with OVF and … EF mount?


----------



## stevelee (May 3, 2020)

tron said:


> Hmm, how about a M6II with OVF and … EF mount?


People would rebel at that.


----------



## tron (May 3, 2020)

stevelee said:


> People would rebel at that.


It kind of ... exists  and it is higher than … rebel (pun intended!)


----------



## stevelee (May 3, 2020)

tron said:


> It kind of ... exists  and it is higher than … rebel (pun intended!)


As was my pun.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 8, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not entirely right, the RF protocol is very different to EF (runs at a far higher clock speed for example) but the RF bodies are designed from the start to talk both RF and EF protocols, so EF lenses and RF lenses both work natively. The adaptor for the EF-RF lenses simply allows physical connection.
> 
> This is why third parties can do "RF" lenses because they are using the mount with the older EF protocols. No-one yet understands the RF protocols outside Canon, which is why you won't see third party lenses with control rings.



The point is, no "adapted" EF lens loses _anything_ it has the capability of doing on an EF body when it is "adapted" to an RF body. There is zero performance loss. Zilch. Nada. Nein.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not to forget the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 which was also a kit lens.



Much more often it was the truly awful EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III...

But if I recall correctly, those were more "retailer kits" than kits boxed together at the factory.


----------



## stevelee (May 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Much more often it was the truly awful EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III...


I got some version of the 75-300mm for $100 with my first Rebel, a bit overpriced it turned out. But I did make good shots of the total eclipse a few years back. Shooting at f/11, most of the chromatic aberration went away.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 8, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I got some version of the 75-300mm for $100 with my first Rebel, a bit overpriced it turned out. But I did make good shots of the total eclipse a few years back. Shooting at f/11, most of the chromatic aberration went away.



Was the 75-300 factory boxed with the rest of the kit? Or was it part of a "dealer" kit that was in its own box?


----------



## SteveC (May 8, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Much more often it was the truly awful EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III...
> 
> But if I recall correctly, those were more "retailer kits" than kits boxed together at the factory.



I probably just misremembered the low end on that. Sorry. And yes, here at least it was marketed as part of an add-on bundle of accessories.


----------



## stevelee (May 9, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Was the 75-300 factory boxed with the rest of the kit? Or was it part of a "dealer" kit that was in its own box?


It was in its own box as I recall, but it was a Canon promotion. You could buy the camera with just the normal kit zoom, and then you had the option of adding $100 to get the telephoto also. The whole purchase was completely an impulse purchase. I went into the store to look at washers and dryers and flat-screen TVs as I was preparing to retire and move into this house, where I didn’t have any of those. The Rebel itself was decent, but very noisy in low light. I had been using 4MP Casio that had a Canon lens. It was my first digital camera, bought for my 2002 Alaska cruise. The Rebel (an Xsi, or something like that) was my first DSLR. It mainly taught me that I wanted a better camera. I shot with the T3i that followed for a number of years. I didn’t get a good telephoto until after I got the 6D2.

I did get a TV, a washer, and a dryer when I retired. I have not needed or had the desire to replace any of them.


----------



## lyleschmitz (May 13, 2020)

What i’m REALLY hoping for is M6ii internals inside an m5 body, plus a headphone jack, IBIS, clean HDMI out (including audio, really missing that on my M5) and C log.

I’d also really love it if they could add a joystick, the cropped 4k from the 90D, relocate the HDMI port off the grip, and offer a battery grip. those are the changes i think are necessary to really make it competitive with the A6600 and XT4 (which offer all of the above).

I guess that would really make it more of a tiny EOS R with a crop sensor, full readout 4k, and an M mount, but honestly with the advancements the RF cameras are making, i don’t think that’s out of the question. either way, my M5 will last me until we see what this new M camera has to offer.

now if only we could get a fast standard zoom on the M mount (something like the 18-35 but not as loud to autofocus)


----------

