# It looks like 2021 will be the last year for the EOS M lineup [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2020)

> One of the biggest questions in the world of Canon is what will the company do with the EOS M lineup? I think most people, whether they wanted it to happen or not are resigned to the fact that Canon isn’t likely to spend resources developing the EOS M system.
> I have spoken to two sources recently, and both suggested that 2021 will be the last year of the EOS M lineup and that the EOS M50 Mark II was a “stop-gap for a couple of future RF mount APS-C cameras”.
> This is the first time that I’ve heard that there are two APS-C RF mount cameras coming, but it makes some sense. The EOS M lineup has its fans, and if Canon can release an APS-C RF mount camera around the same size as current EOS M cameras, they’ll have a winner.
> Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 30, 2020)

Not surprising that EF-M is being killed off, hopefully there will be good selection of crop RF lenses from 3rd party(if they start making them).


----------



## Mark3794 (Dec 30, 2020)

The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2020)

Is this rumor from Canon global or just USA? I had heard the EOS-M is their number one seller in Japan. Americans, on the other hand, tend to like things bigger.


----------



## Joules (Dec 30, 2020)

Pretty wild. It is understandable that on the lens side, there's very little room left to fill out the line up with the constant outer diameter restriction. But that hasn't hurt the sales in the past. Is it actually so expensive to sustain a few APS-C bodies to go along with it?

If so, this sounds like the end of APS-C as we know it. At least in Canon land.


----------



## JustUs7 (Dec 30, 2020)

An affordable crop RF body would be a nice complement for the RP to add some reach. Consumer wide angle lenses are exciting news as well. Speaking only for this Rebel class household (there’s no ‘L’ in here). Putting the RF 24-240 on a 24 or 32 MP crop sensor could be fun! We have the 35 f1.8 and 85 f2 as well. Both would do well on a crop body.

That said, I can’t see them discontinuing M production as long as they sell well and are profitable. Just maybe little further development.


----------



## nads (Dec 30, 2020)

The idea that all they need is a crap zoom and a wide angle. When it is the 22mm pancake and the size & quality combination of the 11-22 that make it worth having. 

I have no problem buying a spare m200 and picking up an m6ii to cover me for a decade off the clearance racks. I just can't believe that they could ever come close to meeting the form factor. Not the end of the world but I still hate it.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

I'm very happy they want to unite FF and APSC but I think it's a big mistake to not have a small lens lineup dedicated to the APSC cameras, essentially "ports" of the current M lenses. Many people would want such cheap and small lenses.

We'll see what happens.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 30, 2020)

An EOS M50 on steroids in M-land would have been my most desired camera: full frame 4k, good audio pre amps and maybe some 2-stop or 3-stop IBIS and it would be a joy to use the EF-M 32 on that camera for filming. I love that little lens so much because it has a brilliant IQ and the 1:4 maximum reproduction ratio besides the f/1.4 - a unique combination!
If they finish the EOS M line I will buy 2 2nd hand bodies of M50 just to use that lens gem!


----------



## Roby Davis (Dec 30, 2020)

Canon m50 was the favorite Canon camera before I sold it expecting a significant update with the m50 II... so close! 

Anyway is it a crazy idea to make an RF Lens that still fits the 54mm bayonet but only covers a APS-C sensor size in order to keep the weight and size of the lens down? I too would hate to go though the hassle of the ef \ ef-s situation again but if I can use my EOS R \ R6 in a cropped mode with a APS-C designed lens I'd be ok with that I think. 

I guess the point is the m50 + 15-45mm is the same focal range as the 24-70m of a full frame at a 1/4 of the weight ... 

I did a video a few years back comparing the 2 setups - 



 here is that portion. 

There is no secret I'm bull on the Canon M line for travel, and is what I still recommend for people looking to get a "better camera"


----------



## juststeve (Dec 30, 2020)

If they do kill the M line and replace it with crop sensor compact RF mount bodies, it would be foolish not to make some crop RF lenses. A 10-24/4 L RF is going to be about 10 EFM 11-22's. I own an 11-24/4 L. It has its charms. Light and compact are not among them. The thing is a beast. A 22/2 for a crop sensor can be very small, even with an RF mount. A 22/2 or 2.8 to cover full frame would be quite a bit bigger, maybe not twice the size, but bigger. And so on.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2020)

Joules said:


> If so, this sounds like the end of APS-C as we know it. At least in Canon land.


Why do you say that? The same sources in the article mentioned “a couple of future RF mount APS-C cameras.”


----------



## Joules (Dec 30, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Why do you say that? The same sources in the article mentioned “a couple of future RF mount APS-C cameras.”


Sure. But how do you replace the very budget oriented kits like the 1000D and M100 + EF-S 10-18 mm IS STM / 55-250 mm IS STM without producing APS-C specific lenses?

What about the ultra tiny ones like the M200? That body is practically as tall as the EF-M lens mount. With an RF mount and lens, that design simply doesn't seem feasible.

So the role of APS-C seems to either shift to reach and speed optimized bodies like the 7 series, or price regions that you can't reach with a FF sensor (sub 500?). Without dedicated lenses, there is only a little cost savings in the body and 0 size and weight savings, unless we are specifically talking reach limited setups. To me that justifies saying that the role of APS-C in the future is different from what it was in the past.


----------



## mustafa (Dec 30, 2020)

I’m praying that they’ll sign off with the oft-rumoured M5 Mk II with all the features of the M6 Mk II.


----------



## Doug7131 (Dec 30, 2020)

I don't really see how this would work without crop RF lenses. A 10mm wide full frame lens is never going to be remotly cheap - L or not. The EF-S 10-18mm lens is £200 compared to £3000 for the EF 11-24L. The cost of glass elements rises exponentially with size so full frame lenses will always cost considerably more than APS-C crop lenses. This approach only really makes sense if you only consider a crop RF body as a companion/backup to a full frame RF body. On it's own a APS-C RF body makes very little sense without RF crop lenses.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 30, 2020)

nads said:


> The idea that all they need is a crap zoom and a wide angle. When it is the 22mm pancake and the size & quality combination of the 11-22 that make it worth having.
> 
> I have no problem buying a spare m200 and picking up an m6ii to cover me for a decade off the clearance racks. I just can't believe that they could ever come close to meeting the form factor. Not the end of the world but I still hate it.



Exactly this. I got the first M1 during its clearance sale and it's been a treasure. My M50 hasn't been great but I just snatched up a m6ii. And I'll be prepared to snatch up another one or two to hold me over for a very long time.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 30, 2020)

I just hope Canon knows what they are doing. A lot of these rumors lately seem counterintuitive. They wouldn't be the first company that pushed aside older management for young "innovators" only to have the new guys run the company into the ground.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 30, 2020)

Really curious about the specs of those APS-C RF Bodies. Hope there will be a high end body with specs like R6 or R5 even if it's not cheaply priced.

I do like the canon 10-18 EF-S lens and agree that I would like to see an updated RF version with better performance but cheaper priced than a equivalent UWA FF lens. Something like the price of a Canon EF 11-24 F4 doesn't make sense IMO for the people that will own a RF APS-C body. Otherwise I will just adapt my Canon 10-18.

Overall I am very happy the RF line is getting APS-C options. I don't like the ergonomics of the M line and want to stay with APS-C. Assuming that the RF APS-C body (the high end one) won't have a super small form factor.


----------



## PeterT (Dec 30, 2020)

Very sad news.
I was introduced to the Canon land with an analog Rebel (500N) , then went on with two digital Rebels (350D and 450D). Then, after big and long hesitation, I upgraded to the smallest model that supports AF micro adjustments (80D). I like the IQ and features of my 80D especially with my walkaround 15-85 lens, but it lacks in two parameters: (1) it's too big (especially the grip) and too heavy, (2) has no IBIS.

So I hoped that by the end of this year or beginning of 2021 I will be able to choose my next camera from at least two APS-C mirrorless models/lines that are capable similarly to my 80D, but are smaller, lighter (at least somewhat) and have IBIS. I also hoped that one of them will be (a kind of) EOS M 5 II.

Now the rumors keep saying that this will not happen and the only viable option is to switch to Fuji... (ignoring the Sony A6600 because Sony also seems to focus too much on FF and leaving the APS-C to slowly die).

Even if the new APS-C RF body had IBIS (but Nikon Z50 doesn't, so I expect that Canon will cripple the APS-C body in the same way), I still doubt they would make an RF 15-85 (how huge would need it be for FF) to have a reasonable walkaround lens (actually, I never understood the 3x "kit zooms", I never bought them with the body). According to the rumors they will never make a smaller/lighter 35mm F2 and 85mm F2. The existing 35 and 85 RF lenses are too big because of the added close focus feature (I can occasionally use extension tubes) and IS (no big need if the body had IBIS). And what about an equivalent (in size, weight and price) of the EOS M 22mm F2 and 32mmF1.4? The rumors say that they will just not happen either.

So it's not the end of the world, but most probably the end of my use of Canon gear...


----------



## zim (Dec 30, 2020)

This rumour sounds like cr guy stirring the pot again. 
Doesn't this go against the cr3 rumour that the apsc-r will be the same size as the r6, now we're back to talking about teeny wee apsc r's. What's the point!


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 30, 2020)

I'm throwing this out there - *how could there be a RF 'M' camera when keeping in mind the prices of RF lenses?* It's not even feasible with thier current pricing strategy.

Many have been cheering for the nifty fifty for RF and that's great and all but Canon really screwed us with no 501.4 EF update (+ blocking 3rd party performance!) and it seems like they're ready to do this again. It's like they will be no middle range of lenses of substance, just ultra cheap limited quality and $2,000 lenses.

Even if you pointed to the cheapest lenses for the RF mount right now that is not a good solution to replace these small and compact cameras. 

Lastly isn't the RF mount too big for this class of small camera?


----------



## zim (Dec 30, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> I'm throwing this out there - *how could there be a RF 'M' camera when keeping in mind the prices of RF lenses?* It's not even feasible with thier current pricing strategy.
> 
> Many have been cheering for the nifty fifty for RF and that's great and all but Canon really screwed us with no 501.4 EF update (+ blocking 3rd party performance!) and it seems like they're ready to do this again. It's like they will be no middle range of lenses of substance, just ultra cheap limited quality and $2,000 lenses.
> 
> ...


Superimpose an rf mount on an M body, in the literal sense there ain't going to be an 'RF-M' camera. Why fix something that's not broken.


----------



## Johnw (Dec 30, 2020)

Surab said:


> I'm very happy they want to unite FF and APSC but I think it's a big mistake to not have a small lens lineup dedicated to the APSC cameras, essentially "ports" of the current M lenses. Many people would want such cheap and small lenses.
> 
> We'll see what happens.


If they do end up killing off EF-M it wouldn't surprise me to see more investment in APSC class cheaper/smaller lenses for the crop RF bodies. The cheap RF telephotos is clearly evidence that Canon is looking for more opportunities for innovative popular consumer lenses as well.


----------



## dolina (Dec 30, 2020)

The M system always came across to me as a product line that existed to satisfy shareholders but at the same cuckold to not threaten the market share of the EF system.

With that sort of thinking allowed up starters like Sony to eat into market share by being ahead of the curve with mirrorless.

Any tech leaders should always actively look for ways to make their own product obsolete rather than have the competition do it for them.

There is no more development on the EF system. All R&D money is for the RF system.

Making the M system moot.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 30, 2020)

I figured this was inevitable as the patented EF-m lenses were never released. Seems like Canon worked up a series of nice lenses to give them options, but then decided to go strictly RF.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

zim said:


> Superimpose an rf mount on an M body, in the literal sense there ain't going to be an 'RF-M' camera. Why fix something that's not broken.



The extra 7mm between the two mounts isn't going to make the cameras crazy large





and in fact only the M200 would definitely be affected (that is hoping they could fit a larger mount with 2mm extra depth inside the M50, M6 bodies):







but they will need to bring the small and cheap RF-S lenses to replace the EF-M ones, otherwise the *M idea* is truly dead.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

Johnw said:


> If they do end up killing off EF-M it wouldn't surprise me to see more investment in APSC class cheaper/smaller lenses for the crop RF bodies. The cheap RF telephotos is clearly evidence that Canon is looking for more opportunities for innovative popular consumer lenses as well.



I would hope so, but the rumor says they don't have the intention.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2020)

Joules said:


> Sure. But how do you replace the very budget oriented kits like the 1000D and M100 + EF-S 10-18 mm IS STM / 55-250 mm IS STM without producing APS-C specific lenses?
> 
> What about the ultra tiny ones like the M200? That body is practically as tall as the EF-M lens mount. With an RF mount and lens, that design simply doesn't seem feasible.
> 
> So the role of APS-C seems to either shift to reach and speed optimized bodies like the 7 series, or price regions that you can't reach with a FF sensor (sub 500?). Without dedicated lenses, there is only a little cost savings in the body and 0 size and weight savings, unless we are specifically talking reach limited setups. To me that justifies saying that the role of APS-C in the future is different from what it was in the past.


I misunderstood your meaning. I read the “end of APS-C” part, but your emphasis was on the “as we know it.”


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 30, 2020)

Anyone interested in an M6 III aka RM6 form factor?  Well, it is going to be bigger, than an M equivalent, but maybe not much bigger. The tricky part is going to be lenses, Canon would have to come up with some reduced circle variant, to keep the lens more compact ... and cheaper. The question is, if such optical formula would just work ....


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Dec 30, 2020)

Truly upsetting if this is what Canon is doing. I just don't understand the marketing decision though seeing as no RF mount camera will ever be as small or as low of cost as an M200 for an entry level camera. Heck, it was discussed a while back that the EF-M system was going to replace the Rebel DSLR line entirely. Looks to be that 2021 will be an uncertain year for EF-M :/. 



mustafa said:


> I’m praying that they’ll sign off with the oft-rumoured M5 Mk II with all the features of the M6 Mk II.



I'm hoping they at least give us an M5 Mark II with everything form the M6 Mark II + IBIS and Animal Eye AF.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Dec 30, 2020)

I have 13 EF-M mount lenses. If this is the end of the system, Canon had better find an engineering solution to use those lenses on an APS-C Rf camera. Before someone regurgitates the “that’s impossible!”, no, it’s not. It could even be done without an adaptor. If they do that, I’m fine with this news. If I’m starting completely over at the end of my M6ii’s service life, I will likely be looking at other systems, despite shooting Canon for 25 years.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 30, 2020)

Canon knows what they're doing. If these rumors are true, it means the consumer trend is going away from the EFM system, regardless of past and current sales. It makes sense to me. The full frame RP is not that much larger than the M50 (the M50 is actually slightly taller), and its price continues to plummet, negating both the size and price advantages of the crop system. The only thing to address is affordable and compact lenses, which they seem to be doing increasingly more as the EFM system fades. The sub $500 market seems long gone due to mobile phones, and there was probably little to no profit there anyway.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

Eagle Eye said:


> I have 13 EF-M mount lenses. If this is the end of the system, Canon had better find an engineering solution to use those lenses on an APS-C Rf camera. Before someone regurgitates the “that’s impossible!”, no, it’s not. It could even be done without an adaptor. If they do that, I’m fine with this news. If I’m starting completely over at the end of my M6ii’s service life, I will likely be looking at other systems, despite shooting Canon for 25 years.



How would that work withought an adapter? I hope they could make an adapter that moves the smaller lenses 2mm into the mount, but I honestly don't know if they can.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Dec 30, 2020)

I understand focus is on fullframe lenses primary for some time, but the sources sounds like it is "forever" Canon wont be doing "RF-S" lenses? Especially since Canon apparently are planning multiple APS-C cameras, that sounds really weird to me.

I would have loved to see more compact (or "wilder") "RF-S" replacements of my EF-S 10-22, 15-85, 17-55/2.8 and Sigma 8-16. But luckily existing EF-S lenses will still work on R bodies.
I cannot see anything attractive at all about a 18-45mm 4-5.6 lens?? That sounds like the most boring standard zoom ever made for an APS-C camera.

Well, but maybe Sigma or other 3rd party lens manufacturer will see a potential market and launch something interesting?...


----------



## mpeeps (Dec 30, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition


The RP is already very close to that price range.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 30, 2020)

I love the idea of cheaper lenses that are meant for APS-C, but will also work on a full frame body. Having two mirrorless mounts is way too disjointed when their competitors all have one mount. And all those people buying the M50 will just buy the R mount equivalent now. It seems like a perfect time to bring in their now legendary _Rebel _product line. 

Just relax. You know you're all going to get one


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 30, 2020)

The entire 'Canon is killing the M/Canon is going to do R-APSC' does not make sense to me.

Not at all.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 30, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> The entire 'Canon is killing the M/Canon is going to do R-APSC' does not make sense to me.
> 
> Not at all.



It does, just because of the complete lack of lens announcements.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Dec 30, 2020)

It doesn't matter how small they make an APS-C RF mount body if the lenses don't get correspondingly smaller. I do not see how that works by just making only full frame lenses. The only way this makes any kind of sense is if we get lenses that are comparable in size and price to EF-M lenses. If it's Canons intent to move away from the very small and light camera system, I disagree wholeheartedly with this strategy.


----------



## LensFungus (Dec 30, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> Canon knows what they're doing. If these rumors are true, it means the consumer trend is going away from the EFM system, regardless of past and current sales. It makes sense to me. The full frame RP is not that much larger than the M50 (the M50 is actually slightly taller), and its price continues to plummet, negating both the size and price advantages of the crop system. The only thing to address is affordable and compact lenses, which they seem to be doing increasingly more as the EFM system fades. The sub $500 market seems long gone due to mobile phones, and there was probably little to no profit there anyway.


Exactly my thoughts.

Canon is putting a ton of money into market research. They know what's going better than any of us here.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 30, 2020)

Would it be possible for a Canon to make a camera body, about the same size as the RP, with interchangeable mounts, both R and M? Would anybody care to make a guess how much such a feature would add to the price of the body?


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 30, 2020)

Surab said:


> How would that work withought an adapter? I hope they could make an adapter that moves the smaller lenses 2mm into the mount, but I honestly don't know if they can.


Interchangeable mount?


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 30, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> It doesn't matter how small they make an APS-C RF mount body if the lenses don't get correspondingly smaller. I do not see how that works by just making only full frame lenses. The only way this makes any kind of sense is if we get lenses that are comparable in size and price to EF-M lenses. If it's Canons intent to move away from the very small and light camera system, I disagree wholeheartedly with this strategy.



It's not as bad as it seems:



Left: M50II + EFM 32 f/1.4 ($699 + $479 = $1178) | Right: RP + RF 50 f/1.8 ($999 + $199 = $1198) (recent RP refurbished deal was at $687)

Look carefully at the above and tell me if the size and price differences are worth dedicating an entire system for.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

meh. I'll believe it when i see it. the idea that canon has to drop mount to consolidate or to save resources is a little fictitious. Canon has always believed they will create a camera body to meet demand, regardless of the camera. That mentality hasn't changed much in the last 2 years - ergo an EOS Ra.

if Canon is coming out with no APS-C lenses, then a low cost APS-C model in terms of the RF mount is completely and utterly DOA. the idea that a full frame UWA of 18-45 is going to dually handle both is far fetched. anyone see the size of the 15-45mm EF-M lately? or the Z APS-C kit lens?

also, there are millions of M's out there - to drop the mount with no ability to move to the RF mount alienates users and they can all easily decide to switch to an APS-C camera that actually has APS-C lenses made for it. which most would.

I mean, i get the fact that Canon is probably NOT putting resources on the M, but to actively kill it? no, sorry. Canon's not this stupid.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> It's not as bad as it seems:
> 
> View attachment 194892
> 
> Left: M50II + EFM 32 f/1.4 ($699 + $479 = $1178) | Right: RP + RF 50 f/1.8 ($999 + $199 = $1198) (recent RP refurbished deal was at $687)


except one small point.

the 32mm F1.4 can outresolve the 32MP APS-C sensor, and is sharp wide open corner to corner. which is the equivalent of 80MP on full frame.

The 50mm F.18? not so much.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> except one small point.
> 
> the 32mm F1.4 can outresolve the 32MP APS-C sensor, and is sharp wide open corner to corner. which is the equivalent of 80MP on full frame.
> 
> The 50mm F.18? not so much.



Agreed. I am curious whether some would lean towards crop with the better lens, or RP with full frame IQ and better ergonomics, but size and price would be a negligible factor in this comparison, which is kind of the point.


----------



## LensFungus (Dec 30, 2020)

I wouldn't doubt the possibility of upcoming small and cheap RF lenses for an APS-C R camera because I'm quite certain we all are swimming in the same pond of f/11 and f/7.1 RF lenses Canon has provided us with.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> also, there are millions of M's out there - to drop the mount with no ability to move to the RF mount alienates users and they can all easily decide to switch to an APS-C camera that actually has APS-C lenses made for it. which most would.
> 
> I mean, i get the fact that Canon is probably NOT putting resources on the M, but to actively kill it? no, sorry. Canon's not this stupid.



Companies leave legacy users in the dust all the time, and Canon's crystal ball can see further into the future than we can. Canon does not use the "Amazon top seller" financial model when deciding which products to put R&D into. I bet their analysis heavily considers statistical trends, not just what is currently valuable. Their model is likely seeing a downwards trend in the M mount and a consistent upwards trend in the R mount. This is probably based on months or years worth of data.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2020)

The "M" likely would need to grow to fit IBIS into it so if that happens, why not increase the mount diameter by 4mm and make it into a RP? It might need a 4mm taller and wider body but I expect less than that. It will get thicker to fit IBIS, but with a small sensor, a smaller IBIS unit will be designed.

The bigger issue is being able to adapt "M" lenses. a adaptor with optics is possible, but not very practical considering that "M" lenses are consumer grade and not like a very expensive "L" lens.


----------



## jvillain (Dec 30, 2020)

_Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”._

Same people that originally said there would never be an RF APS-C camera?

If they bring the APS-C bodies some third party will bring the lenses. If Canon see's they are leaving money on the table they will start creating lenses. As for me I already have the glass I just need the bodies so this is good news for me, but I do feel for those who bought into the M system as I went through the same thing when Canon first announced they were killing DSLR APS-C and APS-C owners could go pound sand because there would never be an APS-C RF mirrorless.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition


Well, we really don't know what the margins are for the M series, so it isn't necessarily a "cash cow". Canon seems to believe there is more cash to be made through ASP-C R cameras. Canon is trading one cow for a better cow, maybe? Might not can afford to feed both.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 30, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> Agreed. I am curious whether some would lean towards crop with the better lens, or RP with full frame IQ and better ergonomics, but size and price would be a negligible factor in this comparison, which is kind of the point.



One (wood)man's (!) ergonomics are another man's...something or other (no snark intended).

I have posted dozens of images on the CR forums (mostly birds). My trusty 5DMkIII/100-400 II combination is the source of most of these images. I also dabble in acquiring images for times of astronomical significance (eclipses [total eclipses are really cool]) and the recent Jupiter/Saturn convergence come to mind)...where Canon's teleconverters are quite useful...again with the 5DMkIII...where the ergonomics of the large 5D-sized body are of paramount import.

I look forward to purchasing an R5 in the next few months.

But...

...while I have sold a few photos, most of my photo/video efforts are not of the commercial variety...and our family's photos (31K posted online and counting) are important to all of us...and I love the hobby.

A large percentage (half perhaps!?) of our best and most cherished photos center on our family outings and vacations and concerts and sports.

And starting with Canon's S90 (then S95) and moving to Canon's M series...Canon's larger bodies...while STILL OF IMPORT...aren't my go-to for family photos.

And the M2 (which I purchased from a shop in Canada during that time interval when Canon USA said 'no' to the M) and M10...(and I presume the M100 and M200)...are tiny when mated to the 22mm f2 lens...which my daughters utilized extensively when traveling Europe half-a-decade ago.

The M6MkII is a wonderful piece of technology...and it, along with the M6...when connected to the EF-M 11-22...is really really good at what it does...and is really tiny...so tiny (and low mass) that flimsy consumer camcorder tripods are sufficient when we all want to be in the picture at Disney's Epcot Center.

So for many of our uses, the ergonomic argument tilts heavily in favor of the M series of Canon products.

To circle back--in these pandemic days (no traveling)...I've been utilizing the 5KMkIII much more than the EF-M bodies.

But is simply unfathomable to me that Canon will put a stop to the EF-M series...and I really would like to see M-format sales figures from countries other than the USA.

My two cents.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Sathaless (Dec 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I love the idea of cheaper lenses that are meant for APS-C, but will also work on a full frame body. Having two mirrorless mounts is way too disjointed when their competitors all have one mount. And all those people buying the M50 will just buy the R mount equivalent now. It seems like a perfect time to bring in their now legendary _Rebel _product line.
> 
> Just relax. You know you're all going to get one


No we won't. If they kill off the EF-M line, its just more fuel to go to Fuji or Sony.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Dec 30, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> It's not as bad as it seems:
> 
> View attachment 194892
> 
> ...


Yes I still believe so. That's a very specific case. A more appropriate comparison would be the larger RF 35mm which would at least give the same field of view on whatever future APS-C RF body is supposed to come out. When the lens gets longer for telephoto or UWA, that girth adds up. At least for me it's very noticeable.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Dec 30, 2020)

Every RF body automatically goes into crop mode when you attach an EF-S lens. all Canon needs to do is release RF versions of their EF-m lenses with maybe a slightly bigger image circle so IBIS has some breathing room.put one of those lenses on a full frame camera and you get APS-C, because the lens would communicate its image circle size to the camera. No problem.

the only real hiccup is how to differentiate such a difference to a consumer In a way that’s not confusing.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Companies leave legacy users in the dust all the time, and Canon's crystal ball can see further into the future than we can. Canon does not use the "Amazon top seller" financial model when deciding which products to put R&D into. I bet their analysis heavily considers statistical trends, not just what is currently valuable. Their model is likely seeing a downwards trend in the M mount and a consistent upwards trend in the R mount. This is probably based on months or years worth of data.


umm no.

there's not a company out there that goes to their board.. "We're dumping our best selling camera (M50) and its entire line, and not giving them an alternative, and thus most of those users will go to other brands".

we're also a) not talking legacy b) talking R&D expenditures. 

Killing a sucessful product line, and NOT offering an alternative to people to switch to is ... blindingly stupid.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I mean, i get the fact that Canon is probably NOT putting resources on the M, but to actively kill it? no, sorry. Canon's not this stupid.



That's a key distinction. Continue to sell it without developing new lenses, is to some people tantamount to "killing" it. Especially to gearheads (I resemble that remark, sometimes!) who want something new. (Look at all of those who talk about this mount being "dead" simply because Canon isn't throwing more lenses out there.) 

But your EF-M camera and lenses don't disappear when this happens, and Canon could continue selling them for another ten years. They won't get worse, and the target market mostly won't _care_. And the M6-II will still be vastly superior to any Rebel (four digit true model number) made for years, and likely even the three digit models for a couple of years (assuming of course they go down that EF-S Rebel path or even a similar APS-C "cheap" RF path).

Actually discontinuing production, on the other hand, would be "killing" it by anyone's definition of the term. The rumor simply says "2021 will be the last year of the lineup..." but what does that _actually mean_ in terms of being able to buy one of the _existing_ models at retail?


----------



## Eagle Eye (Dec 30, 2020)

Surab said:


> How would that work withought an adapter?


Magic. Or 21st century engineering.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I love the idea of cheaper lenses that are meant for APS-C, but will also work on a full frame body.


sorry it's an idiotic idea.

they will;

a) never be as small as the competition, nor as cheap
b) if they manage a) then they will be optically compromised on full frame anyways, making them full frame lenses in name only.

I mean, you simply can't cheat things here. they have to project a much larger image circle than the competition's lenses. it's simply not going to work.

Look at the Nikkor 18-35mm it's $750. Canon will have to create this same lens, but for $199.

How's that going to work out?


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's a key distinction. Continue to sell it without developing new lenses, is to some people tantamount to "killing" it. (Look at all of those who talk about this mount being "dead" simply because Canon isn't throwing more lenses out there.) But your EF-M camera and lenses don't disappear when this happens, and Canon could continue selling them for another ten years. They won't get worse, and the target market mostly won't _care_. And the M6-II will still be vastly superior to any Rebel (four digit true model number) made for years, and likely even the three digit models for a couple of years (assuming of course they go down that path).
> 
> Actually discontinuing production, on the other hand, would be "killing" it by anyone's definition of the term. The rumor simply says "2021 will be the last year of the lineup..." but what does that _actually mean_ in terms of being able to buy one of the _existing_ models at retail?


that means to me, that they discontinue and it goes into EOL.
which is why i'm stating it's stupid and probably not happening.
not with what is being proposed as a replacement anyway.

If the rumor stated;

Canon is discontinuing the EOS-M. According to sources Canon will be transitioning the EF-M lenses to the RF mount (calling it RF-M) and offering a trade-in program for EF-M lenses to the new RF-M lenses. They will create two new camera bodies, and EOS-M will officially die in 2021."

Then I'd be creating an "it's OVER. Long live the EOS-M" post right now on my own site. And happily get ready to purchase a new APS-C RF camera next year to go with my R5s.

but saying. we're discontinuing the EOS-M it's over. no more past 2021, and as well, well sorry if you liked the small, cheap and good lenses that were part of that system, you're screwed now..

does not wash.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> that means to me, that they discontinue and it goes into EOL.
> which is why i'm stating it's stupid and probably not happening.
> not with what is being proposed as a replacement anyways.



I agree I can't see the rumor meaning a true kill, but instead meaning just putting EF-M on the back-burner, but it IS ambiguous.

I could also see EF-M being discontinued in markets where it has not really caught on (like the US) and continuing to be offered (with no new development) elsewhere where it is wildly popular, at least until it becomes genuinely obsolete--which it isn't, the M6-II and M50 both stack up well in their market levels and that will probably remain true for a few years, at least.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> *sorry it's an idiotic idea.*
> 
> they will;
> 
> ...



I don't know how it will work out, but you're very condescending, and irritating to discuss things with. And apparently very adamant on theorycrafting ways this rumor will not play out, even though the writing is on the wall. Maybe there will be RF-S lenses after all? Maybe they have a plan to make cheap full frame kit lenses. I'm not sure. But, I do know I haven't yet seen a CR2 rumor on this site that has varied wildly from what actually came to be.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Is this rumor from Canon global or just USA? I had heard the EOS-M is their number one seller in Japan. Americans, on the other hand, tend to like things bigger.


T7 and M50 are big sellers in the USA as well.
They are the go to Costco and Walmart cameras.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I don't know how it will work out, but you're very condescending, and irritating to discuss things with. And apparently very adamant on theorycrafting ways this rumor will not play out, even though the writing is on the wall. Maybe there will be RF-S lenses after all? Maybe they have a plan to make cheap full frame kit lenses. I'm not sure. But, I do know I haven't yet seen a CR2 rumor on this site that has varied wildly from what actually came to be.


sorry, but it was more or less fact against the article, and not pointed at you.
there's no "theorycrafting" here. The concept won't work and I even gave a very credible example of why.

Since I've also found most of the patent applications lately, i haven't seen any lens outside of the 17-70mm that would even suggest a dual use. And even then, the lenses are large, and thus, expensive. And certainly would be DOA against the competition who would have optimized APS-C lenses for their APS-C cameras. (the 17-70mm is nearly 6 inches long - how's that gong to do against a Nikon Z 16-55mm APS-C kit lens.. hmmm?)

Also every rumor the last year on RF APS-C has been emphatic on stating no RF-S lenses. We know the roadmap the next year, there's no RF-S lenses.

CR has been predicting EOS-M's demise for at least as long as I can remember and so have other sites.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> umm no.
> 
> there's not a company out there that goes to their board.. "We're dumping our best selling camera (M50) and its entire line, and not giving them an alternative, and thus most of those users will go to other brands".
> 
> ...



I don't think Canon is stupid, so:

The rumors may be just plain wrong. As usual, people on a rumor site begin acting as if this was an official Canon announcement. It is not.

If Canon is considering phasing out the M line, they will almost certainly wait until they have a small, inexpensive R series APS-C camera on the market, and will see how they sell. The M line will not be discontinued until this happens, in my opinion.

They may try to introduce the new APS-c "Rebel" line with FF RF lenses that are as small and light as they can make them. We have seen them already make a very light RF24-105mm lens, but will probably need to go even smaller and lighter. If the market demands it, then they will make RF-S lenses. 

I am sure that Canon has made no final decisions regarding the future of their crop line(s). Everything is in flux, regardless of how many consumers want some sort of concrete answer. It may take a few years until Canon - and every other camera company - has any sort of final roadmap in place.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> T7 and M50 are big sellers in the USA as well.
> They are the go to Costco and Walmart cameras.


actually they are a huge seller even at the larger camera stores from the sale stats that were shared with me.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2020)

Surab said:


> but they will need to bring the small and cheap RF-S lenses to replace the EF-M ones, otherwise the *M idea* is truly dead.


I fail to see the point in remaking the same cameras and same lenses on a different mount.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Would it be possible for a Canon to make a camera body, about the same size as the RP, with interchangeable mounts, both R and M? Would anybody care to make a guess how much such a feature would add to the price of the body?


Sure.
Interchangeable mounts are common for cinema cameras.
They are pretty much unheard of on mirrorless cameras.
My guess is that is for ergonomic reasons.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I don't think Canon is stupid, so:
> 
> The rumors may be just plain wrong. As usual, people on a rumor site begin acting as if this was an official Canon announcement. It is not.
> 
> ...



The one problem I've had with all the EOS-M death rumors of the last year (and even the RF APS-C rumors) is the lack of RF-S lenses. Unless Canon is deciding to move the EF-M lenses which could be done fairly rapidly; from what I've been told, the process from start to finish for a new lens is rather long. So it's not as if they can decide after coming out with the RF camera that it's a bad idea and maybe we should release lenses, and release them in a few months time. we're talking years in totality. So in other words, they already know what they are doing.

But you are right in regards to the do both at the same time - this for instance is Canon's DNA - let the customer and markets decide. For instance, what sells well in NA may not sell as well in Asia. They saw that game work out perfect with the EF and EF-M why would they not repeat it? Basically, they made the EF-S and EF-M at the same time, and as the EF-S faded, EF-M picked up the slack. They let the users pick what they wanted.

What would seem weird is that Canon would then take a model that worked out well for them in the very recent past, and dump it.

Canon only has dumped a mount with no convertibility once in its entire history and that's because they had a compelling reason to have people switch to the new mount. In this case, canon's reason is "well, ughhhh it's a good idea we thought.... ". There's no tangible benefit to the consumer if they liked what they had, and Canon according to rumors is providing a worse solution that they want people to switch to.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I don't think Canon is stupid, so:
> 
> The rumors may be just plain wrong. As usual, people on a rumor site begin acting as if this was an official Canon announcement. It is not.
> 
> ...


I agree.
That is how Canon usually does things.
They make a new camera and if it sells and the old one stops selling then they will replace the old one.
If they both sell then Canon will keep selling both because who wouldn't?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 30, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Not surprising that EF-M is being killed off, hopefully there will be good selection of crop RF lenses from 3rd party(if they start making them).



Agree makes long term business sense to just have one mount for both APS ML & FF ML like the DSLR line (including nikon 2) there's no long term future in DSLR or EOS M and the long term resell value will plunge.

However kudos for Canon in going with right direction at the time introducing an excellent APS ML system 2012 (I think) over Nikon who made another ^^%%^^% mistake in going for toy like Nikon 1 and heavily cropped system.

No doubt EOS M users will feel the mount / system obsoletion pains that Nikon 1 users went through when Nikon abandonned Nikon 1 system


----------



## SteveC (Dec 30, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> T7 and M50 are big sellers in the USA as well.
> They are the go to Costco and Walmart cameras.



I know the Rebels are good sellers. I had thought the M series wasn't doing nearly as well here (in the US) as were the Rebels. If I'm wrong about that, then my suggestion that EF-M could be discontinued here but not elsewhere clearly would make no sense.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 30, 2020)

I bought a M5 when it came out and got hooked on mirrorless. The M5 is my "pack at all times" camera for day to day use and stays in my truck. I really don't like the idea of packing the 5D IV or 5DS and L lenses everywhere I go on a daily basis, plus it saves on wear on tear. I've made a couple of 24x36 prints from the M5 and they are very good. San to see the M series go by the wayside.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Dec 30, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I figured this was inevitable as the patented EF-m lenses were never released. Seems like Canon worked up a series of nice lenses to give them options, but then decided to go strictly RF.


perhaps the patents where just put out there to fool body buyers into thinking there wa a future in the EOS-M system, a form of deceptive marketing no doubt. It’s like selling you a car but oh guess what after these tyres are worn our you can’t buy more...Well done Canon you fooled them......


----------



## dwarven (Dec 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> sorry, but it was more or less fact against the article, and not pointed at you.
> there's no "theorycrafting" here. The concept won't work and I even gave a very credible example of why.
> 
> Since I've also found most of the patent applications lately, i haven't seen any lens outside of the 17-70mm that would even suggest a dual use. And even then, the lenses are large, and thus, expensive. And certainly would be DOA against the competition who would have optimized APS-C lenses for their APS-C cameras. (the 17-70mm is nearly 6 inches long - how's that gong to do against a Nikon Z 16-55mm APS-C kit lens.. hmmm?)
> ...



We'll find out in the coming months, but the real evidence so far points to the M mount dying a slow death. Of course, they will sell it as long as it's profitable I'm sure. Just like how they still manufacture old EF lenses, but haven't released any new designs.


----------



## Surab (Dec 30, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I fail to see the point in remaking the same cameras and same lenses on a different mount.



Mostly just to give future buyers the opportunity to mix and match between APSC and FF. This group might be too small though.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> We'll find out in the coming months, but the real evidence so far points to the M mount dying a slow death. Of course, they will sell it as long as it's profitable I'm sure. Just like how they still manufacture old EF lenses, but haven't released any new designs.


EOS-M is a mature system, like EF-S was before it. It simply doesn't need a lot done to it. Sony didn't do anything with APS-C for 2-3 years prior to this one, did they discontinue the Alpha APS-C lineup?

That doesn't point to Canon discontinuing it.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Dec 30, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> The RP is already very close to that price range.


It’s not the price point of the camera. people are looking for great quality thats not too big to lug around, the M system was perfect a couple of lenses and body takes up no room in your pack and very little weight, an RP body although light enough has bigger and heavier lenses and the cost of those lenses is at a minimum at least double that of the EF-m counterparts, compare the 18-150efm to the 24-240rf for example rrp is about half here in Aus.. its ok though there are still other small systems in the market I guess.. Fuji, Panasonic, Sony perhaps....


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I know the Rebels are good sellers. I had thought the M series wasn't doing nearly as well here (in the US) as were the Rebels. If I'm wrong about that, then my suggestion that EF-M could be discontinued here but not elsewhere clearly would make no sense.


the sales stats i was shown this fall shocked the hell out of me. M50 was selling very well this year.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 30, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> The RP is already very close to that price range.


The RP equivalent in the EOS-M lineup is probably not even feature comparable to the M50 original version. The RP was $400 over that, you have to compare MSRP's here. $400 in this category is not "very close"


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 30, 2020)

Idle comments:

(1) It is refreshing to read posts from canonnews here. Kind of contrarian. I like that. I also like it that canonnews has seen sales figures 
(2) I really wonder how many of the M naysayers have ever used an M-format camera
(3) A post I quoted earlier included an aside along the lines of 'the higher quality of a full-frame image (compared to one acquired using an M-format camera)'...yes bokeh and light-gathering ability are superior with the larger sensor. But for many of my own shooting situations, the APS-C sensor in any of the modern Ms is good enough...and the M6MkII's sensor...my oh my it is wonderful and, I think, is the exact sensor found in the 90D...a body that, based on some comments here, people love to death
(4) For my needs, for everything except attaching a large lens (in which case I go full frame), the M6MkII is superior (or equal to) the 90D. So I purchased the M6MkII
(5) I hope Canon affords me the opportunity to buy the M6MkIII...presumably after the R5 and its glorious sensor and spectacular low-light and auto-focus abilities


----------



## LDS (Dec 30, 2020)

I believe all camera makers are planning a strategic retreat while camera sales are crushed by different events. Coalescing everything into a single mount and with many more shared components across the lineup (electronics allows for easier segmenting) has clear advantages when it comes to costs - and then planned profits - which is what shareholders look at.

If this plan works really is yet to see - what cameras and lenses will become available, and if target users will buy them as hoped. But the whole future camera market is quite foggy. Maybe even this APS-C line will be wiped out by new generations used to take photos with phones - so cutting R&D and tooling may look good.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Dec 30, 2020)

I get Canon wanting to develop the R line and adding APS-C sensor to the range such as 7D and 90D replacements.

What I don’t get is killing off the extremely popular M range of cameras they are obviously very sought after going by the sales figures, small, compact, and light, the M50 M6 II and M200 are fab little cameras. OK not the best glass but do most M series buyers really care so much about that, we might in here but not so much most M buyers they want affordable lenses.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 30, 2020)

I personally don't care if the M series lives or dies. I do wonder however how Canon intends to replace the revenue stream for the Rebel series. The SL 1-2-3 series are wonderful and small cameras at the low end of the price point. Hard to imagine a more cheaply built R series than the RP could fill in those price gaps.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Dec 30, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> I get Canon wanting to develop the R line and adding APS-C sensor to the range such as 7D and 90D replacements.
> 
> What I don’t get is killing off the extremely popular M range of cameras they are obviously very sought after going by the sales figures, small, compact, and light, the M50 M6 II and M200 are fab little cameras. OK not the best glass but do most M series buyers really care so much about that, we might in here but not so much most M buyers they want affordable lenses.



exactly. Again, the EF-M mount flange depth is deeper than RF right? Making an RF mount APS-C camera that is as small and light as the current M system and simply taking the existing EF-M lenses and putting an RF mount on the back with the added flange depth tacked onto the back of the lens and maybe a slight barrel re-housing since the mount is a larger diameter is something that would require no new lens designs and would let Canon get to one mirrorless mount for both sensor sizes. 

From there, they're free to make a pro-level mirrorless 7D, and further upscale rebel class cameras while still maintaining a replacement/upgrade path for EF, EF-S, and EF-m users. When your EF-M camera dies, or you want something new, just buy the new small and light APS-C RF camera with matching lenses. Yes, you have to buy new lenses with that switch, but since it'd be a switch to RF, you won't have to buy new lenses for a really long time, and you have a great upgrade path to full frame, and... if you really wanted to, you could put your RF APS-C lenses on your full frame camera, no problem.

The way I see it, the alternative is, maintain RF as full frame, and EF-M as APS-C. That only works if APS-C is to not have a pro-level body, as Canon has never released a pro-level EF-M body. I don't see canon not having a Pro-level APS-C body as that's a market that is very popular, so the future is make an APS-C RF camera, then decide what to do about consumer APS-C class cameras. As I described above, it'd be extremely easy to simply take the existing EF-M lenses and re-release them with RF mount with little to no other changes. Putting it on a full frame RF camera would be no problem because the camera would automatically go into crop mode, and it'd work just fine on an APS-C RF camera.

Given that Canon just did the M6II and M50II, we still have at least a year before they really have to address it, and they can release a pro-level APS-C RF camera in the meantime as the pro users would expect to use bigger more expensive glass. As I said before, how to communicate the difference to the consumer would take some working out. I doubt they could strictly keep it all just "RF". You have to have some way to communicate that the lens is meant for a crop sensor.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Dec 30, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> I get Canon wanting to develop the R line and adding APS-C sensor to the range such as 7D and 90D replacements.
> 
> What I don’t get is killing off the extremely popular M range of cameras they are obviously very sought after going by the sales figures, small, compact, and light, the M50 M6 II and M200 are fab little cameras. OK not the best glass but do most M series buyers really care so much about that, we might in here but not so much most M buyers they want affordable lenses.



The EF-M 22mm f/2 and EF-M 32mm f/1.4 are incredible little lenses for the money . Lightweight, tack sharp, and great bokeh. Though I do wish Canon had updated the EF-M 15-45mm lens to make it a bit sharper in the corners.


----------



## Ale_F (Dec 30, 2020)

No one has talked about the best for M-line
Price!


----------



## CanonGrunt (Dec 30, 2020)

I wonder if they will use the EF-M lenses on that OSMO looking thing...


----------



## canonnews (Dec 31, 2020)

LDS said:


> I believe all camera makers are planning a strategic retreat while camera sales are crushed by different events. Coalescing everything into a single mount and with many more shared components across the lineup (electronics allows for easier segmenting) has clear advantages when it comes to costs - and then planned profits - which is what shareholders look at.
> 
> If this plan works really is yet to see - what cameras and lenses will become available, and if target users will buy them as hoped. But the whole future camera market is quite foggy. Maybe even this APS-C line will be wiped out by new generations used to take photos with phones - so cutting R&D and tooling may look good.


canon sold less DSLR's during film then they do now.

also;

you get 0 sales and 0 profits when customers pick up and go to Sony or Fuji.
While profits are good, sales are also very much something stockholders look at. as well as marketshare.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 31, 2020)

nads said:


> The idea that all they need is a crap zoom and a wide angle. When it is the 22mm pancake and the size & quality combination of the 11-22 that make it worth having.



It's very hard to match, much less beat, an M body + 22mm or 11-22mm on a bang-for-buck or bang-for-size/weight basis. Either is just an awesome and highly portable combo. Canon was never going to fill out the M lens lineup in a way that would compete with EF or RF. But I wish they would keep it around along with 2-3 good but affordable primes and a couple good but affordable stabilized zooms.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 31, 2020)

Canon should give us a better (sharper) EF-M 15-45 lens. It is much easier than develope a APS_C R mount camera. By doing that Canon can keep the M line going for a while with or without any additional new body. Most complain ( from the owner) is all the zoom lens are not that good.
It is crazy to kill off the best selling Line ( the M system). The strong point of the M ( including M6 II, M50II, M5 etc) are small, resonable price with okay optical performance.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 31, 2020)

LOL. I said this would happen nearly a year ago and some folks in here thought that was crazy. Well.... here we are. It was absolutely inevitable that if Canon would make RF Crop in similar sizes to M, then M line would DIE. Makes no sense to maintain production on two MILC mounts if a singular mount could cover all bases. Glad Canon is going this way finally. The M was wonderful, but it’s time has passed. Im grateful we had it because it led to the RF.


----------



## Madbox (Dec 31, 2020)

This has the stink of Microsoft killing of their products. Microsoft dumped their loyal customers, so I replaced my discontinued products with Apple. If EOS M is going to die, Canon shouldn't count on customers automatically switching to their other products. Since my lens collection will become increasingly worthless, I have a prime opportunity to chose a different camera manufacturer. Other camera makers may not have the market share that Canon does, but they are more innovative and competitive. When you burn a customer, they rarely comeback and they tell their friends.


----------



## SnowMiku (Dec 31, 2020)

I was waiting for an EOS M5 MkII with a Vari-angle screen since that would have been the only M that would suit my needs but it looks like that is not going to happen. The M50 was nice but the lack of cable release port forced me to stick with my older DSLR. I was also reluctant to get an M because of the lack of lenses and no compatibility with RF lenses.

To me it makes sense if Canon want to keep it simple and just have R cameras with RF lenses. I'm looking forward to a APS-C Rxxx or Rxx and I'll probably be upgrading to one of those in the future.

I can see the future of R APS-C being Rxxxx, Rxxx, Rxx and R7, this will replace everything EF and M.

Some people say whats the point of an APS-C R? The point is not everyone is a professional photographer, or needs or wants to spend the money for a Full-Frame, and if your a birder or need to crop too much of the image regularly you may be better off with APS-C with the increased pixel density and less cost.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 31, 2020)

I think it is likely - since the M6 II cam out at the very end of 2019, and the M50 II came out this year - that Canon will wait until their 3 or 4 year life cycles are complete before deciding anything. So, by 2023 or 2024, Canon will probably have released some small and cheap RF APS-C mount cameras that will be selling along with their existing M cameras and lenses, and will have the numbers and market research to decide how to move forward. I doubt anything wil be decided before then. So, I don't think any existing M owner needs to start panicking or decide whether to jump ship. For pete's sake, if you bought an M6 II or M50 II in the past year, why even think about getting a new replacement? You - and Canon - will have years to decide.


----------



## speg (Dec 31, 2020)

Doug7131 said:


> I don't really see how this would work without crop RF lenses. A 10mm wide full frame lens is never going to be remotly cheap - L or not. The EF-S 10-18mm lens is £200 compared to £3000 for the EF 11-24L. The cost of glass elements rises exponentially with size so full frame lenses will always cost considerably more than APS-C crop lenses. This approach only really makes sense if you only consider a crop RF body as a companion/backup to a full frame RF body. On it's own a APS-C RF body makes very little sense without RF crop lenses.



they will have to find a way to make a cheap RF wide angle. Use an adapter if you must.

there is no way we are having the lens lineup divided again. I will not allow it!


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 31, 2020)

dickgrafixstop said:


> I do wonder however how Canon intends to replace the revenue stream for the Rebel series. The SL 1-2-3 series are wonderful and small cameras at the low end of the price point. Hard to imagine a more cheaply built R series than the RP could fill in those price gaps.



From Canon's 2019 Financial Report: "In Imaging System, we expect sales and profit of interchangeable lens cameras to decline, *due to the continued impact of mainly entry class DSLR market contraction*. However, in the area of mirrorless cameras, where we are focusing our energy, the effects of expanding our lineup will continue to lead to sales growth."

Translation: Rebel sales have collapsed, and have been for some time. I don't think Canon wants to fill in the sub-$500 market because there is no profit there, they did that before because they sold over 100 million of them, but those days are over thanks to the mobile phone, and they know it.


----------



## landon (Dec 31, 2020)

Maybe Canon will release an R50 lens kit, and twin lens kit, just to confuse the M50 users to switch over


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 31, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I agree.
> That is how Canon usually does things.
> They make a new camera and if it sells and the old one stops selling then they will replace the old one.
> If they both sell then Canon will keep selling both because who wouldn't?


While that is officially the case, Canon pushes sales by offering better prices and probably incentives for sellers to push the newer ones. That usually seals the fate of the older one. EF lenses and DSLR cameras are a example. Sales are dropping as buyers move to the R series bodies and lenses. It may take years, but the low price of the R and RF bodies had the desired effect, then, the specs of the R5 / R6 and better IQ RF lenses pushed a lot more into buying. It will be several years before EF lenses stop selling, but buyers are being nudged toward RF.


The same could happen with a "M" replacement, a new and even smaller RF body with a low price. That's been rumored. Then the sales gives Canon the reason to move to the newer model. It will take years, of course.


----------



## jam05 (Dec 31, 2020)

Same crappy rumor for 3 years in a row. Um not buying it. Its not credible, its not logical. And it doesnt even make good business sense. Canon is going to release another M series in another couple of months.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 31, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Truly upsetting if this is what Canon is doing. I just don't understand the marketing decision though seeing as no RF mount camera will ever be as small or as low of cost as an M200 for an entry level camera.



It would have to be a little bigger - 2mm deeper, and 7mm in height & width.IMHO, not a big deal.

As for price, I disagree. Why would a crop RF camera be more expensive than an EOS-M camera? The extra aluminium needed to make the camera body? The price of electronics needed to handle the extra pins, already implemented in several other cameras?

Assuming this rumour is true, question is what Canon would do in regard to lenses. Canon could use the same optical formulas, design new housing that moves the lenses 2mm deeper behind the mount, and keep the price similar. The real problem is upgrading lenses - customers would not only have to buy all new lenses, but their EOS-M lenses would lose in resale value due to the mount becoming obsolete. They might not upgrade, or switch to a competitor in a shrinking market. Not a win for Canon.


----------



## grantmasterflash (Dec 31, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition



As will all of us customers.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 31, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> It's not as bad as it seems:
> 
> View attachment 194892
> 
> ...



The EF-M 11-24mm is priced $399. IIRC, the RF 15-35mm is five or six times that.


----------



## 45snegri (Dec 31, 2020)

A batch of different thoughts beyond what has been discussed before. First some background, so it's clear where I am coming from. In my (not entirely) misspent youth I worked as a financial analyst. Further back (in my even less misspent youth) I was trained as a mechanical engineer. More than forty years ago I escaped and became a photographer. In my past there were Canon FL and FD mount cameras and lenses as well as five Leica M mount cameras (the Leica CL film cameras brought me my only claim to fame as a photo journalist.) There are also reports that some 'Blads are taking up too much closet space.

In 2003 I bought the original Digital Rebel, and kept upgrading them, living off them until 2012 when the 5D III brought me into FF digital. Since then I have acquired 5DsR, 5D IV, and a batch of Sigma Art lenses, mostly the f/1.4 ones. I also have twelve whites and six other Ls, many from my EOS film days. But as old age started creeping up on me it became clear that a smaller carry around system might be beneficial. So I looked at the (Oh horror!) Sony NEX series. Attractive, but building out a whole new system, not so attractive. Solution, the Rebel SL 1, later upgraded to 2 and 3. And I started to keep an eye on the M system. When the M5 was introduced I bought it (real photographers use viewfinders!) and a batch of EF-M lenses. And that is where I am at today. When a job happens to come along I go FF. But whenever I leave the house the M5 comes with me. And finally, when the rumored R5s comes along I will enter the R world.

First some technical observations:
- It seems highly unlikely that an EF-M to RF mount adapter can be created.
- An R series body with interchangeable lens mounts is technically feasible.
- Sigma FF Art lenses come with mounts for five different camera systems. If you look closely at the lenses you will see that the shiny black rear part of the lens differs from mount to mount while the matte black front of the lens stays the same even though the various systems have different communication protocols. Thus there is no reason Canon cannot inexpensively make APS-C lenses in both EF-M and RF mount.

Then some commercial observations:
- Sigma decided that the ML APS-C and M4/3 market had room for their Contemporary f/1.4 trio which was introduced in Fuji, Sony, and M4/3 mounts. Shortly after these lenses became available in EF-M mount they became backordered. And shortly after that they became backordered in ALL mounts, a situation that persisted for months.
- Canon's M system is selling quite well in many parts of the world.

And some speculations:
- While the profit per M camera likely is much lower than per R unit, it is still profit, and the unit volume is MUCH higher. This leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that Canon will abandon the M system.
- I infer that Sigma thought there was a market for high quality EF-M primes. The earlier lengthy backorder situation leads me to conclude that the demand was significantly higher than Sigma estimated. From this I believe that while some M buyers indeed saw the low end bodies with kit zooms as an inexpensive upgrade from a smartphone, there are customers (like me) who see M5 and M6 as the core of a new small and lightweight system that can generate very high quality images. It takes a sharp eye indeed to see the difference between a 5D III/EF 85/1.4L and an M5/Sigma 56/1.4 photo. Viltrox has three f/1.4 AF lenses in EF-M mount. So it seems like players in the photo marketplace have more faith in the M system than a lot of the posters in this thread.
- It seems difficult to believe that there will not be an M5 Mk. II. And Canon may also see that if third parties can sell good primes for the M system, they may want to take a bite out of that market. The 32mm f/1.4 shows that they do that very, very well. Go Canon!


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 31, 2020)

Colour me surprised said no one ver. Only the delusional thought this line would continue long term.

Good riddance to a system even Canon didn't care about.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 31, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I fail to see the point in remaking the same cameras and same lenses on a different mount.



IMHO, it could have two benefits. First, it could offer RF crop lens owners an upgrade path to RF FF bodies. Currently, EOS-M owners who want to upgrade to FF have to replace all their lenses, which means they might as well buy into another brand. That's not a winning strategy, especially with a shrinking market. Second, Canon could make a smaller variety of parts, e.g. mount rings on the camera side.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 31, 2020)

dwarven said:


> It does, just because of the complete lack of lens announcements.


Or Canon has decided to sell bodies for EF-M, some usable zooms and some great primes - there are lots of options on the market now.
EDIT: Just checked: Viltrox is the company which has created interesting f/1.4 primes @ 23 / 35 / 56 mm with f-stop ring (!) which has f-settings + an "A" position.
Only a 15mm (or similar) option is missing ... for me, because I have 22 and 32 + the EF-S 60 Macro.


----------



## espressino (Dec 31, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> This makes some sense, as the only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens.



So tired of being told what the supposed needs of those inferior APS-C shooters are, and speculations on what they are or aren't using. The EF-S 35mm 2.8 Macro IS STM, for example, is a fantastic lens, and perfectly adapted to APS-C cameras, and at a price that's adequate for non-professional shooters. The reason I haven't bought any new Canon lenses since 2018 is because they haven't issued anything similarly exciting for EF-S. I was looking forward to eventually replacing my 77D with the eventual successor of the M6 II. In the meantime, I'll enjoy using the gear I have. But a few years down the line -- I'm not saying that Canon is *******, just that a different system might better suit my needs. Which is a shame, because it appears that those hating the loudest on the M system have never really used it, and Canon gets so much hate from the review crowd while doing an awful lot of things right (hello there, perfect touch screen implementation, DPAF, menu system) while having a few annoying kinks (hello there, arbitrary limitations and sometimes lack of customisation).


----------



## degos (Dec 31, 2020)

LensFungus said:


> Canon is putting a ton of money into market research. They know what's going better than any of us here.




Really? Have you ever been surveyed by Canon? In 32 years of shooting with their kit I haven't had a single survey, nor have any pro or amateur photographers I know.

Canon subscribe more to the traditional "here is the product, no alternative, buy it" philosophy. Which is why the likes of Tamron and Sigma have flourished.


----------



## riker (Dec 31, 2020)

Proper APS-C lens lineup never exited.
Not EF-M, not EF-S. Thus APS-C system has always been seriously flawed. Simple reason is, it would be too much competition to FF.
Very sad story, decades go by and we still do not have a complete system for travel - small/lightweight but high image quality and wide focal lens coverage.

Seems like we just need to wait for mobile phones to somehow cover tele focal range, they are already better in many aspects.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 31, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I bought into the M system because of the great little lenses, only to wait years for a well-done body, and then they pull the rug out.
Well Canon, you suckered me good... for the last time.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 31, 2020)

The biggest problem with an RF mount APS-C camera is the size. It can never be as small as an M100 for example.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 31, 2020)

riker said:


> Proper APS-C lens lineup never exited.
> Not EF-M, not EF-S. Thus APS-C system has always been seriously flawed. Simple reason is, it would be too much competition to FF.
> Very sad story, decades go by and we still do not have a complete system for travel - small/lightweight but high image quality and wide focal lens coverage.
> 
> Seems like we just need to wait for mobile phones to somehow cover tele focal range, they are already better in many aspects.



But at least you could use the same 100-400 or 100mm macro or even the 500 F4 if you wanted on a 7D or a Rebel, because IQ was good enough. And many just did that. The 7D with the EF 100-400 was one of the most popular combos. 
Not possible with the M mount and making a $2000 M mount camera for $200 plastic lenses is not a solution.

For an APS-C RF camera you will automatically have 15+ RF already working natively. All Canon needs 4-5 APS-C specific lenses, like a standard zoom, wide angle and a few small primes.


----------



## bradcast46 (Dec 31, 2020)

I'm not too surprised, given the lack of energy by Canon for the EF-M mount. They generally considered it an extension of the PowerShot lineup for beginners and amateurs (despite EOS Utility interface). With the EF mount, there is always a cost-of-entry issue transitioning people from Rebels and xxDs with EF-S lenses to full frame, once they decide to get more serious. This is a chance for Canon to solve this problem. Since the dual pixel 2 is capable of focusing at insanely small apertures, then full frame lenses designed with small max. apertures can be as compact as dedicated APS-C lenses. Not only that, but full frame lenses on an APS-C body would allow accurate phase detection to the edges of the sensor, using the larger lens image circle (even if the image isn't formed by this light). So, I expect compact kit type full frame RF lenses will become the new APS-C stand-in lenses.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Dec 31, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Colour me surprised said no one ver. Only the delusional thought this line would continue long term.
> 
> Good riddance to a system even Canon didn't care about.



Wrong on so many levels . If Canon didn't care about it, they wouldn't be keeping it going up until this point. And seeing as it's been an incredibly popular camera line in many markets shows that it was developed and marketed properly. Yes, it did have a big misstep when first launched in 2012 with the EOS M. The EOS M2 that was only sold in Asian markets really should have been the first EOS M (slightly smaller body, addition of WiFi, roughly 4 times faster contrast + phase detect focusing then the first batches of EOS M's). But here we are today with the powerful M6 Mark II, very popular M50 Mark I/II, a great entry level M200, a small but good overall set of Canon lenses, and a growing 3rd party EF-M mount lenses. Call people delusional all you want as no matter how much you do, that won't make you right . And lets be honest, it's not like we're all talking about the failed Nikon 1 camera system.


----------



## tomsop (Dec 31, 2020)

6 pages of speculation- who cares. I find Canon Rumors to be of very limited value - this guy has lousy sources and when news breaks it is usually within a week or so of an announcement. IF The M system is so big in Asia - don’t they have a stronger voice to get real answers from Canon. I am beyond frustrated with a company that wants my money but shares no vision of the road ahead in our relationship and the rest of us M users are treated like dirt by these executives. If The M is dead and there is no way to port my glass to whatever new body they make I will no longer buy Canon. The truth is that the M barely outperforms an Apple IPhone which is why we are begging for IBIS and better glass as well as decent 4K. I rather just get a new IPhone then lug around a big camera. Many people do not have cameras beacause of the IPhone - the future really lies in mini sized bodies which Is we we all felt we were on the cutting edge when we got the M because it was really good 8 years ago relative to the iPhone. The gap has closed and now we see Canon can’t compete so they retreat to their bigger sized tech and charge more money because they have lost to the iPhone. My next camera will be the Iphone 13 if Canon does not release a new M or a camera that accepts my M lenses.


----------



## solovetski (Dec 31, 2020)

For sceptics who are assume that supporting two different mounts its unprofitable strategy for camera manufacturers. Just one word - Panasonic. Two mounts which are absolutely incompatible - L and MFT. Both very popular among camera users. And Pany officials maintain that company don't have a plans to kill its MFT lineup.

And one more remark about crop RF lenses. Today we have at least one crop RF mount lens - Venus Laowa 9mm T/2.9 (for Super 35 sensors). And yes, it's cinema lens and fully manual of course. But I'm waiting for a lot of crop RF lenses (with AF) from Sigma, Samyang,Tamron, Tokina and Viltrox with Meike also.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 31, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition



They likely make very little profit from the EOS M line. It doesn't matter the volume if the profit is not there.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 31, 2020)

hoodlum said:


> They likely make very little profit from the EOS M line. It doesn't matter the volume if the profit is not there.



A phrase that has been in vogue for the past four years or so applies to your post: “Fake News”

Check the selling price for the EOS M6 Mark II...it is not cheap and more than a year after its release hasn’t really been discounted all that much.

Your point was valid years ago when Canon dumped its stock of original Ms into the marketplace...at ridiculously low prices.

But not now.


----------



## ctk (Dec 31, 2020)

This makes no sense. They don't even have to invest much in it. The 32.5MP sensor is fine. All they need is a flagship body and a decent 15-xx zoom. EF-M is actually pretty solid lens wise- good UWA, good tele zooms, tons of great primes now with 3rd party stuff. I said before and I'll say it again- I'd happily leave the R system if EF-M could fill in the gaps. What a shame.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2020)

Ok


----------



## amorse (Dec 31, 2020)

If this is accurate, it makes me really wonder what Canon will come out with next. Canon has always seemed cautious and calculated to me - a knee-jerk reaction seems really out of character. Closing up a mount which has had great sales success seems premature on the surface, but if they do go through with it, I suspect they'd have a plan to maintain access to those buyers. I just can't see them closing the book on one of the best selling mirrorless camera bodies without having a plan.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 31, 2020)

The 10-24L may fill the wide angle needs of APS-C shooters only if they are willing to pay for a lens that costs as much as five M series bodies.


----------



## Canfan (Dec 31, 2020)

Joules said:


> Pretty wild. It is understandable that on the lens side, there's very little room left to fill out the line up with the constant outer diameter restriction. But that hasn't hurt the sales in the past. Is it actually so expensive to sustain a few APS-C bodies to go along with it?
> 
> If so, this sounds like the end of APS-C as we know it. At least in Canon land.


I’ll take a M6 Mkii/90D sensor in a RP body with 7D MKII ergonomics or specs and use RF glass with it. They don’t need to make APSC lens for it. On the wide end an 15-45mm, a 10-15mm and call it a day. 
imagine the 100-500mmL on a body like that? 160-800mm would be great!
I have an R body and have stayed away from that lens because I want to use my current 100-400mmL mkii on my M6 mkii as well. The 640mm of extra reach compared to full frame is really nice. The 32MP images I get are still quite useable at ISO 6400 once you down sample abit, dynamic range is also best in class amongst the canon crop sensors.


----------



## Canfan (Dec 31, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> The 10-24L may fill the wide angle needs of APS-C shooters only if they are willing to pay for a lens that costs as much as five M series bodies.


They will probably give non L options with similar build quality to the RF50mm1.8 or RF35mm 1.8, thing many enthusiast will be happy with something like that at a lower price point.


----------



## jvillain (Dec 31, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> The 10-24L may fill the wide angle needs of APS-C shooters only if they are willing to pay for a lens that costs as much as five M series bodies.



Yah, that is a non-starter. I do adapt my EF-S 10-22 to my EOS R when shooting video due to the extreme crop in video mode. Works good. Sort of like a RF lens with a pro mist filter but not as extreme.

A lot of the YT crowd looks to CR for content and a lot of them will jump on this. Hair do and TN for sure will be blasting this out. 3BMaaE will be thrilled to add this to his Canon hate train. With enough noise some one @Canon will have to go on the record to deny the rumour if it is false because it will hurt sales to leave it out there with no comment. If Canon stays silent then the rumour is probably true.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2020)

Your conclusions make no sense. The M cameras sell very well (particularly the M50) and meanwhile, the Z50 is dead in the water. Why would Canon emulate Nikon's attempt that is going nowhere? Also, there are a bunch of us who would be happy to shell out for an M5 Mark II. There is no way an R camera and lens combo will achieve the portability of an M camera and lens combo unless Canon decides to make super mini R bodies and APS-c only lenses as well and that, even by your analysis, is not likely. As the owner of many Canon cameras including a 5DSR and an R5, I still find the M5 is the camera I take along when I need to travel light. I understand your issue with lens compatibility, but frankly, it doesn't matter.


----------



## allanP (Dec 31, 2020)

It's funny how many people want to see M dead.
These rumors have come since R came out.
Such a capable manufacturer can definitely afford two systems.
The EF Mount can be see as present and completed. Without further development.
The M series is significantly smaller and lighter than R. If you look at the lenses, these as EF-M are 60-80% lighter and significantly smaller. Perfect travel camera system.
The R is much heavier, larger and more expensive. I would see the end of M as a wrong decision that annoys users who have invested in M series.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 31, 2020)

If Canon is going to kill off the EF-M mount, Canon should come up with a replacement system comparable in terms of size(lenses and camera) in R mount. Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders.


----------



## Canfan (Dec 31, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Your conclusions make no sense. The M cameras sell very well (particularly the M50) and meanwhile, the Z50 is dead in the water. Why would Canon emulate Nikon's attempt that is going nowhere? Also, there are a bunch of us who would be happy to shell out for an M5 Mark II. There is no way an R camera and lens combo will achieve the portability of an M camera and lens combo unless Canon decides to make super mini R bodies and APS-c only lenses as well and that, even by your analysis, is not likely. As the owner of many Canon cameras including a 5DSR and an R5, I still find the M5 is the camera I take along when I need to travel light. I understand your issue with lens compatibility, but frankly, it doesn't matter.



Totally agree with you I really like the M6mkii it is quite a capable little camera my R5 is amazing but sometimes I like the portability of the M series for travel and my M6 mkii and 22mm f2 fit easily into a jacket when hiking. Rarely use cellphone for photography. But sadly it doesn’t look like canon is interested in that system considering the limited number of lens available. Would be nice to have an RF adaptor for the M system to take advantage of the upcoming supertelephotos though.


----------



## ctk (Dec 31, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Your conclusions make no sense. The M cameras sell very well (particularly the M50) and meanwhile, the Z50 is dead in the water. Why would Canon emulate Nikon's attempt that is going nowhere? Also, there are a bunch of us who would be happy to shell out for an M5 Mark II. There is no way an R camera and lens combo will achieve the portability of an M camera and lens combo unless Canon decides to make super mini R bodies and APS-c only lenses as well and that, even by your analysis, is not likely. As the owner of many Canon cameras including a 5DSR and an R5, I still find the M5 is the camera I take along when I need to travel light. I understand your issue with lens compatibility, but frankly, it doesn't matter.


Yea it just makes no sense. Canon is so close to completing the EF-M system. They just made that new 32.5 MP sensor. I could see them shutting down development the way they did with EF, but killing the line off completely? After just pumping so much into it? Seems crazy.


----------



## allanP (Dec 31, 2020)

" Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders. "
... or will change the system, which some of my friends have done.
They spent thousands on competitive hardware. Thousands that could land on Canon's account.


----------



## nads (Dec 31, 2020)

Eagle Eye said:


> I have 13 EF-M mount lenses. If this is the end of the system, Canon had better find an engineering solution to use those lenses on an APS-C Rf camera. Before someone regurgitates the “that’s impossible!”, no, it’s not. It could even be done without an adaptor. If they do that, I’m fine with this news. If I’m starting completely over at the end of my M6ii’s service life, I will likely be looking at other systems, despite shooting Canon for 25 years.



That's where I'd be. I had sold 100% of my oversized 7D and L lenses to go mirrorless. The original EOS-M kept me with Canon versus going elsewhere. If I'm at end of life and have to completely reinvest in a new body and optics.... nothing left holding me to Canon anymore. They have to come to the table with something price and size competitive. 

My guess is they know that EF-M is not the upgrade path to prosumer/pro gear the way that the EF Rebel series was. They want to find a way to upsell to the entry level buyers. EF-M aint it. As DSLR starts to go away do they have an upgrade path left? 

It probably makes sense to go down this road... release a new entry level system that has a more clear cut upgrade path. EF-M still appears to be a big seller but if that sale isn't helping future sales... its probably got to go.


----------



## pclark2 (Dec 31, 2020)

I consider this very bad news. I love my M6 Mark II, best camera I've ever had. The lack of lenses was the ONLY downside. Solve that, and it would be the best line out there for consumers. If the M line is discontinued, I guess I will just stick with my M6 Mk II for a bit and then look at other brands. I've been with Canon since my start in photography, but if I'm not bringing my lenses then there is nothing keeping me with Canon anymore.


----------



## nads (Dec 31, 2020)

canonnews said:


> umm no.
> 
> there's not a company out there that goes to their board.. "We're dumping our best selling camera (M50) and its entire line, and not giving them an alternative, and thus most of those users will go to other brands".
> 
> ...



You're right... they have to offer a reasonable alternative for it to work. 

At the same time... EF-M system isn't moving people up to RF the way EF-M and Rebel DSLR's moved people up to higher end canon products. They're no common hook to say... well I can just buy this one 70-200 F4L or I can get this 90D, 7D, 5D etc and use most of my kit.

I'm an M only user so I'd like a continual revision path to stay the course... but I can see why they don't care as much about me. They'd much rather have the person I was 15 years ago when I went from a 300D to 20D to 40D to 7D and kit zoom to 180MM macro and 100-400, etc. They're not hooking that 30 year old with available income using M system.


----------



## allanP (Dec 31, 2020)

I use my M5 for travel and when this system is killed, will change the brand.
I don't want to travel with heavy camera and optics. Also, I don't want to risk losing expensive equipment.
In that case I'll say goodbye to Canon (like 5DSR to medium format last year) if the manufacturer so wishes.
Sad but true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2020)

allkar said:


> I use my M5 for travel and when this system is killed, will change the brand.
> I don't want to travel with heavy camera and optics. Also, I don't want to risk losing expensive equipment.
> In that case I'll say goodbye to Canon (like 5DSR to medium format last year) if the manufacturer so wishes.
> Sad but true.


Why would Canon not releasing something else stop your M5 from working when you travel?


----------



## Chig (Dec 31, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Is this rumor from Canon global or just USA? I had heard the EOS-M is their number one seller in Japan. Americans, on the other hand, tend to like things bigger.


I think the USA version should come with a Gunrack , cup holders and terrible handling.


----------



## scottw (Dec 31, 2020)

How successful has the Nikon Z50 been, especially since the Z5 came out? After trying the Z50 out it seemed like a nice camera but awkwardly placed on that mount with no ibis and only two kit lenses meant for it (plus a slow all-in-one lens planned).

Nikon and Canon always seemed to be in lock-step for better or worse so I wouldn't be shocked if Canon ends up copying Nikon's Z50 move. If they drop EF-M then I'd wonder if it's more pride than anything else with how popular it has been lately counter to the amount of effort they've put into the system. Kinda reminds me of Sega's gaming console business where the main company undermined the success of the American branch, lol.

I recommend the M100/M200 and M50 cameras quite a bit to people because they have a good price to performance ratio. Most of the people are looking at digicams with tiny sensors because they don't understand the differences. The M200 is a great small low cost camera (kinda irritated they kept out 24p video).

I do think the RP is eating into the potential market placement of the M5/M6 EF-M cameras, which is probably why we haven't seen a replacement for the M5 (yet). I think they did that experiment to see how many people would move from EF-M or EF-S with a lower cost entry point.

My main camera system right now is EF-M, so I'd be pretty jaded against Canon if they drop development of these cameras. It's especially irritating because 3rd party lens makers finally started releasing lenses in the mount. 

Did EF-S really have that great of support from Canon over the years? I was with Nikon and Pentax before so I didn't follow Canon at the time. It seems odd to me they'd bother tacking APS-C onto RF given they have a dedicated APS-C system that works. APS-C EF-S lenses won't work with EF cameras anyways, right? It's basically the same situation with EF-M to RF. Maybe they can't charge APS-C Fujifilm prices for their EF-M stuff, but I do wonder how profitable EF-M is for them.


----------



## ericbowles (Dec 31, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> T7 and M50 are big sellers in the USA as well.
> They are the go to Costco and Walmart cameras.



That's a sure sign they are not making any money on the line. Walmart and Costco buy in large volume but at huge discounts. Other retailers may sell volume, but it's just not profitable enough for Canon to devote a retail sales team and all that it entails. Retail through mass market stores requires a lot of sales support and has much more return and repair volume. They also need to pay to support marketing. None of that makes sense in a small market (4.5 million units per year) the industry faces today.

Canon indicated a long time ago that their focus is the enthusiast and professional market. That was the direction pre-Covid.

Canon is not the only one to kill off a mount for small cameras and lower price points. Nikon killed the Nikon One mount several years ago in spite of having more than a dozen bodies and 10-12 lenses. Olympus is selling their 4/3 system - basically abandoning the line after losing money every year for 10 years. Panasonic is branching into larger cameras and there is a question about the future of 4/3.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2020)

Rocky said:


> If Canon is going to kill off the EF-M mount, Canon should come up with a replacement system comparable in terms of size(lenses and camera) in R mount. Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders.


If Sigma can make a FF body as small or smaller than most M series bodies, Canon can surely do a few RF-Crop bodies for travel and smaller handed folx. After all, Japanese Canon users LOVE the M series size.


----------



## slclick (Dec 31, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would Canon not releasing something else stop your M5 from working when you travel?


Exactly, we see this sentiment over and over as if you simply cannot use a camera system for more than a few years? Rubbish. (Or is it, GAS is just too powerful and you have to have the latest?) 5D3 user here, lol.


----------



## Chig (Dec 31, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> It's not as bad as it seems:
> 
> View attachment 194892
> 
> ...


Yep and Canon could produce a much more compact R camera for those who love tiny cameras but I doubt any cheap bodies like the Rebel line will be made as Smartphones are what the mass market mostly prefers for family and social media pics . Perhaps an affordable one aimed at photography students ?
From now on the emphasis will be catering for professionals and enthusiasts as this is a stable and profitable market .

I suggest the 2 aps-c R bodies will be :

a super compact high end body for those wanting small form factor and mostly wide angle/normal compact lenses 
a 7d style body (probably just the R6 fitted with a crop sensor from the 90D/M6 ii) aimed at sports/wildlife users (like the current 7Dii owners) who will mostly use it with long telephotos


----------



## Chig (Dec 31, 2020)

slclick said:


> Exactly, we see this sentiment over and over as if you simply cannot use a camera system for more than a few years? Rubbish. (Or is it, GAS is just too powerful and you have to have the latest?) 5D3 user here, lol.


Yep current top M bodies are very capable and will last a long time


----------



## Chig (Dec 31, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> It's very hard to match, much less beat, an M body + 22mm or 11-22mm on a bang-for-buck or bang-for-size/weight basis. Either is just an awesome and highly portable combo. Canon was never going to fill out the M lens lineup in a way that would compete with EF or RF. But I wish they would keep it around along with 2-3 good but affordable primes and a couple good but affordable stabilized zooms.


Canon could easily produce an RF35mm pancake lens and a RF17-35mm zoom at reasonable prices and small size as well as a M body size R camera so would that suit your needs ?


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 31, 2020)

45snegri said:


> Then some commercial observations:
> - Sigma decided that the ML APS-C and M4/3 market had room for their Contemporary f/1.4 trio which was introduced in Fuji, Sony, and M4/3 mounts. Shortly after these lenses became available in EF-M mount they became backordered. And shortly after that they became backordered in ALL mounts, a situation that persisted for months.



Backordered doesn't necessarily mean high sales, it could be limited production or scarcity marketing tactics. Do you know actual Sigma unit sales (ideally broken down by system)? This is more important than seeing something backordered.



45snegri said:


> And some speculations:
> - While the profit per M camera likely is much lower than per R unit, it is still profit, and the unit volume is MUCH higher. This leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that Canon will abandon the M system.



Never seen the per unit earnings, nor the breakdown between M and RF sales, but apparently you have, please do share this special insight, I would *love* to see them. Also, please do not quote Amazon sales ranking or BCN monthly reports, they are meaningless next to worldwide yearly sales which are not affected by month-to-month fluctuations and specific geo markets.



45snegri said:


> - I infer that Sigma thought there was a market for high quality EF-M primes. The earlier lengthy backorder situation leads me to conclude that the demand was significantly higher than Sigma estimated. From this I believe that while some M buyers indeed saw the low end bodies with kit zooms as an inexpensive upgrade from a smartphone, there are customers (like me) who see M5 and M6 as the core of a new small and lightweight system that can generate very high quality images.



As you mentioned, Sigma makes the same lenses for two other systems, investment is minimal versus a ground-up dedicated design. In other words, it is not a strong endorsement of the M system. If the implication is that third party lenses mean a healthy system, look no further than the now defunct NEX system or the increasingly irrelevant A mount.



45snegri said:


> So it seems like players in the photo marketplace have more faith in the M system than a lot of the posters in this thread.



Can you blame us? From Canon's own financial statements, the DSLR entry crop market has collapsed, would mirrorless entry crop be immune? I suspect not - most people satisfied with budget crop bodies and kit lenses are the same type that will be satisfied with a phone cam. Economies of scale dictate the need for low-cost high-volume base to support the high-cost low-volume performance variants. Unless the M200 and other low-cost M bodies are thriving, the writing is on the wall, just like it was for DSLR crop.


----------



## Skux (Dec 31, 2020)

Didn't we hear this last year? Lol

Canon is not going to axe their best-selling camera series, hugely popular with amateurs and vloggers, and leave them with no viable alternative in the same price bracket. They would be throwing away their market share to Sony and Fuji.

If they are serious about dumping EOS M they need to be equally serious about providing an entry-level RF catalogue with a body and affordable lenses.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 31, 2020)

If you'd have asked me two years ago I'd have said the M series has no future once Canon brought out the RF mount. ie what was the point of two different mount types. What surprised me was the number of bodies and lens Canon made for the M series. They are very decent cameras, compact with good lens. I think they sell quite easily. I'd now be surprised Canon would stop making them. I think they could keep bringing out new models and more or less keep the same lens range and sell away.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 31, 2020)

Skux said:


> Didn't we hear this last year? Lol
> 
> Canon is not going to axe their best-selling camera series, hugely popular with amateurs and vloggers, and leave them with no viable alternative in the same price bracket. They would be throwing away their market share to Sony and Fuji.
> 
> If they are serious about dumping EOS M they need to be equally serious about providing an entry-level RF catalogue with a body and affordable lenses.



"Axe" meaning discontinue production? Probably not, they have shown they can continue producing old models for a long time, or tack on superficial updates to an old model like the M50II. "Axe" meaning discontinue development? Yes, happened a long time ago for EF-S lenses, the 90D will probably be the last crop DSLR, and we'll see about the M system. In the meantime, prices continue to drop for the full-frame RP, and they will probably incorporate the 1DX3's sensor in the RPII (or whatever they will call it) to achieve economies of scale to keep RP prices low.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 31, 2020)

I support having a unified mount (RF) moving forward. I expect Canon has a strategy in mind for how to transition M users over to RF. This may include, as others have speculated, APS-C sensor RF cameras and APS-C size RF glass (RF-s???).

Forward!


----------



## LDS (Dec 31, 2020)

canonnews said:


> canon sold less DSLR's during film then they do now.
> 
> also;
> 
> ...



I know. But back then they could intercept some of those sales with their P&S cameras, while now they are not in the phone market. And back in the film days it was a very different market, with film and development costs being part of users' expenses - which confined photography to a few "special events" for many, and mistakes were "expensive" - and the complexity higher. That put SLRs in a more narrow market. It's no surprise it was automated models like the Canon AE-1 to start bringing the SLR "to the masses", but mostly digital later, which removed the film and development costs, and allowed for correcting mistakes earlier.

In the past years they got used and built manufacturing capacity for a larger market - which now is shrinking, so they have to plan for it. The extensive range of many different models, mounts and lenses looks too expensive for the future. I'm not surprised they are looking for a costs-saving strategy.

I'm not saying this is the right strategy. I'm just saying from a manufacturing point of view they could see a single mount and more shared components a less risky way to plan for future models, while reducing costs. That strategy may win them more customers, lose some of them, or just keep the status quo. That all depends on what lenses and cameras they will deliver. and how they are accepted.

A mirrorless mount, even with a larger diameter that means not-so-small cameras allows for "rangefinder-like" lenses that can be both small and good - even for a full frame sensor - is Canon going to deliver them now? The RF lenses I saw till now are a different league - not good for a small compact camera.

Of course that would be a specific investment for a market segment that may not be large enough to repay it. Maybe they will go towards a less risky path, trying to deliver something they think should appeal the lower-end market, looking for a small camera with a kit zoom and little else. Just, IMHO that's the market phone makers aim too, especially since camera features are now among the few differentiating features among phone models, trying to justify their high prices. And they now have the fashion trends on their side, and the need to "publish immediately, who cares about careful culling and post-processing?"

That said, I liked the M line. I planned to buy a M5 MkII because I could not buy an M5 earlier, life events forbade me to invest money into a different system in the past two years and a half. Now it looks I should feel happy I didn't. Maybe Canon is overlooking a good niche market that will be occupied by the likes of Fuji, maybe that market won't exists in a few years. Maybe I'll get a view camera, eventually....


----------



## Rocky (Dec 31, 2020)

With "APS-C size RF glass (RF-s???)" , the up grade to FF RF system is cripled. It will turn FF RF body into APS_C RF body.


----------



## canonnews (Dec 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> Canon could easily produce an RF35mm pancake lens and a RF17-35mm zoom at reasonable prices and small size as well as a M body size R camera so would that suit your needs ?


there's no chance in hell that canon will produce a full frame 11-22 or a full frame 15-45mm the same size as the APS-C lenses, nor will they even be competitive against other brand's aps-c lenses.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 31, 2020)

slclick said:


> Exactly, we see this sentiment over and over as if you simply cannot use a camera system for more than a few years? Rubbish. (Or is it, GAS is just too powerful and you have to have the latest?) 5D3 user here, lol.



No one likes to buy camera gear for thousands of dollars knowing that no updates will come ever again.


----------



## Kane Clements (Dec 31, 2020)

I argued here some months ago that Canon had abandoned the low to high end enthusiast crop mirror less market. Whatever sales numbers are, the camera market is shrinking and it may well be they have weighed up R and D costs with margins on sales and decided to effectively abandon that segment. I moved from Canon because of their lack of commitment below R5 and R6. 

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. Not well for a lot of users I would guess. Shame really.


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No one likes to buy camera gear for thousands of dollars knowing that no updates will come ever again.


I have NEVER in 40 years bought a body or glass and wanted/needed an update but I shoot stills only but yeah, video folx need that shit I guess. Bummer if you do, lol. Try again


----------



## SteveC (Jan 1, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have NEVER in 40 years bought a body or glass and wanted/needed an update but I shoot stills only but yeah, video folx need that shit I guess. Bummer if you do, lol. Try again



A bit harsh there at the end, but your main point is good. I've never bought a camera hoping that five years down the line I'll be able to upgrade it. I suppose if I was to have articulated any hope, it's that the camera will last a long time so I don't have to spend money replacing it. (That being said I probably have more cameras right now than I "need" other than for "want a backup camera" paranoia. But that's not because of upgradeitis; they're all current models other than the M50.)


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 1, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have NEVER in 40 years bought a body or glass and wanted/needed an update but I shoot stills only but yeah, video folx need that shit I guess. Bummer if you do, lol. Try again


Some of us have upgraded so many times that we've come to expect it. I went from an EOS-3 film body to a 10D DSLR, which I hated, to a 5D plus a 40D later. The 5D was replaced by a 5D3 which had a much better focusing system and the 40D was replaced by a used 7D after the older camera's shutter release became intermittent. This year I bought a 5Ds when Canon dropped the price by about 65% and the 7D may be replaced by an R7. I also replaced my entire f/2.8 trinity, all at least 15 years old, with an F/4 trinity which are all lighter and sharper and include IS. And last but certainly not least, my 100mm macro lens was replaced by a 70mm Sigma, a serious improvement.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 1, 2021)

Rocky said:


> If Canon is going to kill off the EF-M mount, Canon should come up with a replacement system comparable in terms of size(lenses and camera) in R mount. Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders.


Yep. 7D II owners are the only ones pushing for an APS-c R in the hopes that they will get the same kind of feature bargain they got on their 7DII. The problem is that an R5 with an APS-C sensor (which is what they are looking for) is going to sell for upwards of $2,500 and they won't be too thrilled with that and further, nobody else is going to buy it. I haven't heard one Rebel user say they wanted and APS-c R. Rebel users who wanted mirrorless either bought an M camera or moved to a different vendor.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 1, 2021)

I am amazed at the number of people who keep saying there is no upgrade path from M to R like there was from EF-s to EF. Do these folks not know that EF-s lenses do not work on EF cameras? The only upgrade path that existed was if you had and EF-s camera and bought FF lenses, you could then use them on a FF camera. Other than the 7D II crowd, that list is very short. If Canon is really going to kill M, then they need to come up with an adapter that has some retrofocus glass in it to increase the backthrow so the M lenses can be used on an APS-C R.


----------



## Ditboy (Jan 1, 2021)

All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they _might _be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> A bit harsh there at the end, but your main point is good. I've never bought a camera hoping that five years down the line I'll be able to upgrade it. I suppose if I was to have articulated any hope, it's that the camera will last a long time so I don't have to spend money replacing it. (That being said I probably have more cameras right now than I "need" other than for "want a backup camera" paranoia. But that's not because of upgradeitis; they're all current models other than the M50.)


Harsh? The try again part? I could coddle the poster and ask them to rethink their position but these are big kids here and when they come out with GAS related responses I just have to be frank.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 1, 2021)

I may have set a record here. I brought my Leica M4 ( with 3 lenses) on 1967. It is being actively used as my main camera and travelled to every continent ( except Anartica) until I go to digital on 2004 and get the EOS 20D. Through out these years the Leica M4 has been trouble free. I used it rain or shine. Never baby it and never abused it.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 1, 2021)

Canfan said:


> They will probably give non L options with similar build quality to the RF50mm1.8 or RF35mm 1.8, thing many enthusiast will be happy with something like that at a lower price point.



Why?

They don't now. The "make it up in volume" gambit doesn't work at the extremes.


----------



## Chig (Jan 1, 2021)

canonnews said:


> there's no chance in hell that canon will produce a full frame 11-22 or a full frame 15-45mm the same size as the APS-C lenses, nor will they even be competitive against other brand's aps-c lenses.


they already make a pancake full frame EF40mm f/2.8 it weighs 124gm and they make a EF-s 10-18 which weighs 233gm , why not a RF one ?
Are you on Canon's board or something , how do you know what they'll choose to make ?
Canon are the biggest camera company in the world and they will make what they think there's a market for and they can make pretty much anything and at a competitive price


----------



## Chig (Jan 1, 2021)

Ditboy said:


> All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they _might _be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.


I'd just keep your excellent M6 mark ii personally as the chances of Fujifilm choosing to make cameras in the future is very uncertain as they are a very small volume camera company and probably will struggle to make any money from their camera division.
I'd only choose Canon or Sony myself as they're the most likely to survive long term and will continue to innovate


----------



## Kane Clements (Jan 1, 2021)

Chig said:


> I'd just keep your excellent M6 mark ii personally as the chances of Fujifilm choosing to make cameras in the future is very uncertain as they are a very small volume camera company and probably will struggle to make any money from their camera division.
> I'd only choose Canon or Sony myself as they're the most likely to survive long term and will continue to innovate



Fuji are doing well at the moment. Their medium format range is a success and their crop sensor cameras are doing well.

One of the things giving them advantage in the CF sector is sticking to one very good sensor and processor, reducing R&D and production costs. 

They keep to a consistent upgrade cycle and their kit is well made.

The X-T4 is weather sealed, has twin card slots and has a 300,000 shutter count. OK auto focus isn’t quite up to Canon and Sony and they really need to introduce animal eye af. Other than that it is top.

The brand new X-S10 is an absolute peach.

Canon are betting the farm on FF and currently don’t have a decent intro / intermediate path for users to follow.

My bet is Nikon will be next to go, then Panasonic. Although not as big as Canon, Fuji’s numbers in the camera division recently have been pretty healthy compared to the competition.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jan 1, 2021)

Ditboy said:


> All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they _might _be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.



I did earlier this year. Well pleased. I’d suggest that any disgruntled Canon user just goes and takes an open minded look at the Fuji range and Fuji’s road maps past and present. And gets a model or two in hand to see how the ergonomics fit.

Brand loyalty should be a two way street.


----------



## riker (Jan 1, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But at least you could use the same 100-400 or 100mm macro or even the 500 F4 if you wanted on a 7D or a Rebel, because IQ was good enough. And many just did that. The 7D with the EF 100-400 was one of the most popular combos.
> Not possible with the M mount and making a $2000 M mount camera for $200 plastic lenses is not a solution.
> 
> For an APS-C RF camera you will automatically have 15+ RF already working natively. All Canon needs 4-5 APS-C specific lenses, like a standard zoom, wide angle and a few small primes.


I disagree with almost every sentence.  500/4 on a Rebel?? I don't think so. People who buy 500/4 do not use Rebel. 7D2 maybe, but even that is kind of obsolete now. R5 takes [email protected], pretty much kills 7D2 ([email protected]). Even R6 ([email protected]) and R ([email protected]) are competitive.
Sport photographers using all the huge white lenses use 1D series with just 20MP and still often crop a considerable amount. Current and upcoming FF cameras have reached the point where there's no gap to be filled by 7D series. In 2014 the 7D2 made a difference. Today, it (or it's equivalent around [email protected]) would not.
Also do not forget, APS-C might help on the long end, but has lot's of drawbacks (short end, noise, bokeh, etc.), it has always been a compromise ever since the birth of APS-C. We do not use it because it is good for photography, just for economic considerations.

But I think you didn't get the whole point. When using FF lenses on an APS-C body, you pay for and carry the weight of lenses which were designed to produce images on more than 2.5X(!!) size sensors. And you consider it to be totally OK. Anything but. Purchasing and carrying a line of FF L lenses and then pairing them with some cheap APS-C body which will not even really lighten the overall weight of the setup makes no sense to me. Yes there were times....I did it as well...early 2000s starting with 6MP 60D when there were no FF alternatives. The world has changed at 5D2 and now again at R5.
I think we kind of arrived where APS-C is paired with non-L glass and FF with L glass. Mixing APS-C and L glass is pretty much over. Possible but no point really.
Ah yes, and APS-C body is not even going to be effectively smaller than an RP.

The only thing that could make a huge difference if there were professional-grade APS-C lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500, etc.). That has never happened and never will.


----------



## riker (Jan 1, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I am beyond frustrated with a company that wants my money but shares no vision of the road ahead in our relationship and the rest of us M users are treated like dirt by these executives. If The M is dead and there is no way to port my glass to whatever new body they make I will no longer buy Canon. The truth is that the M barely outperforms an Apple IPhone which is why we are begging for IBIS and better glass as well as decent 4K. I rather just get a new IPhone then lug around a big camera. Many people do not have cameras beacause of the IPhone - the future really lies in mini sized bodies which Is we we all felt we were on the cutting edge when we got the M because it was really good 8 years ago relative to the iPhone. The gap has closed and now we see Canon can’t compete so they retreat to their bigger sized tech and charge more money because they have lost to the iPhone. My next camera will be the Iphone 13 if Canon does not release a new M or a camera that accepts my M lenses.



I believe that's exactly what's happening but it's not even such a secret, it's a well-known fact for years. Compact camera market was completely eaten by smartphones. Period. Smartphone development has not stopped and continues to conquer. M line is not sustainable directly because of this. An iphone outperforms even FF cameras in some aspects.
In my ideal world the solution would be to bring down professional grade IQ/photography to the smallest size possible, producing EF-M L glass like 70-200/2.8, 100-400, etc. but for some reason no brand is doing that (not just Canon). So DSLR is over and the MILC market is going to get thinner every year, while smartphones are getting to be better cameras. That's just how it is for the next 20y. (Already in 2019 for my 2 months travel I only brought 100-400 and 50/1.8 with me, wide angle was iphone. I would bring a FF wide lens if my DSLR/MILC could take panoramas like my iphone.)


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 1, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yep. 7D II owners are the only ones pushing for an APS-c R in the hopes that they will get the same kind of feature bargain they got on their 7DII. The problem is that an R5 with an APS-C sensor (which is what they are looking for) is going to sell for upwards of $2,500 and they won't be too thrilled with that and further, nobody else is going to buy it. I haven't heard one Rebel user say they wanted and APS-c R. Rebel users who wanted mirrorless either bought an M camera or moved to a different vendor.



So you admit that APS-C users might leave for a different brand, yet you seem to disqualify Canon on bringing APS-C R? I am a former Rebel user (350, 400, 450) and the reason why I did not buy into an M system initially was my stubborn nature - no future upgrade path, no tequila, period. I am not going to buy into a system, on which I can't eventually use future RF lens, if the need would arise.

My pov changed a bit by M6II, a really nice camera. Was waiting for the M6III to have IBIS though. I for one really think, that APS-C R is actually the answer and I think for a year or two, that it is an inevitable move on the Canon's side. If Canon goes that route, you can bet that they will introduce APS-C R lens, even if the rumour states otherwise.

I also don't believe to the naysayers, who state that any such camera can't be eventually small enough. Sure, if you are after M100/200, probably not, but for anything like that M5, it can be close enough in the 10-20% of the body mass. Your M5II featuring IBIS might get slight boost in size too ....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 1, 2021)

Canon can and likely will make EOS R bodies that are similar in price and construction to APS-C bodies. There are no technical difficulties, just marketing. The additional 4mm larger lens mount and 2mm longer backplane distance are the only things that might make a M sized R larger. Throw in IBIS and it will get thicker, but so would a M with IBIS.

It makes economic sense to standardize on one lens mount, both for Canon and for users. With the market shrinking, expect some brands to either go away, or become rebranded cameras mass produced by someone else. Once sales drop to a certain point, a company can't keep losing money. 

I can certainly see value in a common lens mount which allows users to own tiny M sized bodies, 7D sized APS-C bodies, Rebel bodies, and have all of the lenses interchangeable with R compatible mounts. If that happens, I expect to eventually see APS-C lenses with a R mount due to price considerations. A APS-C lens could have a distinctly colored ring, maybe gold or brown so they were easily distinguished. The mount on the body could have a similar color but not necessary. Something would need to happen so that those who bought entry level APS-C bodies were not confused as to which lenses they needed, or those who went for a entry level full frame did not buy APS-c due to price and then discover the mistake. Maybe APS-C RF lenses would not be a good idea.

Do some current full frame buyers purchase the wrong Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses intended for APS-C? I suspect they do. They might not even realize the error if the lens sort of covered the entire frame. Some of them do.


----------



## allanP (Jan 1, 2021)

Kane Clements said:


> I did earlier this year. Well pleased. I’d suggest that any disgruntled Canon user just goes and takes an open minded look at the Fuji range and Fuji’s road maps past and present. And gets a model or two in hand to see how the ergonomics fit.
> Brand loyalty should be a two way street.


It's not as easy as you want to show it.  The main advantage of the M series (for me) is portability.
Small body with good advanced functions, small and good optics (mostly not very bright, but still very useful).
For example, when I look at Fuji, I see
XF16-55mm with *655g* and ø83.3mm x 106.0mm for about *$ 950*
vs EF-M 15-45 IS STM with *130g* ø60.9mm x 44.5mm for* $ 275*
or
XF55-200mmF3.5-4.8 R LM OIS *580g *and 118mm for *$ 640*
vs. EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM *260g* and 86mm for *$ 250*

Fuji is not bad, no question about it, but whether with the R system or with Fuji, I lose the main advantage - small size and weight. The prices are also not comparable.
It's a good system, but not an alternative. Bigger, heavier, more expensive. So I can go straight to RF, which is more future-proof than Fuji.
What I would like to get from M-System is a newer alternative for my M5 that already has 120,000 on the counter.


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Jan 1, 2021)

I would love to see an EOS M200 form factor -- understanding it would need to be a few millimeters taller to fit the RF lens. I would want to see it with flip out (instead of the M200's flip up) and a flush hot shoe, like the M6.

This would fit nicely into a camera bag as a secondary camera to pair well with an R5.


----------



## AJ (Jan 1, 2021)

I think Canon will discontinue the M lineup if and only if they release some dedicated R-mount lenses for APSC. You'd have a lightweight mirrorless APSC body, plus some lenses such as 15-45 in R mount. This should result in a small, lightweight and affordable setup perfect for travel and such.

I think there is no way Canon will release an R-mount APSC body and expect people to buy full-frame R-mount ultrawides as normal lenses. Been there done that with the drebels in 2004 or thereabouts. A lot of people were buying 17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8L back then to mount on their 20Ds out of sheer necessity.

In all, I think porting the eos-m line to r mount could work out well for Canon and for Canon shooters. It'll provide a lightweight affordable setup similar to what M is now, plus the ability to use full-frame R-mount lenses without adapters. This would combine the best of M and EF-S.


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 1, 2021)

I love my M cameras and tiny lenses , but even I can see that Canon is betting it’s photography business on the R lineup. Time will tell if that’s the right call, but ....

What is the profit of an R body v an M body? For RF lenses v M lenses? Canon can’t make the R5 fast enough, nor some of the expensive RF lenses, as indicated by back orders and delays. And people, on this forum and elsewhere, are clamoring for more R bodies and new lenses including more affordable and compact glass. If I’m Canon, with limited resources, I clear out the M production lines/factory space and start cranking out more profitable R products as fast as I can, not because M isn’t successful now but because the R is much more profitable for the future. Adding new factory space in a shrinking market for ILC products probably doesn’t make good business sense. Canon has stated its intention to lead the full-frame mirrorless ILC market. They clearly see that as the most important goal. They also understand, I think, that smartphone cameras are wildly popular and getting better with each generation. Of course, there are M fans but the question for Canon is, how many? And for how long? If they choose to let the M die off, I’m sure that decision will be based on data and Forecasts based on their research. Customers who are furious at the abandonment of the M can surely buy from competitors. But if Canon is right, those customers will eventually face the same dilemma elsewhere.


----------



## Annabelle2021 (Jan 1, 2021)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. An aps-c body (or bodies) will be good for the R line. It worked for the DSLR line. Not everybody is a landscape or portrait shooter. Some also do wildlife and macros and having a dedicated crop sensor body is way better than using the crop mode on a full frame body. The popularity of the EOS 7Dii with professional sports and wildlife photographers is proof of that. It would also be good to be able to use some of the full frame RF lenses on an APS-C R body . You can't do that with the M line. Regarding EF-S R lenses to suit, there are plenty of Ef-s lenses out there already and they all work brilliantly with an adapter. Even better than on a DSLR. No need to make more. It's a shame about the M range users but they will still be able to enjoy their existing gear. Just because the line becomes extinct doesn't mean they have to throw away their M kits. Obviously Canon are going to make gear that is profitable for them globally , not just to suit a small percentage of their customer base. I'm not jumping ship. Canon are still the best IMO.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 1, 2021)

riker said:


> ....
> I think we kind of arrived where APS-C is paired with non-L glass and FF with L glass. Mixing APS-C and L glass is pretty much over. Possible but no point really.



I guess you missed all the threads and all the posts from APS-C birders and wildlife shooters who do indeede use "L" glass on the crop bodies and hope to do so with the rumored "R7". I am neither a birder or wildlife shooter, but if Canon does release a crop R body, I will be getting a used 70-300 L as my telephoto setup. The point is that such a crop camema will be cheaper than the R5 and have far more pixels than the R5 in crop mode.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 1, 2021)

For all those complaining about Canon...and condemning Canon...and leaving Canon for Fuji...

This is only a rumor.
This is only a rumor.
This is only a rumor.


----------



## RMac (Jan 2, 2021)

As someone who has climbed 14,000 foot mountains with a 7D and full-frame zooms and with an M5 with a set of aps-c lenses, I hugely appreciate the low weight and compactness of the M system.

One comparison I'd like to see is the RP with the RF 50mm f1.8 vs the M6ii with the EF-M 32mm f1.4. They frame about the same with similar DoF and have a similar total price. Which is lighter, which one is more compact, which one is sharper? I'd wager the M system would win in all of these. The RF would probably win at low light, though.


----------



## Woody (Jan 2, 2021)

The EOS-M cameras are the bestselling cameras across the globe right now. There are hungry predators lurking in the corners, waiting for Canon to give up their envious pole position and ready to pounce any minute. I am not entirely convinced about the veracity of these rumors. Were the rumors started by these hungry predators?


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 2, 2021)

Woody said:


> The EOS-M cameras are the bestselling cameras across the globe right now. There are hungry predators lurking in the corners, waiting for Canon to give up their envious pole position and ready to pounce any minute. I am not entirely convinced about the veracity of these rumors. Were the rumors started by these hungry predators?


Actually, I think the bestselling cameras across the globe right now are built into smartphones.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2021)

riker said:


> I disagree with almost every sentence.  500/4 on a Rebel?? I don't think so. People who buy 500/4 do not use Rebel. 7D2 maybe, but even that is kind of obsolete now. R5 takes [email protected], pretty much kills 7D2 ([email protected]). Even R6 ([email protected]) and R ([email protected]) are competitive.
> Sport photographers using all the huge white lenses use 1D series with just 20MP and still often crop a considerable amount. Current and upcoming FF cameras have reached the point where there's no gap to be filled by 7D series. In 2014 the 7D2 made a difference. Today, it (or it's equivalent around [email protected]) would not.
> Also do not forget, APS-C might help on the long end, but has lot's of drawbacks (short end, noise, bokeh, etc.), it has always been a compromise ever since the birth of APS-C. We do not use it because it is good for photography, just for economic considerations.
> 
> ...



I don't agree with almost anything you say. There are many photographers who can barely afford a used 500 F4 or new 100-400 or similar lens and then use it on an APS-C body. And yes, i've seen even used on a Rebel. Because the image quality of a Rebel is just as good as a 7D's. I'm pretty happy to use an 80D or 90D with any supertele. 

Now mount a 100-400 on a 90D and then the same 100-400 on a R6. Then compare the final images at same equivalent 640mm - 32MP vs 8MP.
Then compare the prices. Almost $5000 for the R6 combo vs $3500 for the 90D. 

Not everyone has money for $4000 R5, no matter how good you can crop it. Especially in less developed countries where even $1000 is a lot of money for a camera. People rather pay for a 24-30 MP APS-C camera than a R6 with 20MP which then you can crop it to 8MP.

A 7D is bargain compared to R5 or R6 and even R. A brand new RF 7D would be the price of a R6 or slightly less with much higher pixel density (reach).

"When using FF lenses on an APS-C body, you pay for and carry the weight of lenses which were designed to produce images on more than 2.5X(!!) size sensors"

That's not true either. A 100-400 or 500 F4 made for APS-C would not be any smaller than one for FF. Just check Fuji's 100-400 or 200mm.

I'm sorry but FF is not there yet. It will be there when a 50MP R5-like camera will be $2000. Until then we need affordable and fast APS-C.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have NEVER in 40 years bought a body or glass and wanted/needed an update but I shoot stills only but yeah, video folx need that shit I guess. Bummer if you do, lol. Try again



So what you do with your lenses when the newest camera you can mount them on is 10+ years old? Yes, some people shoot video too and prefer to buy equipment new. Try again...


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2021)

I have the following M lenses: Canon 11-22 IS, Rokinon 12mm f/2, Canon 22mm f/2, and Canon 32mm f/1.4
These lenses produce great results, are small and lightweight and inexpensive.
There is no equivalent set of lenses for an APS-C system today. These lenses deserve a top notch body.
This system makes an excellent travel package, and the results rival my 5D3 system at a fraction of the cost and weight.

I am very disappointed that Canon never delivered the body that these excellent little lenses deserve.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I am amazed at the number of people who keep saying there is no upgrade path from M to R like there was from EF-s to EF. Do these folks not know that EF-s lenses do not work on EF cameras? The only upgrade path that existed was if you had and EF-s camera and bought FF lenses, you could then use them on a FF camera. Other than the 7D II crowd, that list is very short. If Canon is really going to kill M, then they need to come up with an adapter that has some retrofocus glass in it to increase the backthrow so the M lenses can be used on an APS-C R.



Yes, people used lenses like 100-400 on 7D and similar cameras. Because they couldn't or did not wanted to buy a $6000 1DX which can shoot 10 frames per second. Also wanted more than 5 pixels on a bird.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2021)

slclick said:


> Harsh? The try again part? I could coddle the poster and ask them to rethink their position but these are big kids here and when they come out with GAS related responses I just have to be frank.



And you are the big and mature person who thinks his opinion is the only valid. That someone happy not having an option to buy a camera in 5 years time when the current camera breaks / gets stolen / wants a backup / wants an upgrade.


----------



## Chig (Jan 2, 2021)

Etienne said:


> I have the following M lenses: Canon 11-22 IS, Rokinon 12mm f/2, Canon 22mm f/2, and Canon 32mm f/1.4
> These lenses produce great results, are small and lightweight and inexpensive.
> There is no equivalent set of lenses for an APS-C system today. These lenses deserve a top notch body.
> This system makes an excellent travel package, and the results rival my 5D3 system at a fraction of the cost and weight.
> ...


What body do you have and have you tried the M6 mark ii ?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2021)

In 2022 2021 will be the last year and 2023 will be the next year.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While that is officially the case, Canon pushes sales by offering better prices and probably incentives for sellers to push the newer ones. That usually seals the fate of the older one. EF lenses and DSLR cameras are a example. Sales are dropping as buyers move to the R series bodies and lenses. It may take years, but the low price of the R and RF bodies had the desired effect, then, the specs of the R5 / R6 and better IQ RF lenses pushed a lot more into buying. It will be several years before EF lenses stop selling, but buyers are being nudged toward RF.
> 
> 
> The same could happen with a "M" replacement, a new and even smaller RF body with a low price. That's been rumored. Then the sales gives Canon the reason to move to the newer model. It will take years, of course.


EF lenses are far cheaper and Canon recently dropped the prices on a lot of DSLR cameras.
I am not convinced those are going away either.
Canon stated that they would keep making EF-M Mount cameras as long as they are in demand and that if there was big enough demand there would be new EF lenses. 
Canon made new EF, EF-S, and EF-M cameras in 2020.
There just were not any new lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2021)

Surab said:


> Mostly just to give future buyers the opportunity to mix and match between APSC and FF. This group might be too small though.


They can already do that will a speed booster.
Unlike the RF-mount there are only third-party ones but they are still pretty popular.
All of those very lenses can be adapted to full-frame RF mount cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2021)

Rocky said:


> Canon should give us a better (sharper) EF-M 15-45 lens. It is much easier than develope a APS_C R mount camera.


How so?
Canon only needs to put an existing sensor into an existing body.
Just put a 7D sensor in an R6 body and be done with it.
If it is a new sensor that putting it in an RF mount body should not be any more of a challenge than putting it into an EF-M mount body.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't agree with almost anything you say. There are many photographers who can barely afford a used 500 F4 or new 100-400 or similar lens and then use it on an APS-C body. And yes, i've seen even used on a Rebel. Because the image quality of a Rebel is just as good as a 7D's. I'm pretty happy to use an 80D or 90D with any supertele.
> 
> Now mount a 100-400 on a 90D and then the same 100-400 on a R6. Then compare the final images at same equivalent 640mm - 32MP vs 8MP.
> Then compare the prices. Almost $5000 for the R6 combo vs $3500 for the 90D.



I had a 100-400 on an M6-II at the San Diego zoo once. Not even a Rebel, but an M series camera!


----------



## PeterT (Jan 2, 2021)

allkar said:


> XF16-55mm _f2.8_ with *655g* and ø83.3mm x 106.0mm for about *$ 950*
> vs EF-M 15-45 _f3.5-6.3_ IS STM with *130g* ø60.9mm x 44.5mm for* $ 275*
> or
> XF55-200mmF3.5-4.8 R LM OIS *580g *and 118mm for *$ 640*
> vs. EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM *260g* and 86mm for *$ 250*



Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples. You compare dark plastic M-lenses (i added f numbers of the first couple of lenses _in red italic_ to your text) to premium (16-55) or mid-range (55-200) Fuji ones. While Fuji also has a plastic cheap line - the XC lenses:

XC 15-45mm F3,5-5,6 OIS PZ with *136g* and ø63mm x 44mm for about *$ 300 *(price from dpreview)
or
XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS II with *195g* and ø63mm x 65mm for about *$ 250 * (ebay.us)
vs EF-M 15-45 f3.5-6.3 IS STM with *130g* ø60.9mm x 44.5mm for* $ 275*

or

XC 50-230mm F4.5-6.7 OIS II with *375g* and ø70mm x 111mm for about *$ 399 *(dpreview)
vs. EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM *260g* and 86mm for *$ 250*

Isn't now the comparison quite different?


----------



## allanP (Jan 2, 2021)

PeterT said:


> Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples. You compare dark plastic M-lenses (i added f numbers of the first couple of lenses _in red italic_ to your text) to premium (16-55) or mid-range (55-200) Fuji ones. While Fuji also has a plastic cheap line - the XC lenses:
> 
> XC 15-45mm F3,5-5,6 OIS PZ with *136g* and ø63mm x 44mm for about *$ 300 *(price from dpreview)
> or
> ...


Ok, I am not at home in the Fuji system, so for my comparison I used what my friends have for Fuji cameras. I am also not familiar with the distinction to XC series. I only see what my friends use and what I have for M System (I have 22 f/2, 32mm f/1.4, and others too). The picture results from my plastic fantastic are definitely comparable with those from Fuji with premium optics.
Although, as I have already written before, I use M almost only for travel


----------



## Etienne (Jan 2, 2021)

Chig said:


> What body do you have and have you tried the M6 mark ii ?



I have owned three M bodies: the original, the M3 and the M6.
I'd like a body with top notch DPAF, IBIS, and an excellent video implementation in the M5 format with an excellent viewfinder and swivel screen.
I'd be willing to pay top dollar, because I love the little compact lenses.
I don't think that's too much to ask, but it looks extremely unlikely at this point.


----------



## Surab (Jan 2, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> They can already do that will a speed booster.
> Unlike the RF-mount there are only third-party ones but they are still pretty popular.
> All of those very lenses can be adapted to full-frame RF mount cameras.



Are we talking about EF glass? I'm talking about RF, some people would like proper interoperability between the FF and APSC line without adapters.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have NEVER in 40 years bought a body or glass and wanted/needed an update but I shoot stills only but yeah, video folx need that shit I guess. Bummer if you do, lol. Try again


Why are some people so callous toward those whose needs are different from their own?

40 years ago--and I bought my first Canon SLR 39 years ago--a camera was little more than a light-tight box with some exposure controls. Other than lenses, the main "technology" driving image quality was film. Advances in film, such as grain structure, color balance (not necessarily accuracy), and exposure latitude, provided regular "upgrades" for all cameras, from the highest end professional SLR to the cheapest plastic-lens point and shoot. With a decent set of lenses, it was reasonable to expect to hold onto a well-built SLR body for a decade or more.

A modern digital camera, on the other hand, is a high-tech electronic product, pure and simple, and electronics advances quickly. I agree that most people don't buy a camera specifically intending to get rid of it in a few years, but eventually people want to. My ex still has the EOS 20D we bought in 2004. Other than needing a new battery, I'm sure it works just as well as it did when it was new, with its 8 MP sensor, 9 AF points, and a 1.8" rear LCD display (which was big for its time). But technology marches on: higher resolutions, faster/more accurate autofocus, increased dynamic range, video, and even "convenience" features like WiFi and big, articulated, high resolution LCD screens, together make compelling reasons for many people to upgrade periodically.


----------



## JohnC (Jan 2, 2021)

I like the small size of the M series. Of course having said that I buy an M6II and mount this on it:

https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-l-bracket-for-canon-eos-m6-mark-ii-lcc2516.html ... without using the vertical plate

While still smaller it is extremely comfortable in the hand, and is works much better when mounting larger lenses (180 macro, 100-400 II) etc.

If the rumor is true I hate to see it go, as I would have definitely picked up an M5II if they came out with one with the 32mp sensor. I've enjoyed the M6II immensely and it became my most used body pretty quickly. I did invest in a couple of the Sigma primes (56 and 30), 22mm prime, the 11-22, and the 55-200. The latter two are used primarily for travel while the former or adapted lenses are used locally. I keep that kit with me at nearly all times.

Frankly, the M series convinced me on the MILC direction and I will get the R5s when it comes out. I still use my 5dIV but it only comes out when I'm doing landscape. I tried Fuji and for me it didn't work, although they have very nice products.


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> So what you do with your lenses when the newest camera you can mount them on is 10+ years old? Yes, some people shoot video too and prefer to buy equipment new. Try again...


You use them.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 2, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I am amazed at the number of people who keep saying there is no upgrade path from M to R like there was from EF-s to EF. Do these folks not know that EF-s lenses do not work on EF cameras? The only upgrade path that existed was if you had and EF-s camera and bought FF lenses, you could then use them on a FF camera. Other than the 7D II crowd, that list is very short.



With sales going through the roof, Canon could ignore that short list. With a shrinking market, why serve them to the competitors on a silver plater?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2021)

My main rig is an EOS 7D Mark II, which I use with a Sigma 100-400 for airshows. A couple of years ago, I bought an M5/18-150 kit. At the time, I was traveling a lot for my job, and I wanted something smaller and lighter to travel with for those times when I found myself with half a day free and I wanted to go to a zoo or a lake or a museum. I also love it when I go hiking or biking due to its small size and weight and excellent image quality, and my son has been using it for astrophotography through a telescope for the same reasons.

My point is, people who say that the M series is only for novices or for people who don't really care about image quality are missing out on an amazing system. To me, the M5 is a smaller mirrorless 80D.

For more evidence, go to photography-on-the.net and check out the EF-M and M50 threads. Those threads are very active with folks posting the most incredible images using M-series bodies with lenses ranging from the EF-M kit lenses to adapted EF-S and full frame EF and L lenses.

Canon has to do what they believe is best for their long term survival and bottom line in a shrinking market. But I think it would be a shame to lose the M system.


----------



## allanP (Jan 2, 2021)

For a long time similar hardware spectrum (7D2 + 70-300L and Sigma 150-600) but without airshows 
For another area (studio work) medium format from Hasselblad.
M5 + 18-150 and some other EF-M lenses such as 11-22, 22, 32 etc for travel. I'm happy with that too.
Only 120,000 on the counter are starting to worry me. A successor is needed...
Canon, stop the nonsense with the rumors and bring out really good M camera (eg M5 Mk II)!


----------



## riker (Jan 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I guess you missed all the threads and all the posts from APS-C birders and wildlife shooters who do indeede use "L" glass on the crop bodies and hope to do so with the rumored "R7". I am neither a birder or wildlife shooter, but if Canon does release a crop R body, I will be getting a used 70-300 L as my telephoto setup. The point is that such a crop camema will be cheaper than the R5 and have far more pixels than the R5 in crop mode.



Well, I happen to be a wildlife shooter. For 20 years now. I have a several friends of course who are also wildlife shooters. We have all been using crop bodies (D60-10D-20D-30D-40D) and we all switched to FF several years ago. I know professional wildlife shooters, some world-famous, all used 1D with it's 20MP, and some of them have a 7D for backup. Now that 20MP just became 45MP or with the R6 20MP became much more affordable with even twice the FPS.

You don't seem to getting my point. I never said nobody would ever buy a crop RF body. I said it's much less reasonable than it was 5-8y ago. Also, just because there are people who do not have money, nor are they experienced birders using tents/hideouts, just want to walk around the nearby park and expect to shoot a sparrow filling the image and might be willing to buy an APS-C RF body, it's not really an argument against what I was pointing out. Invalidating a general statement with an exception is invalid 

But I'll put it a different way for you. Using an APS-C body with an L lens was much more regular/reasonable 10y ago than now and especially in the future. Imho.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 2, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> With sales going through the roof, Canon could ignore that short list. With a shrinking market, why serve them to the competitors on a silver plater?


True. OTOH, just who makes a competitor to the 7D II that has the desired properties (i.e. cheap, fast, and rugged) and the desired available lenses. Nobody in mirrorless land that I can think of. Canon will give them fast and rugged, but cheap may be off the table. An R5, with slightly lower pixel density but a more sophisticated AA filter, will give just as good resolution as the 7D II and do everything else better. It just isn't $1800. The R5s will have way more pixels on the bird and probably still be as fast as a 7D II, but it won't be $1800 either . As the old service sign says "We offer Cheap, Fast, and Good - Pick two).


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 2, 2021)

riker said:


> Well, I happen to be a wildlife shooter. For 20 years now. I have a several friends of course who are also wildlife shooters. We have all been using crop bodies (D60-10D-20D-30D-40D) and we all switched to FF several years ago. I know professional wildlife shooters, some world-famous, all used 1D with it's 20MP, and some of them have a 7D for backup. Now that 20MP just became 45MP or with the R6 20MP became much more affordable with even twice the FPS.
> 
> You don't seem to getting my point. I never said nobody would ever buy a crop RF body. I said it's much less reasonable than it was 5-8y ago. Also, just because there are people who do not have money, nor are they experienced birders using tents/hideouts, just want to walk around the nearby park and expect to shoot a sparrow filling the image and might be willing to buy an APS-C RF body, it's not really an argument against what I was pointing out. Invalidating a general statement with an exception is invalid
> 
> But I'll put it a different way for you. Using an APS-C body with an L lens was much more regular/reasonable 10y ago than now and especially in the future. Imho.



Well, when you put it in a different way, your point may be valid to some degree. Perhaps I didn't get your point initially because you were a bit more definite. You said, " I think we kind of arrived where APS-C is paired with non-L glass and FF with L glass. Mixing APS-C and L glass is pretty much over. Possible but no point really."

There's a bit if a difference between "pretty much over" and "no point really" and "Using an APS-C body with an L lens was much more regular/reasonable 10y ago than now and especially in the future". And I agree to a certain extent. 

But I still think there is enough of a market for crop camera / FF lenses for crop R bodies to be successful with birders and wildlife shooters, even in you - and others - have gone FF. The R5 is only 17 MP in crop mode - the R6 less than 8 MP. If Canon can put their 32 MP crop sensor in a new crop body meant for birders and wildlife, that - it seems to me - will still be a considerable advantage - especially if they can keep the cost at the R6 level. So having more reach and less cost may still be a workable formula for success, which is my general argument.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 2, 2021)

Dragon said:


> True. OTOH, just who makes a competitor to the 7D II that has the desired properties (i.e. cheap, fast, and rugged) and the desired available lenses. Nobody in mirrorless land that I can think of.



In your opinion, is this a temporary state of affairs, or permanent?



Dragon said:


> Canon will give them fast and rugged, but cheap may be off the table.



As others have noted, its not just the body. The EF 300mm f/2.8 costs $6,099, while the EF 500mm f/4 costs $8,999.



Dragon said:


> An R5, with slightly lower pixel density but a more sophisticated AA filter, will give just as good resolution as the 7D II and do everything else better.



Yes, it would. Question is whether the 7D's target audience would be happy with it (I gather they'd like the 90D's 32MP sensor), and what the competition would have to offer. Currently, Nikon's only DX MILC is 20MP, but that might change.


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 2, 2021)

In October, Canon USA wrote that the M50 is "the #1 selling mirrorless camera in the U.S. market" based on data from "The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service". It's also (Source:BCN) Canon's best selling mirrorless camera in Japan. As long as people keep buying them, Canon will keep making them.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Question is whether the 7D's target audience would be happy with it (I gather they'd like the 90D's 32MP sensor), and what the competition would have to offer. Currently, Nikon's only DX MILC is 20MP, but that might change.


Also keep an eye on on Sony for their next a6x00 body/bodies. The a6600 is 24 MP, fast, and they gave it a larger battery and grip (although still a bit small for my liking). If Canon doesn’t come out with a compelling mirrorless 7Dii successor, I might have to look elsewhere.

Whether Canon offers a worthwhile RF APS-C body or not, I’ll have to adapt my current EF lenses or get new ones. So switching systems doesn’t seem like as big a deal for me as it once was.


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 2, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Is this rumor from Canon global or just USA? I had heard the EOS-M is their number one seller in Japan. Americans, on the other hand, tend to like things bigger.


The M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera in both the USA and Japan.


----------



## gektor (Jan 3, 2021)

My first EOS was the EOS 650. Then came the EOS 7 with its excellent eye control AF. After that, I used EOS 10D, EOS 20D and EOS 50D. After the 50D, I got the the EOS-M, which was excellent, the EOS M6, which was laggy and therefore awful and the EOS M6 Mark 2, which is excellent again.

I own some not-so-great (by today's standards) EF lenses and many EF-M lenses. Here is the list of lenses which have EF-M mounts:

Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
Viltrox 7,5mm f/2.8
Samyang 8mm f/2.8
Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN | C
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM
Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM
Kamlan 50mm f/1.1
Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 Mark 2

I mostly use the following lenses:

Samyang 8mm f/2.8
Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN | C
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM
Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM
Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 Mark 2

If Canon decided to end the M-Line, all these lenses would be rendered useless in a long term. That doesn't seem acceptable to me, at least from the environmental perspective.

Those M-lenses are really good by standards of my old EF lenses and are sufficient for my needs. I might sell the ones I use less, but so far I haven't had the time or motivation to do that. Selling the whole system is even less interesting to me: Selling things one by one is an annoying process and selling the whole lot of stuff at once usually means losing more money than when selling one by one. So I I don't like both variants. Which is kind of stupid, of course, but that doesn't hurt either.

I would like to continue using my EF-M lens collection for as long as possible because with the original EOS-M or EOS-M6 MK2 (instead of the awful M6), they give me joy of photography. I'm not interested enough by the current innovations of the R system. Selling everything and starting a new camera and lens collection is not my focus right now. It just costs too much time and effort and many items are not even readily available to buy. On the other hand, there are not so many lenses that I need to change, and a new, more capable body is never a bad idea. Nevertheless, I just don't want to give up my tried and true leneses and a system I love to use. It's more of a feeling, of course.

Note: My current focus is photography, not videography, although I consider videography a very nice addon. I've done much of my YouTube work using iPhones or a Panasonic Camcorder, which have been way more reliable and suitable for fast and continuous video work than any Canon I've seen, except the C-Series.

The compactness of the camera is a very nice touch of the M-System, but it's not extremely important for me. I like to use my M6 MK2 with a Smallrig wood handle arca swiss bracket on, after all. The small size of the lenses on the other hand, is a very good and important feature. I like to use prime lenses and being able to comfortably carry many relatively bright primes with me is a thing I'm now used to. This would not be possible with a full frame system with it's way larger fast primes.

So would I ever buy an RF body? And if so, will it be APS-C or FF?

If Canon offered a "speed booster" converter from EF-M to RF, I would consider buying two RF bodys in the future. One small APS-C body and one full frame top spec body with some fancy, expensive lenses. The prerequisite of a speed booster offering from Canon (for the APS-C RF body at least, better for all RF bodies) is important, not because I consitder it very useful for delivering top notch results (it is not), but because I would feel respected by Canon in my (perhaps not very practical) choice of not selling my lenses. Otherwise, I'm just not interested enough to invest in a new system. I would also buy new M bodies if Canon offered something new, like IBIS.

I just don't like throwing everything out and starting over. A slow transition seems fine. In the end, I kind of (mostly?) switched from EF to M. Maybe because I could continue to use my familiar lenses with the new camera?


----------



## Jethro (Jan 3, 2021)

gektor said:


> A slow transition seems fine.


This seems much more likely. If there actually will be an RF APS-C body in 2021, then the likelihood is that there won't be any _new_ M series bodies anytime soon (unless there is one or more at a late stage of current development - but I'm not sure new models are really due anyway?) - ie the development work will have shifted into the RF line. That doesn't mean they'll stop making the current M series bodies, for all the profit-related reasons that are being pointed out. 

So your lenses have a long life ahead of them!


----------



## Traveler (Jan 3, 2021)

Interesting... I wonder if the R&D on the M line is any significant. They don't develop any new lenses (since there are just three or four zooms and a couple of primes) and the M cameras use technologies from other cameras. So it's just pretty much the body design.

I still think it would be smarter to design cheap FF R bodies and cheap FF RF lenses than developing APSC R system.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I like the small size of the M series. Of course having said that I buy an M6II and mount this on it:


I kept talking myself out of an M series camera because I have an Osmo Action and Osmo Pocket as my pocket cameras but now I am waiting for a good deal on M6 Mark II.
Osmo Pocket is kind of fragile and Osm Action is not really something that I would keep in my pants pocket.
With my luck once I buy it Canon will make a better M7 model with IBIS and 4K 60 FPS


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 3, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> There's a bit if a difference between "pretty much over" and "no point really" and "Using an APS-C body with an L lens was much more regular/reasonable 10y ago than now and especially in the future". And I agree to a certain extent.


I don't understand that statement from either Czardoom or riker about using an APS-C body with an L lens being less "reasonable" now than in the past. Could one or both of you please explain what it means?

Here's my take: For small, distant subjects (wildlife, BIF, airplanes, sports), I want to get as many pixels as possible under the subject. The math seems pretty clear to me: To get the same 20MP (as I get with the 7D Mark II) in the central 1.6 crop area of a FF sensor requires 20MP x (1.6)^2 = 51.2 MP. The R5, with 45 MP, is almost there but not quite. Even assuming the R5 cropped was acceptable (17.6MP), why should I pay 2x the cost of a 7D Mark II just so I could throw out 60% of the pixels?

Should I also buy a good 1.4x TC, resulting in even more cost above the 2x I'm already paying for the body, in order to recover those extra pixels?

I'm just trying to understand the statement "Using an APS-C body with an L lens was much more regular/reasonable 10y ago than now and especially in the future".


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2021)

Dragon said:


> True. OTOH, just who makes a competitor to the 7D II that has the desired properties (i.e. cheap, fast, and rugged) and the desired available lenses. Nobody in mirrorless land that I can think of. Canon will give them fast and rugged, but cheap may be off the table. An R5, with slightly lower pixel density but a more sophisticated AA filter, will give just as good resolution as the 7D II and do everything else better. It just isn't $1800. The R5s will have way more pixels on the bird and probably still be as fast as a 7D II, but it won't be $1800 either . As the old service sign says "We offer Cheap, Fast, and Good - Pick two).


My favorite thing about mirrorless is the ability to adapt legacy lenses and pretty much all of them can adapt EF.
I use a G9 for that purpose.
After using the R5 I wish Canon would make an MFT camera.
APS-C does not have the reach.
I wish Canon would make a 1-inch EF-M mount camera with IBIS.
I think the 1-inch ILC from Nikon and Samsung failed because they tried to introduce new mounts.


----------



## riker (Jan 3, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> But I still think there is enough of a market for crop camera / FF lenses for crop R bodies to be successful with birders and wildlife shooters, even in you - and others - have gone FF. The R5 is only 17 MP in crop mode - the R6 less than 8 MP. If Canon can put their 32 MP crop sensor in a new crop body meant for birders and wildlife, that - it seems to me - will still be a considerable advantage - especially if they can keep the cost at the R6 level. So having more reach and less cost may still be a workable formula for success, which is my general argument.



Yeah...kinda...but....you don't need that crop all the time. Wildlife photographers and birders also shoot landscape and whatever, plus even shooting birds zoom lenses are often used (70-200, 100-400, 300-800, etc.) for a reason. In many cases your lens gives you enough reach and you could end up with a 45MP image. In other cases you only need to crop a bit, 5-10-20% of the image which still results a 32+MP image. Not mentioning, even a 17MP image is faaaar enough in most cases, not just for web/social media but even for an exhibition/gallery.
My take is your demand is a very thin market. Will see this year what Canon thinks. Imho there's a reason we have seen 4 FF bodies but still no APS-C even though 7D2 was released in 2014. My guess is the upcoming APS-C body will be an entry-level cheap one, especially if M is over. If it was up to me, I would just stop producing APS-C all together. 
(Btw if they ever make a 33MP/15-20FPS body, it's not going to be as cheap as you wish.)
(Btw2 I don't see Sony making APS-C bodies above their compact lines, in fact they go in the direction that I'm envisioning - they have just released an FF compact body. I do wish Canon takes the same path!)


----------



## stevelee (Jan 3, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> In 2022 2021 will be the last year and 2023 will be the next year.


And now 2020 is hindsight.


----------



## TravelerNick (Jan 3, 2021)

There are already two crop sensor RF cameras. The C70 from Canon the Komodo from Red. Okay both video only but they exist. So does the Canon speedbooster. 

It makes some sense for Canon to release something under the R5 for people to pair up with the C70. Maybe a couple of high end wide lenses.

People have already pointed out the low end market is gone. When Apple released the Iphone the big three phone companies? Nokia,Motorola and Ericsson. Do you think they are better off supporting flip phone users?

For those hammering on about the "profit" from M sales. How many people here are waiting for backordered cameras,lenses etc? Canon obviously has production limits. Does it really make more sense to use limited resources for M instead of shipping more R5 and all the other back order items?

For people thinking Fuji etc are doing better. Two of Fuji's more interesting lenses (The MK line 50-135mm and MK18-55mm T2.9 ) are E mount and via a third party mount change RF. Fuji doesn't even think their own cameras are worth the MK lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 3, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> For those hammering on about the "profit" from M sales. How many people here are waiting for backordered cameras,lenses etc? Canon obviously has production limits. Does it really make more sense to use limited resources for M instead of shipping more R5 and all the other back order items?



That's not a rhetorical question. My guess is customers who want an R5 are far more likely to wait for one than EOS-M's target audience.

People who are interested in an R5 are far more likely to have EF lenses [and more likely expensive ones], so their choices are waiting or the expensive proposition of switching brands. So long term, Canon is better off making EOS-M now, letting RF customers wait.


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 3, 2021)

I don't really understand, what is all the fuss about. Anyone not predicting APS-C R would come, should just answer one simple question - what would you offer to the 7DII crowd, which needs both the reach and a sub 2K camera? Crop mode on the FF might be a solution, but I can't imagine Canon ever producing an M7 camera, big, with 7DII ergonomics. 

That would be just completly insane - would contradict M's purpose of being small and compact, but first and foremost - there is zero, nilch, nada transition between the M and R lines, period. And that is precisely where I am upset at Canon. If you think that M can live isolated, so be it. Then it's just a bit better Powershot and that's it. EF is a dead end in the long run too. Why would anyone buy a dead-end format 2K camera? 

Anyone claiming that a transition path is an overrated argument, is wrong imo. Why I could not buy an FF lens? While we used Tamron 17-50/2.8 for our APS-C DSLRs, for the tele we went with the L line 70-200/2.8 IS II. Should we use 18-150mm on the M instead? So, for the future, unified lens mount is a good thing imo and I believe Canon can make APS-C R small enough, to still be small and attractive. I also don't believe, that APS-C R lens are not coming.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 3, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> I don't really understand, what is all the fuss about. ... <snipped for brevity>



Wish there was a two hands like icon.


----------



## degos (Jan 3, 2021)

riker said:


> In many cases your lens gives you enough reach and you could end up with a 45MP image. In other cases you only need to crop a bit, 5-10-20% of the image which still results a 32+MP image.



For birds and airshows, a lens NEVER gives enough reach if you're trying to be creative. Even 1200mm often falls short.


----------



## espressino (Jan 3, 2021)

Full-frame crowd: „full-frame sensors have a 2.3 times larger surface than APS-C sensors. That’s such a huge difference, accounting for why APS-C images are always shitty. APS-C is dead. There’s only full-frame or mobile phones now. Mobile phones are awesome. Their image quality these days rivals full frame.” Incidentally, an APS-C sensor is still 13 times larger than a mobile phone sensor. A USD 900 phone from 2017 is deemed obsolete today. A USD 900 camera is still fine. Ever heard of a good compromise (in terms of price, size, weight) that works for some (not all)?
Incidentally, medium format sensors are 2.5 times larger than full-frame. Full-frame is dead. It’s a contracting market. Just use your medium format lenses on your precious EOS R and stuff it.


----------



## photonius (Jan 3, 2021)

Joules said:


> Sure. But how do you replace the very budget oriented kits like the 1000D and M100 + EF-S 10-18 mm IS STM / 55-250 mm IS STM without producing APS-C specific lenses?
> 
> What about the ultra tiny ones like the M200? That body is practically as tall as the EF-M lens mount. With an RF mount and lens, that design simply doesn't seem feasible.
> 
> So the role of APS-C seems to either shift to reach and speed optimized bodies like the 7 series, or price regions that you can't reach with a FF sensor (sub 500?). Without dedicated lenses, there is only a little cost savings in the body and 0 size and weight savings, unless we are specifically talking reach limited setups. To me that justifies saying that the role of APS-C in the future is different from what it was in the past.


Indeed, how to make a small camera with the RF mount. Actually, the M200 is small because of the missing viewfinder on top. The height is 67mm according to specs. The RF indexer (edit: = inner) diameter is the same as the EF mount. The outer diameter on EF cameras is 65mm. So, it should be possible to make a similar small body with an APS-C sensor with an RF mount, perhaps just a few mm higher. As to the lenses, the very same lenses could be modified to fit on such an RF body. If Canon will do it is another question.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 3, 2021)

photonius said:


> Indeed, how to make a small camera with the RF mount. Actually, the M200 is small because of the missing viewfinder on top. The height is 67mm according to specs. The RF indexer diameter is the same as the EF mount. The outer diameter on EF cameras is 65mm. So, it should be possible to make a similar small body with an APS-C sensor with an RF mount, perhaps just a few mm higher. As to the lenses, the very same lenses could be modified to fit on such an RF body. If Canon will do it is another question.


It would have to be thicker as well.
If Canon can make a smaller RF mount APS-C camera then they can make a full-frame camera the exact same size since the sensor is smaller than the mount.


----------



## photonius (Jan 3, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It would have to be thicker as well.
> If Canon can make a smaller RF mount APS-C camera then they can make a full-frame camera the exact same size since the sensor is smaller than the mount.


Yes, the mount distance is 2mm thicker, so it would also be a bit thicker. Yes, a FF sensor could be packed in there as well. However, if one wants a cheap entry level camera, it would have to be APS-C (still cheaper than FF), with the kit lenses. And such a body would have fewer buttons and features (which take space on the body), something that people who go for a FF sensor would probably not be happy with.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> My favorite thing about mirrorless is the ability to adapt legacy lenses and pretty much all of them can adapt EF.
> I use a G9 for that purpose.
> After using the R5 I wish Canon would make an MFT camera.
> APS-C does not have the reach.
> ...


The M6 II has the same reach as your G9 and so will the R5s.


----------



## Woody (Jan 4, 2021)

gektor said:


> I would like to continue using my EF-M lens collection for as long as possible because with the original EOS-M or EOS-M6 MK2 (instead of the awful M6), they give me joy of photography. I'm not interested enough by the current innovations of the R system. Selling everything and starting a new camera and lens collection is not my focus right now. It just costs too much time and effort and many items are not even readily available to buy.



I totally agree with you about the appeal of the EOS-M series: performance, size and weight are superb.

My collection of lenses is as follows:

01 Rokinon EF-M 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II MF 290g Excellent for travel
02 Laowa EF-M 9mm f/2.8 MF 215g Excellent for travel 
03 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM 105g Excellent for travel
04 Viltrox EF-M 23mm f/1.4 STM 260g
05 Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM 235g Excellent for travel
06 Viltrox EF-M 56mm f/1.4 STM 290g Excellent for travel
07 Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro 190g Excellent for travel
08 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro 625g
09 Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM 240g Excellent for travel
10 Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 130g Excellent for travel
11 Tamron EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 AF 430g
12 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 215g
13 Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 300g
14 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 375g Excellent for travel

With the new RF mount, It will take quite a bit of time and money to replicate the above. Should Canon choose to end the EOS-M line officially (not through some lousy rumors), I will get a M6 Mark II or M50 Mark II and stay with the M system for many more years.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> In your opinion, is this a temporary state of affairs, or permanent?
> 
> The body situation may be temporary, but only Nikon and to some degree Sony have the desired glass and that won't change any time soon.
> 
> ...


The R5s will have similar reach to the 90D. The Nikon Z50 doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, so hard to tell if they will spend any more development money on APS-c, but the odds are against it. Always keep in mind that the market is still shrinking.


----------



## PerKr (Jan 4, 2021)

Well, there will be no RF-S lenses in the sense that there will be no RF lenses that can only be mounted on APS-C bodies. That was the whole thing with EF-S; making sure they could not be mounted on a body where the flapping mirror would be obstructed. With the RF mount there is no mirror to obstruct and the distance from the mount to the shutter is (relatively) constant. That is not the same as saying there will never be RF lenses that will only produce an APS-C image circle. There will be, if it makes sense, just as there will be slower lenses if it makes sense.

Of course EF-M is a mount destined to be discontinued. Maintaining two incompatible but overlapping mounts aimed at very similar customers is not an option, especially not in a shrinking market. This is why EF-mount will die. This is why F-mount will die. This is why A-mount will die. Fuji have two mounts but they're distinctly different with no overlap.

A low-end RF-mount APS-C camera will come with a suitably low-cost kit lens. Other than that, there never seems to have been a lot of demand for APS-C specific lenses from canon customers. There is a reason Sony haven't paid that much attention to APS-C either. And most photographers clearly didn't care about their systems being compact anyway as they preferred Sony's A7-series (with bodies being somewhat smaller than most DSLRs but lenses being larger than their DSLR counterparts) over the µ4/3 alternatives. Those who actually want a compact system seem to be in a minority vs those who want the very best image quality.


----------



## dolina (Jan 4, 2021)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition


As of this posting #23 Best Sellers in DSLR Cameras on Amazon is the Canon EOS M200

These are the price points that APS-C R bodies must match that M Series bodies already occupies.

$599 of the Rebel SL3 aka 250D aka 200D II lines up with the *M50 Mark II*
$749 of the Rebel T8i aka 850D
$1199 of the 90D
$849 *M6 Mark II* slots in between the T8i and 90D.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 4, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The R5s will have similar reach to the 90D. The Nikon Z50 doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, so hard to tell if they will spend any more development money on APS-c, but the odds are against it. Always keep in mind that the market is still shrinking.



Last I've heard, the R5s was a rumor.


----------



## KristinnKr (Jan 4, 2021)

I absolutely disagree that EF-M is 'destined to die'. Saying there is necessarily large overlap between the consumer base of EF-M and RF is ludicrous once you take into account the difference in cost between the two systems. The newest EF-M cameras cost 600 and 850 dollars. The newest RF cameras cost 2500 and 3900 dollars! Where talking a roughly 4x difference, that's just two different worlds! The difference in lens costs are a bit smaller, but still at least 2x.

Sure, there is a huge performance difference between the two systems, the difference in cost is not without motivation, but that's the whole point. They are two parallel product systems, catering to two different groups with different needs and spending ability. Some customers might even own both, as the cheaper EF-M system is also much more compact (which an APS-C RF camera wouldn't match without a corresponding selection of APS-C RF lenses). Discontinuing EF-M is a pointless exercise which would not increase sales of RF products, only leave Canon with less sales and consumers that desire a small and cheap ILC system with less choice.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 4, 2021)

KristinnKr said:


> I absolutely disagree that EF-M is 'destined to die'. Saying there is necessarily large overlap between the consumer base of EF-M and RF is ludicrous once you take into account the difference in cost between the two systems. The newest EF-M cameras cost 600 and 850 dollars. The newest RF cameras cost 2500 and 3900 dollars!



Did you look at the EF line the same way, saying all the cameras in it target one audience right after a four digits model was announced, then a different audience after a 1DX was announced?



KristinnKr said:


> They are two parallel product systems, catering to two different groups with different needs and spending ability.



You can say the same thing about EOS 3 & 4 digits models vs. single digit models.



KristinnKr said:


> Discontinuing EF-M is a pointless exercise which would not increase sales of RF products, only leave Canon with less sales and consumers that desire a small and cheap ILC system with less choice.



No, I don't think EOS-M customers would buy more expensive RF equipment. I think that, if true, this would have other things in mind, e.g. sharing parts and software, and putting the 7D replacement in a more convenient position. The transition would also take time.


----------



## vxcalais (Jan 4, 2021)

What an excellent way to surrender the market to smartphones. They are pricing out a whole market with R lens prices. This is why I love shooting film, you have all the bodies that will ever be made. And lucky I kept my Sony stuff. I will enjoy the M6ii as my first and last Canon.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 4, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The M6 II has the same reach as your G9


True. 20MP MFT = 31.25MP APS-C.



Dragon said:


> and so will the R5s.



That same pixel density will require an 80MP FF sensor.

Maybe the R5s will have that. But if it’s anything like the 5Ds when it came out, high resolution will be its only advantage. Everything else about it will be at least a generation behind. And it will cost $6000.

Is that really the best upgrade path you can think of for 90D and EOS-M users?


----------



## derekbez (Jan 4, 2021)

"...only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens." 

Not sure about that. I would quite like an APS-C sized 600mm lens - smaller and lighter big tele / zoom.

Imagine, for example, the Sigma 150-600, but physically scaled down so it only works with APS-C, making it smaller and lighter. That would be really nice for travelling - or long hikes - where big "pro" gear isn't necessary.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 4, 2021)

derekbez said:


> "...only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens."
> 
> Not sure about that. I would quite like an APS-C sized 600mm lens - smaller and lighter big tele / zoom.
> 
> Imagine, for example, the Sigma 150-600, but physically scaled down so it only works with APS-C, making it smaller and lighter. That would be really nice for travelling - or long hikes - where big "pro" gear isn't necessary.


The size and weight of long telephoto lenses is dominated by the size and weight of their front elements. A 150-600 f/5-6.3 APS-C lens would have the same front element as that range for FF. Or were you referring to a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens?


----------



## ctk (Jan 4, 2021)

scottw said:


> How successful has the Nikon Z50 been, especially since the Z5 came out? After trying the Z50 out it seemed like a nice camera but awkwardly placed on that mount with no ibis and only two kit lenses meant for it (plus a slow all-in-one lens planned).
> 
> Nikon and Canon always seemed to be in lock-step for better or worse so I wouldn't be shocked if Canon ends up copying Nikon's Z50 move. If they drop EF-M then I'd wonder if it's more pride than anything else with how popular it has been lately counter to the amount of effort they've put into the system. Kinda reminds me of Sega's gaming console business where the main company undermined the success of the American branch, lol.
> 
> ...


Based on 16-50 lens serial numbers Nikon has sold about 80-90K Z50s over the last... 2 years? Compared to the millions of crop bodies they sold during the good times... it's not encouraging.

And I don't think EF-S was as well supported as EF-M, especially when you factor 3rd party glass into the equation. Initially when there was no consumer FF body Canikon kind of prioritized APS-C, but once the 5D/D700 came out crop was instantly relegated to support status. The decades of momentum behind FF was just too much for crop to overcome, and consumers spoke with their wallets.


----------



## gektor (Jan 4, 2021)

ctk said:


> especially when you factor 3rd party glass into the equation


Oh yes! The lack of Canon EF-M lenses is being very well compensated by third parties. There are plenty of very fun and interesting (and sometimes really high quality, like Kamlan 50mm MK2) MF lenses from various Chinese manufacturers, as well as high quality AF lenses from Sigma.

APC-S market has a lot of very interesting products, which are fun to play with. Lenses and cameras are cheap enough to buy them just out of experimenting fun. Of course, as a professional, I would need 100% reliable Canon stuff. But my pro-years are over and now I'm at the fun side of photography. 

APC-C is just a livelier place to be, in my Opinion.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> No, I don't think EOS-M customers would buy more expensive RF equipment. I think that, if true, this would have other things in mind, e.g. sharing parts and software, and putting the 7D replacement in a more convenient position. The transition would also take time.


They already share a bunch of parts.
The only things they do not share are the mounts and the lenses for those mounts.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> True. 20MP MFT = 31.25MP APS-C.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would very much like to see an M5 II. I was simply responding to a comment that M 4/3 had more reach than APS-c. In the case of the M6 II and the 90D, it does not, and if the R5s is really 90 MP as rumored, then it too will outreach M 4/3. I am one who does not see the need for an APS-c R body in a shrinking market. The Birders may have to step up and buy a high pixel density FF. If the R5s has AF tracking like the R5, they will even have an incentive.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Last I've heard, the R5s was a rumor.


True, but probably the solidest rumor on the table.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 4, 2021)

derekbez said:


> "...only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens."
> 
> Not sure about that.


I agree. 
I use a speed booster for wide-angle lenses.
Buying a crop sensor wide-angle lens does not make much sense to me.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 4, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I would very much like to see an M5 II. I was simply responding to a comment that M 4/3 had more reach than APS-c. In the case of the M6 II and the 90D, it does not, and if the R5s is really 90 MP as rumored, then it too will outreach M 4/3. I am one who does not see the need for an APS-c R body in a shrinking market. The Birders may have to step up and buy a high pixel density FF. If the R5s has AF tracking like the R5, they will even have an incentive.


M6 Mark II did not exist when G9 came out.
R5s still does not exist and will likely be in another price bracket.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

PerKr said:


> Well, there will be no RF-S lenses in the sense that there will be no RF lenses that can only be mounted on APS-C bodies. That was the whole thing with EF-S; making sure they could not be mounted on a body where the flapping mirror would be obstructed. With the RF mount there is no mirror to obstruct and the distance from the mount to the shutter is (relatively) constant. That is not the same as saying there will never be RF lenses that will only produce an APS-C image circle. There will be, if it makes sense, just as there will be slower lenses if it makes sense.
> 
> Of course EF-M is a mount destined to be discontinued. Maintaining two incompatible but overlapping mounts aimed at very similar customers is not an option, especially not in a shrinking market. This is why EF-mount will die. This is why F-mount will die. This is why A-mount will die. Fuji have two mounts but they're distinctly different with no overlap.
> 
> A low-end RF-mount APS-C camera will come with a suitably low-cost kit lens. Other than that, there never seems to have been a lot of demand for APS-C specific lenses from canon customers. There is a reason Sony haven't paid that much attention to APS-C either. And most photographers clearly didn't care about their systems being compact anyway as they preferred Sony's A7-series (with bodies being somewhat smaller than most DSLRs but lenses being larger than their DSLR counterparts) over the µ4/3 alternatives. Those who actually want a compact system seem to be in a minority vs those who want the very best image quality.


If you base your assumptions on reading forums, I would agree with you base your assumptions on actual camera sales, I would disagree. The EOS M family is arguably the smallest high quality camera line available (generally smaller than even M 4/3 which didn't take advantage of the opportunity) and it is one of the best selling mirrorless camera lines in the world.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> M6 Mark II did not exist when G9 came out.
> R5s still does not exist and will likely be in another price bracket.


No argument. Just pointing out that reach is a function of pixel density, not sensor size.


----------



## Nigel95 (Jan 4, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I agree.
> I use a speed booster for wide-angle lenses.
> Buying a crop sensor wide-angle lens does not make much sense to me.


Canon 10-18 $300
Canon 16-35 F4 $1100 

If on a budget Aps-C lenses do make a lot of sense to me personally..


----------



## SteveC (Jan 4, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I agree.
> I use a speed booster for wide-angle lenses.
> Buying a crop sensor wide-angle lens does not make much sense to me.



Well, not everyone has a medium format camera. So they have to take some skinnier field of view and do something with it.


----------



## neonlight (Jan 5, 2021)

"Buying a crop sensor wide-angle lens does not make much sense to me. "
That makes no sense to me. As a crop user the 10-22 gives me a fantastic wide field. For landscapes- you can get a whole rainbow plus secondary in the frame. 
But if you have a ff body the equivalent is 16-35 or something. Unless, of course, you are able to afford all the EF stuff like 11-22.
As regards the demise of M, it would not surprise me at all that Canon would want ALL of its bodies to have the 12-pin connections of RF going forward. I would fully expect an RFM equivalent. 
And possibly an R7 which might be the 7D3 I was hoping for.


----------



## riker (Jan 5, 2021)

Woody said:


> With the new RF mount, It will take quite a bit of time and money to replicate the above. Should Canon choose to end the EOS-M line officially (not through some lousy rumors), I will get a M6 Mark II or M50 Mark II and stay with the M system for many more years.



It's not about the time and money, but the size and weight. You cannot replicate your setup with RF. On the other hand, M is nowhere near the quality of RF especially in the tele domain. Think of an R5+100-500 for example.


----------



## grantmasterflash (Jan 5, 2021)

Joules said:


> Pretty wild. It is understandable that on the lens side, there's very little room left to fill out the line up with the constant outer diameter restriction. But that hasn't hurt the sales in the past. Is it actually so expensive to sustain a few APS-C bodies to go along with it?
> 
> If so, this sounds like the end of APS-C as we know it. At least in Canon land.



The EF-M mount is 1 mm larger than Sony's E mount and they use it on their full frame cameras. I don't think the outer diameter is a restriction.


----------



## snegri45 (Jan 5, 2021)

Some clarifications and amplifications due to responses to my post.
- First, it is important to realize that we are reacting to a RUMOR. And that what we are posting is a mix of speculations, current facts, preferences, and fears.
- I think we can agree that companies in the photo industry are in it to make money. (Victor Hasselblad may have been an exception, he just wanted a better camera for his bird photography. If he could sell some cameras it would help defray the costs).
- "Forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future!" A company entering a new market or a new segment will look at existing data, evaluate costs and pricing options. They will then estimate sales levels at various price points. Based on their analysis Sigma decided to enter the market segment of APS-C mirrorless primes, believing they could make money there with their f/1.4 Contemporary trio due to high quality and very competitive pricing. The fact that they have not abandoned this market segment indicated to me that they consider it profitable.
- The only camera company I know that employs scarcity marketing is Leica Camera.
- A backorder situation arises when your sales exceed your forecast. Your ability to ameliorate the situation may indeed depend upon current capacity utilization. But in any manufacturing operation there is almost always a certain amount of slack. If you look at the car manufacturing process (admittedly a less than perfect simile) you can first go to shift overtime, then to weekend work, at which point it may become cost effective to expand to one more shift. Reading the tea leaves I deduce that Sigma significantly underestimated demand for the EF-M mount. If the M mount was selling faster than the other mounts the logical response would be to focus production on the Canon version, which might then lead to a backorder situation for the other versions. But backordered absolutely means higher than EXPECTED sales.

And, no, I don't know sales volume by mount. Nor do I know total sales. All these numbers are relatively closely held. But let us now, for sake of the discussion accept that that the Canon M system is likely the best selling MILC system out there. There are many indications that this is the case, and very few contraindications. Combine this with the fact that the Canon M only had two general purpose primes and it is likely that Sigma saw a significant underserved market segment. And, as above, they seem to have been even more right than they expected.

Re R vs. M sales levels and profitability. Again, no, I don't know, nor do I think many people outside the company do. Certainly unit profit contribution is unknown. B&H and Adorama can certainly tell us about unit breakdown in the markets they serve, but that breakdown is likely not representative of the total US market. It seems that available data show vastly higher M unit sales than R sales. That is the same as we saw with the DSLR market, many, many more Rebels (and X0Ds) than 6Ds, 5Ds, and 1Ds. Canon made tons of money off the Rebels (I should know, I bought eight of them!) and I am pretty sure that the M is not a Nonprofit part of the organization. The data we have are not "meaningless", they are incomplete and segmented, but we can still infer conclusions.

Sigma did indeed endorse the M system by manufacturing lenses for it. The fact that the marginal investment in up-tooling for the new mount was limited can certainly have made the decision easier and less risky.

I don't know a lot about Sony, I only have an RX-100 Mk. VI, so I likewise don't remember whether there were third party lenses manufactured for the NEX system. I do know, however, that while there are no more NEX cameras, the system seems to be going rather strong under the a6X00 name with B&H currently offering four models. It is my understanding that it is the second best selling MILC system.

The APS-C DSLR market is/has indeed collapsed. But it is a fallacy to conclude from that that the APS-C MILC market is also dying. The starting point should be that the DSLR market is dying, both FF and crop. The reason is that today the MILC cameras are superior to DSLRs (Thank you, Sony!). They are smaller, lighter, less complex, and have additional capabilities (face and eye focus). But judging from what data we do have, crop MILCs are doing very well indeed. But the smartphones keep trying to nibble away.

A comment to riker. I paired my EF-S 17-55/2.8 with a Sigma 50-150/2.8 II which was a rather decent crop alternative to the 70-200/2.8. That was a pretty good combination. When supplemented with the 10-22 I had a three zoom outfit with 15x range, with nearly 9x being f/2.8. And I have shot the moon with Rebels and 400/2.8 plus 2x extender and 500/4.5. You do what works even if it looks silly to the purists.

As said in my previous post, when a commercial shoot comes along (not often these days) I shoot with my 5D series. But for personal shooting my M5 and M6 II and EF-M mount lenses are much kinder to an old man's back. I have both non macro primes, also Sigma 16 and 56 1.4 primes and a Viltrox 23/1.4. Then what another poster called fun lenses, Laowa 9/2.8, Rokinon 12/2.0, Mitakon 35/0.95, and Kamlan 50/1.1 both I and II. As for quality, remember that the heralded 5D III has 22.3 Mp (yes, I know there is more to quality than just Mps). And there are seven years between the 5D III and the M6 II sensors. For those who dislike any APS-C sensor, feel free to do so. But don't knock the format if you haven't really tried it. I am exceedingly pleased with the image quality I get from my M system. And for the people who scream for a new 7 series camera, just accept the 90 D. I know it only takes one card and it isn't as solid as the 7. But it will give you a vast quality improvement.

All images are from the M5. The white cat with the Sigma 16/1.4, girl with hat Sigma 56/1.4, and girl w/o hat EF-M 32/1.4, all indeed shot at f/1.4!


----------



## snegri45 (Jan 5, 2021)

Sorry about the two cats!


----------



## snegri45 (Jan 5, 2021)

Oh, and while I am at it, a wish list.
- M5 II, of course.
- 9-10 mm f/2 or faster, AF.
- 85 mm, maybe f/1.7.
- 135mm, f/2.8.
- And a Vario Tessar alternative, 16-70mm f/4.

Sigma, are you listening?


----------



## stevelee (Jan 5, 2021)

neonlight said:


> "Buying a crop sensor wide-angle lens does not make much sense to me. "
> That makes no sense to me. As a crop user the 10-22 gives me a fantastic wide field. For landscapes- you can get a whole rainbow plus secondary in the frame.
> But if you have a ff body the equivalent is 16-35 or something. Unless, of course, you are able to afford all the EF stuff like 11-22.
> As regards the demise of M, it would not surprise me at all that Canon would want ALL of its bodies to have the 12-pin connections of RF going forward. I would fully expect an RFM equivalent.
> And possibly an R7 which might be the 7D3 I was hoping for.


I got excellent results with my 10-22mm lens on my Rebel. I made a little money with it shooting interiors for real estate. My clients were pleased with the results. After I got a FF camera, I still needed to use it and the Rebel until I got the excellent 16-35mm zoom.


----------



## Joules (Jan 5, 2021)

grantmasterflash said:


> The EF-M mount is 1 mm larger than Sony's E mount and they use it on their full frame cameras. I don't think the outer diameter is a restriction.


All Canon EF-M lenses have the same outer diameter. It has nothing to do with Sony or the size of the mount. It seems to be simply a nice gimmick to me, and I don't think they even advertise that all their lenses only differ slightly in length.

But as long as they don't make thicker lenses, certain designs are not feasible and therefore the EF-M lens line up looks pretty much complete to. Me.


----------



## TravelerNick (Jan 5, 2021)

snegri45 said:


> - "Forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future!" A company entering a new market or a new segment will look at existing data, evaluate costs and pricing options. They will then estimate sales levels at various price points. Based on their analysis Sigma decided to enter the market segment of APS-C mirrorless primes, believing they could make money there with their f/1.4 Contemporary trio due to high quality and very competitive pricing. The fact that they have not abandoned this market segment indicated to me that they consider it profitable.
> 
> - A backorder situation arises when your sales exceed your forecast. Your ability to ameliorate the situation may indeed depend upon current capacity utilization. But in any manufacturing operation there is almost always a certain amount of slack. If you look at the car manufacturing process (admittedly a less than perfect simile) you can first go to shift overtime, then to weekend work, at which point it may become cost effective to expand to one more shift. Reading the tea leaves I deduce that Sigma significantly underestimated demand for the EF-M mount. If the M mount was selling faster than the other mounts the logical response would be to focus production on the Canon version, which might then lead to a backorder situation for the other versions. But backordered absolutely means higher than EXPECTED sales.
> 
> ...



Third party companies like Sigma often enter niches that they think won't be served by OEMs. Sigma producing those lenses is hardly proof that it makes sense for Canon. The same away all the interesting lenses put out by companies like Lawoa don't prove there is a market for Canon.

If anything Sigma doing well is bad news. It shows how little interest Canon has. Good Sigma sales should have encouraged Canon to release OEM products. They didn't.

We may not have worldwide sales numbers but the Japanese retail numbers are published I think quarterly. What they tend to show is the number of units below FF is fairly high. But the revenue per unit is much lower. 

The last quarter numbers showed that in Japan FF is now over 25% of the total revenue. In spite of being only 10% of the volume. It's hard to believe the profit margin is the same . Even if it is that means you need to sell three sub FF cameras to equal one FF.

What those numbers also show is sub FF has shrunk. That's all the sub FF. Including MFT which is unlikely caused by people shifting from DSLRs. OTOH FF is holding up.

Before somebody claims those retail reports are only for Japan earlier in this thread it was claimed that Japan was a market that liked smaller cameras more than the rest of the world. If that's true the numbers for sub FF are likely worse in the rest of the world.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jan 5, 2021)

allkar said:


> It's not as easy as you want to show it.  The main advantage of the M series (for me) is portability.
> Small body with good advanced functions, small and good optics (mostly not very bright, but still very useful).
> For example, when I look at Fuji, I see
> XF16-55mm with *655g* and ø83.3mm x 106.0mm for about *$ 950*
> ...



Hi Alkar

I've had the bottom three lenses and you aren't comparing like with like. 

The Fuji XC lenses are on a par with the M-Glass size wise and give very good bang for buck. Stick XC glass on an X-T30 (As new used £569 from MPB. Better performance than M series, better build quality and 4K with no crop) and you have a light weight system that is better than the M50, particularly the sensor and processor, and M glass. I say that having used both set ups, though I didn't keep the 30 as I went for the new X-S10 instead.

If you want to stick with Canon then I agree the R system is the better bet. I don't think Canon are really committed to the Crop F any more. They made a rod for their own back when they introduced the 7D MkII as people want a mirrorless equivalent with CF. Hence the huge amounts of emotion and wind spent commenting on sites like this. I predict a lot of disappointed people for the foreseeable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Well, not everyone has a medium format camera. So they have to take some skinnier field of view and do something with it.


There is a speed booster from Pentax MF to RF


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 5, 2021)

Nigel95 said:


> Canon 10-18 $300
> Canon 16-35 F4 $1100
> 
> If on a budget Aps-C lenses do make a lot of sense to me personally..


You left out the price of the speed booster which only adds to the point you are making.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 5, 2021)

The Canon EOS M5 was my favorite camera to come out in years. I would hate to see Canon kill off the EOS M lineup.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 5, 2021)

Joules said:


> But as long as they don't make thicker lenses, certain designs are not feasible and therefore the EF-M lens line up looks pretty much complete to. Me.


It depends. 
Technology might improve enough for Canon to make better EF-M lenses but they are also expected to be cheap.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 5, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Third party companies like Sigma often enter niches that they think won't be served by OEMs. Sigma producing those lenses is hardly proof that it makes sense for Canon.


Canon sells far more lenses than they sell cameras.
If Sigma were to sell a lot of lenses then Canon would at least consider it.
On the other hand, more competition might discourage Canon from developing new lens models.


----------



## Nigel95 (Jan 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> You left out the price of the speed booster which only adds to the point you are making.


The point for me staying with Aps-C is cheaper overall setup. Especially because the FF lenses make the transition so expensive (to replace my current 3 lenses). If I had the 16-35 F4 I wouldn't use a speedbooster and just buy a R6. However as my main sharing platform is socal media and I'm a hobbyist the whole FF seems overkill.

Beside APS C being cheaper I don't need the FF benefits. It can actually backfire me I think. As I don't need smaller dof than my current aps c f1.8 and 2.8 glass. I shoot a lot of aquarium stuff where it can be annoying to add more light. I assume with full frame to compensate for the DOF that I usually have with Aps-C. I will lose more rather than gain. Sure FF has less noise in higher iso, but I still think APS C has an advantage if you can't add more light (with more DOF? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I really hope Canon is going to launch an aps c body with specs like the r6. Sooner the better I want to upgrade! Preferable with the RF mount as I have a lot more trust in that. Hopefully third party will also jump in to make aps c lenses in the future.


----------



## allanP (Jan 5, 2021)

Kane Clements said:


> Hi Alkar
> 
> I've had the bottom three lenses and you aren't comparing like with like.
> ...


Hi
yes, that is (almost) correct. I wrote something about my comparison a few posts later...
All the best in the new year!


----------



## ctk (Jan 5, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> If anything Sigma doing well is bad news. It shows how little interest Canon has. Good Sigma sales should have encouraged Canon to release OEM products. They didn't.


It doesn't work that way. Sigma has the ability to leverage a line across multiple mounts, so they have an inherent volume advantage over camera brands. Sigma can make one lens for Sony, Canon and M43 but each of those brands are restricted to their systems.

If anything this 1st party body + 3rd party lens relationship is the only way EF-M will continue to get lens development, which is fine by me. Sigma makes great glass.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 5, 2021)

Stichus III said:


> The Canon EOS M5 was my favorite camera to come out in years. I would hate to see Canon kill off the EOS M lineup.


So would I, but my M5 now feels too small. The RP is about the same weight but larger and feels better.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jan 5, 2021)

allkar said:


> Hi
> yes, that is (almost) correct. I wrote something about my comparison a few posts later...
> All the best in the new year!



Oops! Sorry I didn't get that far.

You have a Happy New Year too.


----------



## Ale_F (Jan 5, 2021)

M-no / M-yes?

Another different POV:
1) M-line remains in its... line of products or get in a lower-end replacing low level DSLR
2) Canon only introduce the so called R7 which is the 7D3 in RF mount. It's not an entry level camera, but targeted as 7Ds


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 5, 2021)

Surab said:


> How would that work withought an adapter? I hope they could make an adapter that moves the smaller lenses 2mm into the mount, but I honestly don't know if they can.


I believe this would require the use of an adapter with glass in it, to correct for the longer back focus distance. That, or it may be possible that some or most of the lenses have enough play in their back focus distance that they could still reach infinity focus with only 2mm difference between the mounts. Many AF lenses can go 'past' infinity focus to help the AF system hunt at greater distances. But either way some kind of adapter is necessary. 

-Brian


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jan 5, 2021)

Most people who are upset with this news, myself included, is because of the assertion that a small, light and relatively cost effective system is being abandoned. I find that anyone who claims the system is dead and or makes the statement that it's not that big a deal, very shortsighted and close-minded. Besides the sales figures, the sheer amount of lamenting at the possible end of the EF-M line on this thread and many others rumoring its demise is evidence that it's a popular system.

I try to give Canon the benefit of the doubt, maybe they can provide a 'new and improved' system to replace what it's current base of EF-M users use? But that's not to say I'm not skeptical.

The one glimmer of hope is in this portion of the rumor:



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”.



What does that mean? Well consider the void they would have to fill.

If I'm expecting a pure RF mount system to fill the void of an EF-M mount system:

It would need a smaller and lighter body. This I see no problem of them doing. The RP is pretty small and there's room for shrinking it even more. 
It would need to be more cost effective. The most expensive EF-M lens tops out at about $500. I see no issue with this either. Canon has already provided relatively cost effective primes on the RF mount and historically on the EF mount, so they likely can manage the cost. 
The one thing that seems glaring and the reason for the skepticism is the size and weight of the lenses. In particular, it's the diameter of the lens. An EF-M lens is fixed at a remarkable 2.4" diameter. Not a single EF lens, EF-S lens or RF lens can come close to this. They've optimized the lens design to fit right over that crop sensor. The skepticism comes from pure physics. By electing to create lenses that will cover this void of EF-M users on a full frame system that means Canon is either over-designing lenses that won't leverage the entire image circle of a lens on a crop sensor body, or they are under-designing lenses that won't leverage the full sensor on a FF body. 
So I am curious how Canon plans to satisfy this rather large user base. If they elect to just design focal lengths that will be a bit wider to deal with crop, but still make them cover a full frame sensor, that's extra glass, diameter, girth & mass that is wasted on a crop body. This is where I disagree with the strategy to abandon the EF-M line, because this means we are not getting a comparably smaller and lighter system. The compromise I can live with is if they design a crop lens that will work on a full frame body. Just have it so that once mounted it defaults to a crop mode on the body. If you want to shoot with bad vignette, then you are free to put in FF mode. I would actually be happy with that because it means that there would still be a super compact system going forward.

Now, I realize the benefits of a single united mount. It means we leverage the powerful new RF mount. The RF data pipeline is super fast enabling superior autofocus ability, it incorporates animal AF, and harmonious integration of lens and sensor stabilization. Control ring use. It means you can mount full frame RF lenses on it. Anyone who wants that reach and pixel density of a 7D can now do it on the RF system without breaking the bank. So I get why they might want to do this. However, as much as those are nice to have, I do not think it would be worth it to sacrifice the portability of the EF-M. I've experienced a future of a tiny crop body with full frame lenses. If you've used an M body and adapted EF lenses, you know what I'm talking about. It's not the same. That portability of EF-M lenses is gone. The lens body balance is out of whack. Every time I put an EF lens on my M50, I'm like, that's cool and all, but I quickly revert to putting EF-M lenses on it.

Will wait to see how Canon plans to address this, but if they choose the compromise to just make everything bigger to cater to the full frame bodies, I don't agree with it.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 5, 2021)

jvillain said:


> _Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”._
> 
> Same people that originally said there would never be an RF APS-C camera?
> 
> If they bring the APS-C bodies some third party will bring the lenses. If Canon see's they are leaving money on the table they will start creating lenses. As for me I already have the glass I just need the bodies so this is good news for me, but I do feel for those who bought into the M system as I went through the same thing when Canon first announced they were killing DSLR APS-C and APS-C owners could go pound sand because there would never be an APS-C RF mirrorless.



I'll be provocative and say that the 24-240mm lens was the first of these gap filling lenses. It doesn't quite fill a FF sensor at 24mm (look at all the lens correction it applies to cure the vignetting). It is small and light, remarkably so for such a zoom range. But it does work on a FF camera. 

There were a bunch of patents for lenses across all focal ranges that seemed the same - not quite a full frame image circle, but with smaller lengths and widths. Those will be your stable of APSc-like size and weight lenses, which still can be used on any RF FF camera.

This is separate from the conversation of M size lens replacements. If M is truly gone, we won't get close to that size again on the RF system - at least in terms of lenses. 

_Brian


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 5, 2021)

canonnews said:


> sorry, but it was more or less fact against the article, and not pointed at you.
> there's no "theorycrafting" here. The concept won't work and I even gave a very credible example of why.
> 
> Since I've also found most of the patent applications lately, i haven't seen any lens outside of the 17-70mm that would even suggest a dual use. And even then, the lenses are large, and thus, expensive. And certainly would be DOA against the competition who would have optimized APS-C lenses for their APS-C cameras. (the 17-70mm is nearly 6 inches long - how's that gong to do against a Nikon Z 16-55mm APS-C kit lens.. hmmm?)
> ...


I think it is working right now with the 24-240. That lens can't cover a FF sensor at 24mm, and relies on the capability in the new bodies to apply a lot of lens correction. Expand that concept to an 18-55 or whatever else you want - easily cover an APSc, still usable on FF, but smaller and lighter than a truly dedicated FF lens. It may not be as small or as cheap as a dedicated APSc line, but will 'fill the void' while keeping canon in a single mount. There were a bunch of patents that showed lenses that could fit this bill. We'll just have to see what comes. As to cost, Canon has gone up the price scale on everything and I think these lenses will be no exception.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 5, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> I think it is working right now with the 24-240. That lens can't cover a FF sensor at 24mm, and relies on the capability in the new bodies to apply a lot of lens correction. Expand that concept to an 18-55 or whatever else you want - easily cover an APSc, still usable on FF, but smaller and lighter than a truly dedicated FF lens. It may not be as small or as cheap as a dedicated APSc line, but will 'fill the void' while keeping canon in a single mount. There were a bunch of patents that showed lenses that could fit this bill. We'll just have to see what comes. As to cost, Canon has gone up the price scale on everything and I think these lenses will be no exception.


that would be 40mm at the wide end.

stretching like that isn't done because it's a combo lens it's meant to save costs and weight and that happens frequently on lenes such as ones in compact cameras, etc.

it would be a ludicrous "kit lens" there's no patent for a full frame lens that is the same size and weight of an APS-C lens.

The only lens I could myself dream up is similar to your comment, but it's never been created or invented, it would have to be around a 15-105mm, where if you put it on an ASP-C body you can zoom down to 15mm. If you put it on a full frame R body, you are blocked from zooming past 24mm. that hasn't been patented. Even then you end up having a kit lens about the size of the 24-105mm which is not small when it has to go head to head against a Sony A6000 and it's 16-50mm.

canon is competing with "REAL" APS-C ecosystems, so using full frame lenses is idiotic because they will be compared to one of the main elements to why people purchase APS-C cameras - size and weight and cost.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

Mark3794 said:


> The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition



Maybe this slice of the market is shrinking so fast that it's not viable at all to support it. IF so, the competition will soon follow Canon's lead.

That's assuming this rumor turns out to be a worldwide end to the M-series, not an end to selling the M-series in North America or N.A. plus Western Europe.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jan 5, 2021)

allkar said:


> Ok, I am not at home in the Fuji system, so for my comparison I used what my friends have for Fuji cameras. I am also not familiar with the distinction to XC series. I only see what my friends use and what I have for M System (I have 22 f/2, 32mm f/1.4, and others too). The picture results from my plastic fantastic are definitely comparable with those from Fuji with premium optics.
> Although, as I have already written before, I use M almost only for travel



Hi Allkar.

Just a follow up. Whilst the X-C kit zoom is unique (and on a par with the M equivalent) to the C range and pretty good for what it is, other C models like the 23 and 35 are just the same as X-F line but in lighter bodies, no aperture ring and plastic mounts. I used to have the 22 and 32 on M mount. Lovely lenses. no better than X Mount glass and I'd suggest those two punch well above their weight compared to EF-S and some EF glass. 

I'm not knocking the m range, I've achieved very good results with them. I'm not sure that they have much longevity if the end of the M series is near. My biggest beef with my old M50 was the poor low light performance. Something which Fuji does improve on. I know, I ran a load of test when I was swapping. 

Anyway for better or worse I've changed and I hope it all works out for Canon APS-C fans. I say that without any feelings of optimism.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Sure.
> Interchangeable mounts are common for cinema cameras.
> They are pretty much unheard of on mirrorless cameras.
> My guess is that is for ergonomic reasons.



The technical skill needed to successfully use interchangeable mounts would prohibit it form ever being viable for a consumer line.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2021)

allkar said:


> " Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders. "
> ... or will change the system, which some of my friends have done.
> They spent thousands on competitive hardware. Thousands that could land on Canon's account.



The M system has never been about users who spend "thousands" on cameras and lenses.


----------



## bf (Jan 5, 2021)

I don't like the idea! There is no way to achieve the M line form-factor with the RF mount! This will be giving up against Fuji APSC line.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 6, 2021)

bf said:


> I don't like the idea! There is no way to achieve the M line form-factor with the RF mount! This will be giving up against Fuji APSC line.


Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 6, 2021)

Rocky said:


> Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.



Now compare it to the M1, M2, M10, M100 and M200. That's the formfactor which started me on the M system. I feel that while my M6II is small, it isn't small enough. During summer I put the M1+22mm in a coat pocket when going out, the M6II is too bulky for that. Right now in winter that isn't an issue, I think the chest pocket in my parka could fit an R5+50mm STM


----------



## allanP (Jan 6, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The M system has never been about users who spend "thousands" on cameras and lenses.


It was not meant like that. But if you go to a different system, it becomes more expensive. This is exactly the money that the Canon "saves"


----------



## allanP (Jan 6, 2021)

Rocky said:


> Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.


The decisive factor is not the body, but the lenses, their size and weight


----------



## Rocky (Jan 6, 2021)

allkar said:


> The decisive factor is not the body, but the lenses, their size and weight


It is a well know fact that the RF lenses are MUCH bigger and a lot more expensive than the EF-M. No need to keep on mentioning it.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 6, 2021)

Rocky said:


> It is a well know fact that the RF lenses are MUCH bigger and a lot more expensive than the EF-M. No need to keep on mentioning it.



The RF50 f/1.8 is a step in the right direction, it's half the price of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and roughly the same size. Not so much with the RF35 and EF-M 22mm.


----------



## dilbert (Jan 6, 2021)

The RF series cannot replace the EF-M. The smaller mount for EF-M allows for a small form factor of the combined camera + lens combination that an APS-C RF camera cannot match (the lens mount is larger which forces the lens to be bigger.)

The EF-M is in a unique position. The combination of the camera and small lenses has no competition in the current marketplace. Neither Fuji nor Nikon can come close to the price point and friendliness of a EF-M camera plus 11-22 for a small street walk around camera for travel. Or when we used to be able to travel.

Yes, some EF-M users will migrate to RF, but even the smallest EF-S zoom lenses are bigger than their equivalent EF-M lenses.

It might be a win for Canon to reduce the complexity of its manufacturing but it is not a win for consumers.


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 6, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The RF50 f/1.8 is a step in the right direction, it's half the price of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and roughly the same size. Not so much with the RF35 and EF-M 22mm.



hmmm no. The RF 50/1.8 is just not in the same league optically. The RF is barely an upgrade over the EF 50 stm (see TDP review).
So you *can't* make an RF 1.4 lens, tack sharp wide open, as compact and for 500 bucks.
The whole point for the good EF-M lenses is bang for bucks, with compactness on top. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the market to the 11-22, the 22, the 32 and even the 23mm. Comparable lenses are bigger or more expensive or less sharp.
Take the sigma 30 1.4 for exemple : cheaper, yes, but bigger and and not as good optically.


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 6, 2021)

hachu21 said:


> The whole point for the good EF-M lenses is bang for bucks, with compactness on top. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the market


In the end, on a new low-volume market, makers are looking for high-marging segments. EF-M can't be high margin. Like EF-S before it. And that's surely why it see no much love from Canon.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 6, 2021)

ctk said:


> It doesn't work that way. Sigma has the ability to leverage a line across multiple mounts, so they have an inherent volume advantage over camera brands. Sigma can make one lens for Sony, Canon and M43 but each of those brands are restricted to their systems.
> 
> If anything this 1st party body + 3rd party lens relationship is the only way EF-M will continue to get lens development, which is fine by me. Sigma makes great glass.


This is a big reason that I think the L-mount alliance was bad for Panasonic.
I never really saw the point of partnering up with a lens manufacturer who is going to end up making the same lenses for every other mount.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 6, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Now compare it to the M1, M2, M10, M100 and M200. That's the formfactor which started me on the M system. I feel that while my M6II is small, it isn't small enough. During summer I put the M1+22mm in a coat pocket when going out, the M6II is too bulky for that. Right now in winter that isn't an issue, I think the chest pocket in my parka could fit an R5+50mm STM


I would really like Canon to combine M6II and M50 to make the perfect pocket camera.
No built-in EVF and a fully articulating screen would protect from scratches and dust.
Canon could do the same with M200 for a smaller version.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 6, 2021)

If they could somehow come up with a way to make existing M lenses compatible with a future RF crop body all of the M users would have an option to upgrade without losing there portable lenses and possibly changing brands. I know the M mount is 2mm less depth then RF but would it actually be impossible to make an adapter? I understand that this adapter would have to go 2mm inside the RF mount but maybe there is another way? Even if this adapter only maintained compatibility with RF crop sensor bodys that would be ok.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 6, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> If they could somehow come up with a way to make existing M lenses compatible with a future RF crop body all of the M users would have an option to upgrade without losing there portable lenses and possibly changing brands. I know the M mount is 2mm less depth then RF but would it actually be impossible to make an adapter? I understand that this adapter would have to go 2mm inside the RF mount but maybe there is another way? Even if this adapter only maintained compatibility with RF crop sensor bodys that would be ok.



The only way I'd see it happening is exchangable mounts. But I suspect that's too much work and too expensive for a low-budget camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 6, 2021)

Honesty, I doubt this news is true. It may be possible that the EOS M range will be discontinued in North America, but in the rest of the world they're just too popular for Canon to drop.

I think canon have the mix right now.

APS-C lenses -> EOS M mount for small cameras

FF lenses -> RF mount primarily for larger cameras. You can make smaller RF cameras but your lens sizes will still be bigger than EF-M lenses.

The RF APS-C camera is an oddity, it's not designed to appeal to the EOS M market at all, it's designed for a specific niche (but large niche) of users who want FF heavy lenses but the extra reach of a high pixel density APS-C sensor. In the future when high-density FF sensors become more affordable this niche will evaporate and the line will end.

Canon *could* abandon EF-M now and switch everything to RF, but I don't see what they have to gain. smaller EOS M bodies aren't suited for heavy/long RF lenses, so there's not going to be much need for interoperability. They COULD rework all their current EF-M lenses into RF mount and call them RF-M or whatever. This would give people APS-C lenses for the R series - but at the moment there's not really much demand for that.

Sony created a bunch of confusion in the market with the E and FE mounts being compatible and people buying E lenses for FE cameras and vice versa and being unhappy with the (cropped) results. I know three people who did just that. The current Canon system avoids that problem. Two separate systems with separate lens lines. 

It IS actually the best way to do it.


----------



## ctk (Jan 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> This is a big reason that I think the L-mount alliance was bad for Panasonic.
> I never really saw the point of partnering up with a lens manufacturer who is going to end up making the same lenses for every other mount.


Panasonic kind of had no choice. Outside of the GH series they don't have much to look forward to with M43. And if their FF system were on a solo mount it would be stillborn. I don't think it's all bad. The S5 looks pretty interesting.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jan 6, 2021)

We'll have to wait and see where this goes. As many have pointed out, crop sensor-friendly focal lengths that also cover a full-frame image circle are big and expensive. 18mm on Canon's 1.6 croc has to GO. All things considered, the 15-45mm was a really decent lens and covers a 24-70mm equivalent. We've already seen what an RF 15-35 f/2.8 looks like and costs...what is their plan here? What will the cost and size be?

The VAST majority of people I speak to that want a camera, want it for traveling or hiking. They love the M50/M6/M5 cameras for this reason - it's also why I love them too. I find it really puzzling that Canon would abandon what may be it's best selling cameras.

Why not engineer an optical adapter that would allow these lenses to mount and focus properly on the RF mount? I'm sure it can be achieved because optical adapters have existed that refocus for incorrect backspacing...but one built with Canon glass and engineering may marvelous. Or, they couldn't build one that was affordable.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 6, 2021)

dilbert said:


> It might be a win for Canon to reduce the complexity of its manufacturing but it is not a win for consumers.


If this is a "win" for Canon, that's only in a pyrrhic sense.

If there is truth to this rumor, I trust it's not part of a long-term plan by Canon to increase profits by screwing their customers (only internet and mobile service proiders seem able to continually profit that way).

The ILC market has been in a tailspin for the past 10 years. Economic uncertainty and supply chain issues due to COVID-19 have only accelerated that trend. Companies have had to throw out business plans in favor of just trying to stem the bleeding. I fear this rumor, if true, is a symptom of that.


----------



## John Wilde (Jan 6, 2021)

Canon isn't dumb enough to discontinue their best selling mirrorless camera, the M50. (It's the best seller both in the USA and Japan.) 

A high-end R7 with no RF-S lenses would have zero impact on M50 sales.


----------



## bf (Jan 6, 2021)

Rocky said:


> Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.


You are only looking at the body. That's only the tail. How about the lenses?


----------



## gektor (Jan 7, 2021)

In Germany, Canon M6 MK2 is sold out in many places, and the prices for EF-M Sigma lenses are rising. What is happening? Are people afraid that the system will somehow end and hoard everything ?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 7, 2021)

gektor said:


> In Germany, Canon M6 MK2 is sold out in many places, and the prices for EF-M Sigma lenses are rising. What is happening? Are people afraid that the system will somehow end and hoard everything ?


I think that's global and related to COVID-19. In the US too, a lot of photographic gear is out of stock. Many factories are working with reduced staff, some may have been completely closed for a time, and shipping has been impacted, especially across national borders. I don't know if we've even begun to see the effect from the Sony factory fire in December yet, either.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 7, 2021)

There is a lot of talk about "M" is not good enough for longer EF lens with adapter because it is unbalanced and hard to hold. My personal experience says otherwise. I have been using 28-135 EF with adapter on M, M2 and M50 on many trips that are over a month long each. I do not see any real problem in handling. the only problem is the weight in my camera bag.


----------



## Navyo Eller (Jan 7, 2021)

I also think that the M series is a quite perfect system for a lightweight system not only for travel, also for quite a lot of semi pro and even pro photography as long it is not for very big prints. I will not go back to heavy pro equipment which I left after the M50 came out, and yes, M6 Mark II an M50 combined are a superb combination, M50 for my EF tele zooms and M6 Mark II for the superb 11-22 , 22 and 32 wide lenses. 

Pro bodies are wasted if you shoot not professional to make money, they are superb, sure, no weather problem, no problem in extreme environments, but all "normal" hobbyist and lot's of semi pro do not need that guarantee that the camera can also fall into mud, from a camper roof because that would mean problems.

I am happy with the EOS-M lineup after many years of DSRL Canon pro bodies and semipro use.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 7, 2021)

Rocky said:


> There is a lot of talk about "M" is not good enough for longer EF lens with adapter because it is unbalanced and hard to hold. My personal experience says otherwise. I have been using 28-135 EF with adapter on M, M2 and M50 on many trips that are over a month long each. I do not see any real problem in handling. the only problem is the weight in my camera bag.



Try a bigger lens and heavier lens. The handling does degrade because the grip is so small and you can't generate as much torque. Think a 2x extender mounted behind a 3+lb 100-400 II or with any of the great whites. The M sensors are fine and if that's the only camera you have, then you use it. However, other bodies that have a deeper and longer grips and more direct controls. That makes it easier to use if you can take advantage of those characteristics. A lot of people add grips to make portrait shots easier, but I never have. I'd rather have a smaller package, and I don't mind rotating the rig. If I had to do it for a living, then I might think otherwise...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 7, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> If this is a "win" for Canon, that's only in a pyrrhic sense.
> 
> If there is truth to this rumor, I trust it's not part of a long-term plan by Canon to increase profits by screwing their customers (only internet and mobile service proiders seem able to continually profit that way).
> 
> The ILC market has been in a tailspin for the past 10 years. Economic uncertainty and supply chain issues due to COVID-19 have only accelerated that trend. Companies have had to throw out business plans in favor of just trying to stem the bleeding. I fear this rumor, if true, is a symptom of that.


Even as a cost-saving measure it does not make much sense unless it results in cheaper cameras.
If the main reason people buy M50 and T7 is the price of each then Canon might well do better with a cheaper RF mount APS-C camera.
That will not help if people are buying EF-M mount cameras for their smaller size.
It will also not help if people are buying EF-S mount cameras because they like DSLR cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 7, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I think that's global and related to COVID-19. In the US too, a lot of photographic gear is out of stock. Many factories are working with reduced staff, some may have been completely closed for a time, and shipping has been impacted, especially across national borders. I don't know if we've even begun to see the effect from the Sony factory fire in December yet, either.


Canon is reporting that camera sales dropped significantly in 2020.
That is not just for Canon cameras.
It includes everyone.
It seems like it is more supply related than demand related.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 7, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> In the future when high-density FF sensors become more affordable this niche will evaporate and the line will end.


I do not see such a future because they could probably still make APS-C cameras with even higher density.
Even if that were not the case they could still save money by making a smaller sensor at the same density and just providing the crop that that market segment actually wants to use.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 7, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Try a bigger lens and heavier lens. The handling does degrade because the grip is so small and you can't generate as much torque. Think a 2x extender mounted behind a 3+lb 100-400 II or with any of the great whites. The M sensors are fine and if that's the only camera you have, then you use it. However, other bodies that have a deeper and longer grips and more direct controls. That makes it easier to use if you can take advantage of those characteristics. A lot of people add grips to make portrait shots easier, but I never have. I'd rather have a smaller package, and I don't mind rotating the rig. If I had to do it for a living, then I might think otherwise...


I am not a fan of long telephoto. I do not do birding or air show. I also do not do it for a living.With the 28-135 on the M, It is cradled with my left hand. The right hand is just helping to balance it and do the adjustment and triggering


----------



## stevelee (Jan 7, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> Try a bigger lens and heavier lens. The handling does degrade because the grip is so small and you can't generate as much torque. Think a 2x extender mounted behind a 3+lb 100-400 II or with any of the great whites. The M sensors are fine and if that's the only camera you have, then you use it. However, other bodies that have a deeper and longer grips and more direct controls. That makes it easier to use if you can take advantage of those characteristics. A lot of people add grips to make portrait shots easier, but I never have. I'd rather have a smaller package, and I don't mind rotating the rig. If I had to do it for a living, then I might think otherwise...


Even with a FF camera, my left hand naturally supports a long lens, not the camera body, and a foot comes with them for tripod mounting.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 7, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Even with a FF camera, my left hand naturally supports a long lens, not the camera body, and a foot comes with them for tripod mounting.


I rarely use tripods with 70-200s/100-400s or even with something like a 300 f/2.8. I do mount a BR strap to the lens foot or L-plate on the camera body because I'm moving from one location to another plus it's less fatiguing to have it hanging from a shoulder strap than holding it all the time. It's that initial motion to bring the camera/lens combo up from the right side to the front for shooting that requires torque.

Current Ms are better than the original, which was tiny and had a minimal grip. I played with it using a 2x and a 100-400 to take a moon shot, but that was pretty much it for larger lenses. The Ms are not as responsive and the rebel interface is different from the 7D/FF interface that I'm used to. I only use the M5 when I can't bring a FF body or when weight/size is the overriding criterion. I use the native lenses for it most of the time; the only times I regularly used the adapter was when I was using it for video and using the FF for stills.


----------



## dolina (Jan 7, 2021)

The EOS M50 is the #1 selling mirrorless camera in the U.S. market.

Source: The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service, Mirrorless Detachable Lens Cameras, Based on camera family unit sales, Jan. 2020 - Aug. 2020 combined.

Which that fact cemented I doubt Canon would discontinue the line unless it costs more to produce than to sell.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 7, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The RF50 f/1.8 is a step in the right direction, it's half the price of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and roughly the same size. Not so much with the RF35 and EF-M 22mm.


it's not close to the same performance, and if you have to use full frame glass on an RF APS-C you need to compare it to a 32/35mm F1.4 and not the 50mm.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon is reporting that camera sales dropped significantly in 2020.
> That is not just for Canon cameras.
> It includes everyone.
> It seems like it is more supply related than demand related.


yeah .. something happened last year... it's on the tip of my tongue.. dammit.. can't remember what it was..


----------



## canonnews (Jan 7, 2021)

dolina said:


> The EOS M50 is the #1 selling mirrorless camera in the U.S. market.
> 
> Source: The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service, Mirrorless Detachable Lens Cameras, Based on camera family unit sales, Jan. 2020 - Aug. 2020 combined.
> 
> Which that fact cemented I doubt Canon would discontinue the line unless it costs more to produce than to sell.


the logic here is cray cray.

I wrote it up a bit on my site about my thoughts, but I have another article coming to what may be canon's long game here.


----------



## dolina (Jan 7, 2021)

canonnews said:


> the logic here is cray cray.
> 
> I wrote it up a bit on my site about my thoughts, but I have another article coming to what may be canon's long game here.


Rumor sites tend to cater to fanciful ideas.

I try to counterbalance it with some evidence to make things interesting


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 8, 2021)

I've pushed back in the past about the M series demise, but with the frequency of announcements, I've mulled it over for longer . Sorry if this duplicates what others have said earlier....

TL;DR - The M is a casualty of economics but this is a play for a larger market - their existing (non M) APS-C base (Rebel and 7D).

As we know, lenses take 2-3 years from design to release, and bodies are perhaps a little bit shorter but not much. I would guess that Canon's R strategy was created 4-5 years ago, and the M series allowed them to experiment on what would and would not work. I'm guessing 2+ years ago they decided that the M range would not be continued, and the M6 II was a last attempt to squeeze a bit more out of it whilst they tried the same with the 90D, and not an ongoing commitment to the M range. But in releasing it, they may have kept you away from competitors for a little longer unless you sell your M gear in annoyance. Similarly, the R and the RP were attempts to shore up people moving. Both these moves show that Canon is not always perhaps as decent as we might like to think, and in the shrinking market they cannot allow buyers to decide...

Despite its success in terms of sales volumes and its contribution to Canon's market share (which is clearly important), Canon knew what margin they were making and based on the number of resources required to achieve this. Looking at the market erosion, they deemed those resources should be concentrated on more lucrative developments at the "expense" of market share, leaving Fuji, Panasonic and Sony to determine the viability of the "M" segment of the market. And in hindsight, I think they concluded this a couple of years ago as per above. In time, Canon's decision will inevitably lead to a reduction in resource requirements when they achieve a level of market saturation with their new range. But it maintains profit and thus keeps the share-holders happy. What impact it has on market share in a shrinking market may not be as significant as we might hope (for them to change their minds).

There will be some economies of scale in terms of a single body range (for Canon), some benefits to end users of a harmonized set of accessories, but the single body range will not provide what the M did in terms of price/performance/weight/size. Whether it provides sufficient for some M users to convert remains to be seen (unless you actually register all your equipment with Canon, I'm not sure where they can get that information from).

For those M users, like myself, who were attracted to that combination of p/p/w/s it is very simple - just as anyone with a dSLR can confirm, the M range will continue to take good pictures for many years to come. I personally will probably pick up another M6 II and I think that will satisfy me for a significant time. My 10D still works, and although the construction on the M range is not as robust, I suspect the innards do have a similar quality to them. I have R bodies, so an APS-C in an R body has potential appeal for wildlife but I doubt it will cause me to sell my M gear.

For existing APS dSLR users who have not migrated, it will be interesting to see if there are sufficient compelling features or pricing for them to change. I would expect Canon to be reasonably aggressive to lure the two "APS-C camps", and taking your lenses with you (like many of us who have EF or EF-S lenses did) will "reduce" the cost effect and hence why there will be no APS-C R lenses - it's a play to keep you in the Canon ecosystem, and over time a APS-C users may even supplement with an RF lens or two, and then a FF body. If you don't well then you're Again, without people registering their kit, I am not sure where Canon can know this.

The casualty of the M is economics - as per my 4th paragraph. I do not believe these new bodies are aimed at M users. It is disappointing for a lot of people who have no interest in larger bodies, but alas I think they have concluded that purchasers of the M system are no longer as important to Canon's future. You'll be supported just like the dSLR camp and EF camp who were told similar things last year. It will be interesting to see if they make an announcement about focusing on R and not active on M just like they did with the EF...


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 8, 2021)

Interesting and constructed opinion. Thanks for that. I tend to agree with most of the ideas.
Yes, I believe that the core M system strengh will be lost in the transition. And that's a pity.
Time will tell.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 8, 2021)

dolina said:


> The EOS M50 is the #1 selling mirrorless camera in the U.S. market.
> 
> Source: The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service, Mirrorless Detachable Lens Cameras, Based on camera family unit sales, Jan. 2020 - Aug. 2020 combined.
> 
> Which that fact cemented I doubt Canon would discontinue the line unless it costs more to produce than to sell.



or you can get a better ROI from other products...


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 8, 2021)

Ok, let's see things in a different way.

EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.

So no problem if Canon ends the production of M system for EF.
But I think they may reconsider keeping the -S concept first. I think it's clearly a dead end (and I hope they won't maintain all those useless numerous 18-xxx either BTW).

To my sense, the future APS-C line-ups should only be of two kinds :

high-end for prosumers sport/wildlife (i.e. EOS R7 or any 7D replacement), in other words, products for customers that mainly use FF lenses on APS-C to have more reach.
"Mini" for travel, family, VLOG and any casual usage (i.e EOS M... ), in other words, products for people that dig nice little "gems", like EOS M cameras actually are, for their every day life (which old EF-S, Rebels etc. tend not to be, if ever they were considered that way...).
These may be the only two "cropped" line-ups that have still a chance to be sold enough in the future.
But IMHO, they need to enhance EF-M to RF-M to make it more competitive in the APS-C mirrorless market (and I think the only adapter still needed would be the RF-M to EF considering the number of EF lenses around vs RF Lenses for the moment... that and the fact most EF-M owners love much more having lenses made to fit the size of the camera, may they be third party or brand name).
So, yes, EF-M "must" probably die, as all others EF mounts... but still, it should perdure thru another, more modern type of mount.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 8, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> So would I, but my M5 now feels too small. The RP is about the same weight but larger and feels better.



I agree that the RP feels (much) better when held in my hands.

However, you can't use the RP without a lens on it. And when you place RF or EF glass on it, it won't be about the same weight as the EOS M5 coupled with EF-M glass. Not even close.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 8, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Ok, let's see things in a different way.
> 
> EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.
> 
> ...



Certainly a valid possibility, but I think Canon had 2/3 APS-C segments (entry/mid/high) and then introduced the M series which was a new line with the same entry/mid/high. And I think the challenge we have and Canon is how those users can be "migrated" to a smaller range of equipment.

An entry level FF camera certainly would be at a similar price point to the mid APS-C and equate to the high end M, but both those "target" users will have lenses from their current bodies, and neither will work on a FF to great effect. I get thus the "simple" solution to shove an APS-C sensor into an R body, and with the right price points / features, you could probably collapse that segment from 3 models to 2, but that doesn't work for the M series, which to my mind have different requirements to the other Canon APS-C users and no migration...

Still. By the end of 2021 we should have a clearer idea, and likely not huge amount of opportunities to use any camera kit extensively unless it is part of your business.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 8, 2021)

Stu_bert said:


> Certainly a valid possibility, but I think Canon had 2/3 APS-C segments (entry/mid/high) and then introduced the M series which was a new line with the same entry/mid/high. And I think the challenge we have and Canon is how those users can be "migrated" to a smaller range of equipment.
> 
> An entry level FF camera certainly would be at a similar price point to the mid APS-C and equate to the high end M, but both those "target" users will have lenses from their current bodies, and neither will work on a FF to great effect. I get thus the "simple" solution to shove an APS-C sensor into an R body, and with the right price points / features, you could probably collapse that segment from 3 models to 2, but that doesn't work for the M series, which to my mind have different requirements to the other Canon APS-C users and no migration...
> 
> Still. By the end of 2021 we should have a clearer idea, and likely not huge amount of opportunities to use any camera kit extensively unless it is part of your business.


Valid points here too, yes. It's certain Canon's line-ups have to change in a near future whatever the identified targets may be. 
Anyway, right, of course, time will tell us.

Mobilis in Mobili...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jan 8, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Ok, let's see things in a different way.
> 
> EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.
> 
> ...



I agree It would make so much sense to me if they just developed an RF-M mount (Or RF-S/RF-C whatever you want to call it). A new system, just as small and light as EF-M with the benefits of RF. I'm sure everyone who is an EF-M fan would be fine with that. 

But the portion of the rumor that puts that idea to bed is this:

" Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”. "

I've already stated that it most likely means a full frame lens that may shift focal lengths to accommodate for crop. But that also means these lenses will most likely not be as small and light as EF-M. That's what makes it disappointing.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 8, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> ...
> But the portion of the rumor that puts that idea to bed is this:
> 
> " Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”. "
> ...


I may have not been clear enough. What I wrote perfectly agrees with the rumor : the fact is there should be no RF-S in the future, but probably a smaller RF-M mount and distinct system... no need for compatibility with bigger standard RF mount.
So RF mount and R APS-C cameras will just benefit of FF lenses designed for both FF and APS-C. On the other hand, there can be a distinct dedicated RF-M system with RF specs instead of the old EF ones for connections and electronic design.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jan 8, 2021)

We must be reading it differently. When it says, that there is not going to be any "dedicated APS-C lenses", I don't just mean there won't be a RF-S, it also means there will be no distinct RF-M lens system either.

So I don't think the portion where you say "there can be a distinct dedicated RF-M system" agrees with the rumor at all. That implies a dedicated APS-C lens line up, which the rumor clearly states is not happening. I want it to, and hope it is a possibility in the future, because I don't think full frame lenses for full frame and crop RF bodies fills any kind of void for the small and light system. That's seems like the direction Canon is going.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 8, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> We must be reading it differently. When it says, that there is not going to be any "dedicated APS-C lenses", I don't just mean there won't be a RF-S, it also means there will be no distinct RF-M lens system either.


Well, to be true, it leaves room for interpretation. To my sense, the rumor is only referring to EOS R cameras and "EF-S/dedicated APS-C lenses" transposition to the standard R system. It does not refer to M system at all.

Read it again : " Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses” ... to me, no trace of M system at all in this context.

On the other hand, considering the nowadays sales figures tendencies, and the fact that EF-S has always been a globally weak line-up, with EF-M being incomparably superior with only few lenses, I really can't see how both line-ups can be considered to be included in the same context of planification and really hope Canon see it that way too.
For instance, there has never been any EF-S equivalent to 11-22mm, 22mm or 32mm whether it is size wise, optically or anything.


----------



## allanP (Jan 8, 2021)

Rocky said:


> It is a well know fact that the RF lenses are MUCH bigger and a lot more expensive than the EF-M. No need to keep on mentioning it.


Apparently necessary, if someone compares only body size and thinks it is similar. Camera without a lens is useless, so you should see both together. Always!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jan 8, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well, to be true, it leaves room for interpretation. To my sense, the rumor is only referring to EOS R cameras and "EF-S/dedicated APS-C lenses" transposition to the standard R system. It does not refer to M system at all.
> 
> Read it again : " Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses” ... to me, no trace of M system at all in this context.
> 
> ...


I guess the key that makes me interpret no RF-M is because the context of the rumor in the first place. The rumor is asserting that it is the end of the EF-M system. It says absolutely nothing about EF-S. I think you are the only one to introduce the equivalency of EF-S ~ RF-S. The rumor says, the EF-M system is being replaced with RF with no special crop lens design. To me that just means lenses that will work on both full frame and aps-c. ergo a bigger lens design that gets cropped just like using regular EF lenses on a Cropped 7D or 90D.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 8, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Ok, let's see things in a different way.
> 
> EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.



Is EF-M really an EF mount in the way that EF-S is? It's physically quite different, both in size and purpose. EF-S is much, much more similar to EF, in fact it's interchangeable in one direction (EF lenses work directly on an EF-S camera), but EF-M is quite different, and cannot be used on any other mount whose name begins with EF, [nor the other way around, at least not without an adapter.])

I could see EF and EF-S disappearing eventually (though they can be adapted to work with either of the other two mounts), while leaving EF-M around, if this rumor turns out to be false and Canon isn't killing the EF-M line.


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Is EF-M really an EF mount in the way that EF-S is? It's physically quite different, both in size and purpose. EF-S is much, much more similar to EF, in fact it's interchangeable in one direction (EF lenses work directly on an EF-S camera), but EF-M is quite different, and cannot be used on any other mount whose name begins with EF, [nor the other way around, at least not without an adapter.])


Yes they are similar because they use the same electronic protocol (ef to ef-m adapter is just pass through electronically).
In the future, ef-m will always be limited to old EF protocol (RF protocol use 2 more contacts for bandwith)


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 8, 2021)

Stichus III said:


> I agree that the RP feels (much) better when held in my hands.
> 
> However, you can't use the RP without a lens on it. And when you place RF or EF glass on it, it won't be about the same weight as the EOS M5 coupled with EF-M glass. Not even close.


True. but how about an R7 and M7 which are very similar or identical to each other, except for the lens mount, and about the same size as and only slightly heavier than an RP?


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 9, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> True. but how about an R7 and M7 which are very similar or identical to each other, except for the lens mount, and about the same size as and only slightly heavier than an RP?


It's more about the glass you can add on to an M vs an RF.... Even if you attach the slower EF f/4 lenses they're imbalanced on the M bodies. Of course there is a potential trade-off with the M lenses on durability - I tend to be more careful with them in comparison to my EF L lenses. It's a compromise system which has different "objectives" to the APS-C dSLR, FF dSLR and FF mirrorless.

I still have my larger bodies, and I don't see me selling them any time soon (I bought the R5 last August). The M series fulfills a need for me in terms of it's size and weight. Whether that would diminish if Apple released a decent 5x zoom on an iphone at a reasonable price I am not sure - over time perhaps (few years).

I am sure people who have bought the M series have different reasons, different from mine and some of those may well find an R solution works for them. Maybe Canon will surprise us all and produce some amazing small and light lenses and completely change my view (and boost the 2nd hand market for M systems - ha ha).


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 9, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Is EF-M really an EF mount in the way that EF-S is? It's physically quite different, both in size and purpose. EF-S is much, much more similar to EF, in fact it's interchangeable in one direction (EF lenses work directly on an EF-S camera), but EF-M is quite different, and cannot be used on any other mount whose name begins with EF, [nor the other way around, at least not without an adapter.])
> 
> I could see EF and EF-S disappearing eventually (though they can be adapted to work with either of the other two mounts), while leaving EF-M around, if this rumor turns out to be false and Canon isn't killing the EF-M line.



Two important things.

Yes, EF-M is closer to RF than to EF in terms of technology. 

EF and EF-S are *never* going to disappear. How many EF/EF-S lenses are there out there? Even if Canon stopped shipping EF lenses tomorrow, there are so many out there that we'll be using them for decades to come. 

Canon will continue to sell EF lenses for as long as it's profitable to do so, which primarily relies on how many parts they have stockpiled and how much resources they have in terms of production space/staff to put them together. Again, those EF bodies out there aren't going away. How many 5D Mark IIIs are out there still taking excellent photos every day? Someone will keep using them until the shutters fail, and some of those users will want to buy more lenses.



The threat to EF-M isn't the RF mount of course, it's smartphones.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 9, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Is EF-M really an EF mount in the way that EF-S is? It's physically quite different, both in size and purpose. EF-S is much, much more similar to EF, in fact it's interchangeable in one direction (EF lenses work directly on an EF-S camera), but EF-M is quite different, and cannot be used on any other mount whose name begins with EF, [nor the other way around, at least not without an adapter.])
> 
> I could see EF and EF-S disappearing eventually (though they can be adapted to work with either of the other two mounts), while leaving EF-M around, if this rumor turns out to be false and Canon isn't killing the EF-M line.


Indeed, I agree it can also be another valid hypothesis. The fact is EF-M is a better mount then standard EF and can probably be kept as it is without evolution.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 9, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> I guess the key that makes me interpret no RF-M is because the context of the rumor in the first place. The rumor is asserting that it is the end of the EF-M system. It says absolutely nothing about EF-S. I think you are the only one to introduce the equivalency of EF-S ~ RF-S. The rumor says, the EF-M system is being replaced with RF with no special crop lens design. To me that just means lenses that will work on both full frame and aps-c. ergo a bigger lens design that gets cropped just like using regular EF lenses on a Cropped 7D or 90D.


The title and article writing are not the original statements of the rumour. It's already an interpretation of what's been said and only reflects the author's views. Fair enough : his website, his opinion. Same goes for me : my reading, my opinion. 

And I'm sorry to think it simple : why talk about "RF-S" if it's not to refer to "EF-S" (you see the similarity ? I give you a clue : there's a "-S" at both ends..  ? )


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 10, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> I may have not been clear enough. What I wrote perfectly agrees with the rumor : the fact is there should be no RF-S in the future, but probably a smaller RF-M mount and distinct system... no need for compatibility with bigger standard RF mount.
> So RF mount and R APS-C cameras will just benefit of FF lenses designed for both FF and APS-C. On the other hand, there can be a distinct dedicated RF-M system with RF specs instead of the old EF ones for connections and electronic design.


I would love to see a new DSLR mount with RF mount specs and IBIS
Pentax DSLR cameras have IBIS so I think the EF mount is just too small relative to the sensor to have it.
That would also mean APS-C cameras could have IBIS that only works with full-frame lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 10, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> True. but how about an R7 and M7 which are very similar or identical to each other, except for the lens mount, and about the same size as and only slightly heavier than an RP?


I highly doubt it.
M7 is bound to be much smaller and thus less capable than R7.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I would love to see a new DSLR mount with RF mount specs and IBIS
> Pentax DSLR cameras have IBIS so I think the EF mount is just too small relative to the sensor to have it.
> That would also mean APS-C cameras could have IBIS that only works with full-frame lenses.


There isn’t room for a DSLR mirror with an RF mount Flange distance.

The EF and RF mount hole are essentially the same size.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> There isn’t room for a DSLR mirror with an RF mount Flange distance.
> 
> The EF and RF mount hole are essentially the same size.


I am aware of the flange distance limitations.
What I would like is the extra data pins and the higher data speeds of the RF mount.
You are correct about the mounts being the same size.
It looks like Canon and Nikon could have had IBIS this whole time but chose not to.
I would be happy with the same mount and IBIS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am aware of the flange distance limitations.
> What I would like is the extra data pins and the higher data speeds of the RF mount.
> You are correct about the mounts being the same size.
> It looks like Canon and Nikon could have had IBIS this whole time but chose not to.
> I would be happy with the same mount and IBIS.


If you are aware of the flange distance limitations you understand why you can’t have a DSLR with an RF mount, extra pins or not.

Canon definitely made a conscious decision not to put IBIS into their DSLR’s. They stated they believed lens based IS was more effective, especially for long lenses, and the fact that the optical view is not stabilized with IBIS when it is with lens based IS. It appears they are consistent because even though they now make IBIS they combine that with lens based IS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

allkar said:


> It was not meant like that. But if you go to a different system, it becomes more expensive. This is exactly the money that the Canon "saves"



The M system was never about those who change systems to "move up", either. It's about regular folks who want a small, light, affordable camera and a lens or three to use for the next few years until it wears out or breaks and then they'll get another camera with a couple of lenses. 

Or until they take another once every five years or so international vacation/holiday. I think the main reason the ESO M system is under pressure right now is due to the lack of folks going on once-in-a-lifetime trips in 2020 and 2021. That's when the non-gearheads think about getting a new camera.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If you are aware of the flange distance limitations you understand why you can’t have a DSLR with an RF mount, extra pins or not.
> 
> Canon definitely made a conscious decision not to put IBIS into their DSLR’s. They stated they believed lens based IS was more effective, especially for long lenses, and the fact that the optical view is not stabilized with IBIS when it is with lens based IS. It appears they are consistent because even though they now make IBIS they combine that with lens based IS.


I wanted a new mount like the RF mount but I would gladly take IBIS with the existing EF mount.
Olympus proved that OIS + IBIS + EIS was the best.
Panasonic and now Canon followed suit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> If they could somehow come up with a way to make existing M lenses compatible with a future RF crop body all of the M users would have an option to upgrade without losing there portable lenses and possibly changing brands. I know the M mount is 2mm less depth then RF but would it actually be impossible to make an adapter? I understand that this adapter would have to go 2mm inside the RF mount but maybe there is another way? Even if this adapter only maintained compatibility with RF crop sensor bodys that would be ok.



The EOS M system has never been intended for those who would even think of wanting an option to upgrade. That's never been who the EOS M system was aimed at by Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

Navyo Eller said:


> I also think that the M series is a quite perfect system for a lightweight system not only for travel, also for quite a lot of semi pro and even pro photography as long it is not for very big prints. I will not go back to heavy pro equipment which I left after the M50 came out, and yes, M6 Mark II an M50 combined are a superb combination, M50 for my EF tele zooms and M6 Mark II for the superb 11-22 , 22 and 32 wide lenses.
> 
> Pro bodies are wasted if you shoot not professional to make money, they are superb, sure, no weather problem, no problem in extreme environments, but all "normal" hobbyist and lot's of semi pro do not need that guarantee that the camera can also fall into mud, from a camper roof because that would mean problems.
> 
> I am happy with the EOS-M lineup after many years of DSRL Canon pro bodies and semipro use.



What do you do with the M6 Mark II when you need both an eye-level VF and to control off-camera flash at the same time?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

Random Orbits said:


> I rarely use tripods with 70-200s/100-400s or even with something like a 300 f/2.8. I do mount a BR strap to the lens foot or L-plate on the camera body because I'm moving from one location to another plus it's less fatiguing to have it hanging from a shoulder strap than holding it all the time. It's that initial motion to bring the camera/lens combo up from the right side to the front for shooting that requires torque.
> 
> Current Ms are better than the original, which was tiny and had a minimal grip. I played with it using a 2x and a 100-400 to take a moon shot, but that was pretty much it for larger lenses. The Ms are not as responsive and the rebel interface is different from the 7D/FF interface that I'm used to. I only use the M5 when I can't bring a FF body or when weight/size is the overriding criterion. I use the native lenses for it most of the time; the only times I regularly used the adapter was when I was using it for video and using the FF for stills.



That's one reason why I hang my cameras with longer lenses mounted on them on the left side of my body. I reach down and grab the lens barrel with my left hand and bring the camera to my eye about the same time my right hand reaches the camera's controls.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 10, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M system has never been intended for those who would even think of wanting an option to upgrade. That's never been who the EOS M system was aimed at by Canon.



That's fair enough.

I must be in the minority with my 700D, I started out with the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm EF-S and now I've got a range of EF lenses, I actively use both EF-S and EF and I'm happy that the Crop DSLRs have the flexibility to use both.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> I may have not been clear enough. What I wrote perfectly agrees with the rumor : the fact is there should be no RF-S in the future, but probably a smaller RF-M mount and distinct system... no need for compatibility with bigger standard RF mount.
> So RF mount and R APS-C cameras will just benefit of FF lenses designed for both FF and APS-C. On the other hand, there can be a distinct dedicated RF-M system with RF specs instead of the old EF ones for connections and electronic design.




Uhmmm... OK. So what, exactly, is the difference between your proposed "RF-M" mount and the current "EF-M" mount?


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 10, 2021)

The 2 additionnal contacts for higher bandwith communication between lens and body. Wich is, according to canon, necessary for IS working together with ibis. And surely more specs under the hood.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 10, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Uhmmm... OK. So what, exactly, is the difference between your proposed "RF-M" mount and the current "EF-M" mount?


I've no exhaustive list of differences, of course, but anyone can guess easily the electronic connection protocol has evolved between EF and RF. (just count the number of pins).
Also, RF mount have 12 pins vs only 9 on EF-M (which is already more than the basic EF mount count).
RF is the last and more enhanced Canon's mount, and it's simply a guess that EF-M could benefit of some of the enhancements of RF mount.

Anyway, I was just giving a hypothesis, and I already agreed that thinking Canon would just keep EF-M mount as it is looks like a valid one too.

Meanwhile, above hachu21 comment gives some more clues...  2 minutes ago


----------



## canonnews (Jan 10, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> I may have not been clear enough. What I wrote perfectly agrees with the rumor : the fact is there should be no RF-S in the future, but probably a smaller RF-M mount and distinct system... no need for compatibility with bigger standard RF mount.
> So RF mount and R APS-C cameras will just benefit of FF lenses designed for both FF and APS-C. On the other hand, there can be a distinct dedicated RF-M system with RF specs instead of the old EF ones for connections and electronic design.



The only thing that would make sense about this, is that Canon brings the RF protocol to EF-M and makes the bodies dual protocol

but essentially it'd be the same mount.

the pins I believe were not data related, but more functional - ie: the control ring on RF lenses.

but creating a entirely distinct ANOTHER mount? no that would not be wise.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 10, 2021)

hachu21 said:


> The 2 additionnal contacts for higher bandwith communication between lens and body. Wich is, according to canon, necessary for IS working together with ibis. And surely more specs under the hood.


actually, I read somewhere they are for the control ring.
it's just an asynchronously controlled bus not a parallel bus, but still a serial bus.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 10, 2021)

canonnews said:


> The only thing that would make sense about this, is that Canon brings the RF protocol to EF-M and makes the bodies dual protocol.
> 
> but essentially it'd be the same mount.
> 
> the pins I believe were not data related, but more functional - ie: the control ring on RF lenses.


I bet you mean "data structure" more than just data. For new hardware functionalities/specs (i.e. IBIS/IS combination or control ring) you always need to qualify new data content, of course.
Anyway, protocol has changed between EF and RF, and it's hard to say exactly how without the brand's design/data sheets.
We also don't know exactly what EF-M is capable of in terms of possible enhancements.
What's sure is that no camera with EF mount (may it be EF-M or "regular" EF) had ever to manage IBIS/IS combination or additional control rings and these are certainly new features that need new technical add-ons that may be hardware or software.


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 10, 2021)

From Canon eos R system withepaper: 
"Enhanced	Electronic Communication	between	Lens and	Camera
The new RF mount uses 12 contacts instead of the 8 contacts of the EF lenses for lens-camera	
communication. New communication protocols and dedicated communication channels are	
incorporated	— which	support	large	data transfers	at	very	high	speeds	compared	to	current	EF	system. 
The	new	RF system design	anticipates	ongoing	innovations	in future	cameras	as	well	as	lenses. Even	
with	these	changes,	full	support	and	compatibility	for	existing	Canon	EF	and	EF-S	lenses	remain."

Known new use cases: 
- focus ring (by wire, no more mechanical rings)
- dlo data exchange
- control ring
- in-lens gyro and acceleration sensor data exchange


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 10, 2021)

Why ef-m got 9 pins instead of 8 on ef is still mysterious.... But maybe I found a clue in the dual IS tech page at canon-europe :
"To enable photographers to set even lower shutter speeds, camera makers have developed digital methods of stabilization. Combination IS, which was first seen in Canon's EOS M mirrorless cameras and is also built into the Canon EOS R, uses the motion vector detected by the image sensor to improve the effectiveness of the optical stabilization system. "


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 10, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I would love to see a new DSLR mount with RF mount specs and IBIS
> Pentax DSLR cameras have IBIS so I think the EF mount is just too small relative to the sensor to have it.
> That would also mean APS-C cameras could have IBIS that only works with full-frame lenses.



I'd like to see a horse and cart with ABS brakes. It IS possible...


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 10, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd like to see a horse and cart with ABS brakes. It IS possible...


ABS brakes on the cart I can see. But the horse?


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Jan 10, 2021)

hachu21 said:


> Why ef-m got 9 pins instead of 8 on ef is still mysterious.... But maybe I found a clue in the dual IS tech page at canon-europe :
> "To enable photographers to set even lower shutter speeds, camera makers have developed digital methods of stabilization. Combination IS, which was first seen in Canon's EOS M mirrorless cameras and is also built into the Canon EOS R, uses the motion vector detected by the image sensor to improve the effectiveness of the optical stabilization system. "


Well, on EOS M and first EOS R there is no in camera stabilisation for photography, only for video. So I guess that's the subject here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

hachu21 said:


> From Canon eos R system withepaper:
> "Enhanced Electronic Communication between Lens and Camera
> The new RF mount uses 12 contacts instead of the 8 contacts of the EF lenses for lens-camera
> communication. New communication protocols and dedicated communication channels are
> ...



There are plenty of focus-by-wire lenses in the EF system. Every single STM lens, for example, plus a few others (most of which are older and have been discontinued).


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 11, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> ABS brakes on the cart I can see. But the horse?


Horses stop on their own all of the time.
They all come with ABS.


----------



## hachu21 (Jan 11, 2021)

Pierre Lagarde said:


> Well, on EOS M and first EOS R there is no in camera stabilisation for photography, only for video. So I guess that's the subject here.


Following this technical post, the 2 additional pins seems related to lens identification only (rather strangely I would say).
The EF lens mount 
Maybe because of the collapsible design with the in-lens barrel swich (11-22 and 15-45)? The body display an error if you turn the camera on with those lenses retracted.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 11, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> M7 is bound to be much smaller and thus less capable than R7.


Why? The RP, M5 and SL1/2/3 are all about the same size and much smaller than the 5-series and 7-series EF bodies and slightly smaller than the R5 and R6 bodies. A lot of the "capability" is in firmware. which is relatively/completely independent of camera size. It basically all marketing decisions.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 11, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Why? The RP, M5 and SL1/2/3 are all about the same size and much smaller than the 5-series and 7-series EF bodies and slightly smaller than the R5 and R6 bodies. It basically all marketing decisions. A lot of the "capability" is in firmware. which is relatively/completely independent of camera size.


R7 is supposed to be in the R6 body.
It is supposed to be a mirrorless 7D and not meant to be small.


----------



## gektor (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M system has never been intended for those who would even think of wanting an option to upgrade. That's never been who the EOS M system was aimed at by Canon.



I started using the M system when the very first EOS-M was still up-to-date. It was a great backup camera for my DSLRs. Now I've somehow switched completely to the EOS-M, for bodies and lenses, not knowing that it's not for enthusiasts. I think, the users like me are those who are complaining about the dead end situation. M system is very capable and it attracted many enthusiasts.

M is the first and exciting mirrorless system by Canon, it supports EF and EF-S and was a perfect transition from canon DLSRs. Nobody thought that canon would ever fall into the trap of developing a "dead system".


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 11, 2021)

gektor said:


> I started using the M system when the very first EOS-M was still up-to-date. It was a great backup camera for my DSLRs. Now I've somehow switched completely to the EOS-M, for bodies and lenses, not knowing that it's not for enthusiasts. I think, the users like me are those who are complaining about the dead end situation. M system is very capable and it attracted many enthusiasts.


You were not wrong to complain but Canon's focus was to make a camera system that was small, light and priced modestly.
Whether are not it is a dead-end remains to be seen.


----------



## gektor (Jan 11, 2021)

Canon and all other camera manufacturers need to think thoroughly about the future of digital photography, regardless of the system. The power of computational photography is just beginning to shine. Smartphone sensors are still quite small, but they are starting to get slightly bigger. Eventually, AI and image processing will produce perfect full-frame-sensor-like images from small lenses and small sensors. Without computational photography and AI, camera manufacturers will lose more and more markets, including professionals. Who needs a professional camera when wedding guest images straight from a smartphone look better than a professional's manually developed RAW images (not to speak of out of camera JPGs)? It's getting harder and harder to justify the cost of a professional or enthusiast camera for most users. Canon needs to innovate as much as possible, especially in the area of computational photography. All of the Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras are still pretty "dumb" by today's computational photography standards. How will they ever catch up? And if they don't, they will die out. Just as film photography lost to digital photography, classic digital photography will lose to computational photography.

So essentially, all Canon systems as they are today are a dead end.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 11, 2021)

gektor said:


> Canon and all other camera manufacturers need to think thoroughly about the future of digital photography, regardless of the system. The power of computational photography is just beginning to shine. Smartphone sensors are still quite small, but they are starting to get slightly bigger. Eventually, AI and image processing will produce perfect full-frame-sensor-like images from small lenses and small sensors. Without computational photography and AI, camera manufacturers will lose more and more markets, including professionals. Who needs a professional camera when wedding guest images straight from a smartphone look better than a professional's manually developed RAW images (not to speak of out of camera JPGs)? It's getting harder and harder to justify the cost of a professional or enthusiast camera for most users. Canon needs to innovate as much as possible, especially in the area of computational photography. All of the Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras are still pretty "dumb" by today's computational photography standards. How will they ever catch up? And if they don't, they will die out. Just as film photography lost to digital photography, classic digital photography will lose to computational photography.
> 
> So essentially, all Canon systems as they are today are a dead end.



First, film photography lost to digital photography because it used film. The difference is qualitative, not quantitative. The last three years I used film, I digitized all my negatives. The results were 11mp digital images which were good at the time but much worse than the 12.8 MP native images from my 5D and absolutely pathetic compared with my 5Ds images.

Second, if computational photography can perform miracles to small lens and small sensor images, imagine what it can do with premium lens and large sensor images.

Third, when I hear "computational photography", I think the eye detection algorithms in the R5 and R6, not changes to the images themselves.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 12, 2021)

gektor said:


> Canon and all other camera manufacturers need to think thoroughly about the future of digital photography, regardless of the system. The power of computational photography is just beginning to shine. Smartphone sensors are still quite small, but they are starting to get slightly bigger. Eventually, AI and image processing will produce perfect full-frame-sensor-like images from small lenses and small sensors. Without computational photography and AI, camera manufacturers will lose more and more markets, including professionals. Who needs a professional camera when wedding guest images straight from a smartphone look better than a professional's manually developed RAW images (not to speak of out of camera JPGs)? It's getting harder and harder to justify the cost of a professional or enthusiast camera for most users. Canon needs to innovate as much as possible, especially in the area of computational photography. All of the Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras are still pretty "dumb" by today's computational photography standards. How will they ever catch up? And if they don't, they will die out. Just as film photography lost to digital photography, classic digital photography will lose to computational photography.
> 
> So essentially, all Canon systems as they are today are a dead end.


I've been thinking the same things, the only thing the Smartphone manufacturers haven't worked out yet is good telephoto, but I can imagine they will work this out with computational photography that takes up no extra space and goes equivalent 300mm plus and will look as good as a camera and lens of today. The only thing the smartphone will lose out on is ergonomics and dedicated buttons for everything. I can only see this replacing entry level and enthusiast cameras in the future but I think the professional level cameras and lenses will stay for a very long time.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 12, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I've been thinking the same things, the only thing the Smartphone manufacturers haven't worked out yet is good telephoto, but I can imagine they will work this out with computational photography that takes up no extra space and goes equivalent 300mm plus and will look as good as a camera and lens of today. The only thing the smartphone will lose out on is ergonomics and dedicated buttons for everything. I can only see this replacing entry level and enthusiast cameras in the future but I think the professional level cameras and lenses will stay for a very long time.


Cheaper for them to put zoom optics inside as many have done...


----------



## SnowMiku (Jan 12, 2021)

Stu_bert said:


> Cheaper for them to put zoom optics inside as many have done...


As far as I know they can go to around equivalent 50mm or can they go further these days? I don't keep up to date with smartphones so I have no idea haha.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 12, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> As far as I know they can go to around equivalent 50mm or can they go further these days? I don't keep up to date with smartphones so I have no idea haha.



Some phones have a 'periscope' style design, where the periscope is layed flat inside the phone.A quick google suggests that 135mm equiv. has been announced by at least one vendor.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 12, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> As far as I know they can go to around equivalent 50mm or can they go further these days? I don't keep up to date with smartphones so I have no idea haha.


Yep as Koenkooi said, between 5x and 6x are available, starting around 24mm equivalent and going up to 120-135mm equivalent. Typically these are alongside a wide angle Lens. Couple that with fast (f1.4 and maybe some faster), and combined with the computational side, they have probably captured the rest of the compact camera specifications, as well as exceeding them in ease of use.

Having developed the tech, dropping in a larger one or even two seems to be something we can expect in a few years.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 13, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> Third, when I hear "computational photography", I think the eye detection algorithms in the R5 and R6, not changes to the images themselves.


Yeah, "computational photography" is usually image processing on a smartphone that I would rather do myself on a computer in post.


----------



## gektor (Jan 13, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Yeah, "computational photography" is usually image processing on a smartphone that I would rather do myself on a computer in post.



There are a plethora of techniques that can be grouped under the term "computational photography." Image stacking for greater dynamic range or noise reduction, for example, that cannot be achieved in post-production. The other category of techniques can be achieved in post-production and is similar to human "developing" and retouching of images. For enthusiasts, editing your own image is part of the hobby. For professionals, any automation that gives better results faster is essential. As a professional, being able to deliver perfect results fast is important. There are virtually no customers who want to get RAW images of their wedding or other event. Out of camera JPGs are considered inferior and tinkering with every single RAW is not profitable in most cases. So presets are made, which are a form of automation already. But why are the out of camera JPGs need to be so inferior?

Several years ago, articles like these would be totally unthinkable: Shooting an Entire Wedding Day with the iPhone 11 Pro (petapixel.com), Pro Wedding Photographers Compare iPhone 11 Pro to Canon 5D Mark IV (petapixel.com). The fact that we can now seriously compare a phone (!) and a pro-class camera is completely out of this world by my photographic standards. Still, phones will always be very limited in terms of sensor and lens size. Imagine what can be achieved with modern smartphone technology combined with large camera sensors. As a professional, you could get perfect pictures and deliver each one without any editing.

Today, the two worlds are very separate. There is a professional workflow that, although camera JPGs are getting better, requires expertise and time for post-processing. And there is an automated workflow in a phone that is able to deliver a perfect result in the same second a photographer takes a picture. I think professionals would also like to benefit from the level of automation that smartphone computational photography enables today.

So it could be that not only the M system dies out, but the entire market of classic digital cameras, if someone figures out how to integrate a performance of computational photography into "real" cameras, which in some cases are even inferior to today's phones. What a huge shame, actually.


----------



## TravelerNick (Jan 14, 2021)

gektor said:


> Today, the two worlds are very separate. There is a professional workflow that, although camera JPGs are getting better, requires expertise and time for post-processing. And there is an automated workflow in a phone that is able to deliver a perfect result in the same second a photographer takes a picture. I think professionals would also like to benefit from the level of automation that smartphone computational photography enables today.
> 
> So it could be that not only the M system dies out, but the entire market of classic digital cameras, if someone figures out how to integrate a performance of computational photography into "real" cameras, which in some cases are even inferior to today's phones. What a huge shame, actually.



Making things easier just makes it easier to replace the photographer. The last people to benefit from any of this are the people being replaced.

BTW you're not asking for something "perfect" you're asking for something the software thinks is "perfect". 

The other issue is it's easier to do what you want with tiny little sensors. It's not just that they need it more it's just easier. Stacking multiple images for every shutter click means taking multiple images in a very short period of time. A smaller sensor is always going to be faster than something bigger.

But image stacking also imposes limits. If we assume 10 frames per image your max shutter speed is now 1/10th of an instant. Make that instant too long and you're now dealing with motion.


----------



## gektor (Jan 14, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Making things easier just makes it easier to replace the photographer. The last people to benefit from any of this are the people being replaced.


Absolutely. It's not a good thing for photographers. Still, photographers and their tools need to evolve with progress.

Many professions have become extinct because of automation, and that's not necessarily an exclusively good thing. But it's also well known that you can't stop automation. If the process of carefully "developing" RAWs by hand is replaced by automation, then this slower kind of work associated with classical tools will be pushed out into and become exclusive to the hobby and luxury markets.

If the level of images produced by a professional photographer can be achieved more easily and quickly by anyone, the benefit of hiring a professional diminishes even more. If the hired professional is using hardware and processes that are inferior to modern standards, then it's a tragedy. That's why especially the devices used by professionals urgently need to evolve.

The M system is partly aimed at hobby photographers who have time to tinker with RAWs and edit their images manually. Consumers, who are also the target group of the M system, are more critical because they might want a good JPG image straight from the camera and are not willing to accept that their dedicated camera takes worse pictures than their phone. The "consumer" group of users may indeed be disappointed by their brand new canon M or R.

The R system is aimed at professionals who have their workflows. But I think that professionals today, in 2021, may still need more modern technologies and automation to stay competitive. What they get is the same hardware as always, but with improved specifications. It's like developing better and better gasoline cars in a world that is moving to EVs. Sooner or later, gasoline cars will become a niche market. Just like classic photography tools as opposed to intelligent tools. Today, there is no known highly intelligent camera with a large sensor, good optics, and a high degree of AI and automation. The need for such system will become clearer in the years to come.

So I conclude that neither the M nor the R series nor anything else from Sony, Nikon, etc. can be considered a truly modern tool for photography. All these shiny new cameras like R5, R6, etc. are the culmination of classic camera design that will probably come to an end in the future. On the other hand, the dynamic range of sensors may eventually become so good that some computational techniques are no longer necessary. But even then, if smartphones continue to produce more appealing images through some kind of computation, people will prefer these modern tools.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 14, 2021)

Pros I have talked with use Lightroom to automate processes. They don't have time to do the tinkering with each picture that I do with ACR and Photoshop or how I similarly treat Lightroom. Just as there are presets in Lightroom, there are picture styles in making JPEGs in camera. With a bit more operating memory, they could set up user settings in picture styles, or maybe they already have and I just don't use them.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 14, 2021)

gektor said:


> Image stacking for greater dynamic range or noise reduction, for example, that cannot be achieved in post-production.


Why not?
A lot of cameras do exposure bracketing.
Those images can be combined in post into a single image with a high dynamic range.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Why not?
> A lot of cameras do exposure bracketing.
> Those images can be combined in post into a single image with a high dynamic range.


Agreed. 
Image stacking has been a standard post-processing technique in digital astrophotography for 20 years. You can do it in conventional post processing SW like Photoshop, or there are many astrophotography-specific programs available.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 14, 2021)

ACR automates HDR by stacking, for example.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 15, 2021)

Image stacking to reduce noise, to remove people etc - been in photoshop since at least cs5 extended.

super high resolution techniques which image shift pictures leverage, again, pre smartphones 

what smartphones have done with computational is because they have had to else they couldn’t have taken away the market share. Don’t get me wrong, they have done it very well, it is seamless (in the most) and easy to use. But, and I’m happy to be corrected, I don’t think they’ve done anything new.

putting it into traditional cameras would require a mindset change - battery life, compute, heat and interface - although I think the manufacturers could basically assume most users of their equipment have a smartphone and they should leverage that for the rich interface it affords.

and yes, I personally am all for it. Computational is what I’ve been doing with digital imaging software so moving some of that into the camera may make sense. Or just a way to move stuff quickly into your smartphone and then back onto your camera....


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 15, 2021)

Stu_bert said:


> Image stacking to reduce noise, to remove people etc - been in photoshop since at least cs5 extended.
> [..]



I think the original poster meant that phones capture the exposure stack automatically and in a fraction of the time a 'proper' camera would. With the pictures closer together processing is a lot easier.



Stu_bert said:


> putting it into traditional cameras would require a mindset change - battery life, compute, heat and interface [..]



I like 'burst' feature on the M6II, where it activates on half press and starts taking pictures so it can save pictures from *before* you fully press the shutter. But the R6/R5 lack that mode, which fills up my cards really fast in e-shutter mode. I hope that Canon adds it before the dragonflies start flying again  Although I did learn that here in the Netherlands we have a species of winter hardened damselflies, but I don't expect much flying from those.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I think the original poster meant that phones capture the exposure stack automatically and in a fraction of the time a 'proper' camera would. With the pictures closer together processing is a lot easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I like 'burst' feature on the M6II, where it activates on half press and starts taking pictures so it can save pictures from *before* you fully press the shutter. But the R6/R5 lack that mode, which fills up my cards really fast in e-shutter mode. I hope that Canon adds it before the dragonflies start flying again  Although I did learn that here in the Netherlands we have a species of winter hardened damselflies, but I don't expect much flying from those.


I too like the M6II feature and was very disappointed my r5 didn’t have it!!

what is interesting is that said feature is very similar to what the smartphones do - a continuous buffer of images which they can image process in memory.... agreed they do it quicker, and easier.... 

whether the camera makers will leverage CP I think is more around the economics of phone volumes / revenues vs cameras even at their height. Still, Canon are part way their with that tech, and I am sure it will re-appear. My guess it will come in the R1 - but an improved version.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

gektor said:


> I started using the M system when the very first EOS-M was still up-to-date. It was a great backup camera for my DSLRs. Now I've somehow switched completely to the EOS-M, for bodies and lenses, not knowing that it's not for enthusiasts. I think, the users like me are those who are complaining about the dead end situation. M system is very capable and it attracted many enthusiasts.
> 
> M is the first and exciting mirrorless system by Canon, it supports EF and EF-S and was a perfect transition from canon DLSRs. Nobody thought that canon would ever fall into the trap of developing a "dead system".



Many enthusiasts are in the M-system, but they're not who Canon created the M-system to sell cameras to. They're not anywhere near the majority of total M-system buyers, either. They're just the ones who post on forums like this one.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> That's fair enough.
> 
> I must be in the minority with my 700D, I started out with the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm EF-S and now I've got a range of EF lenses, I actively use both EF-S and EF and I'm happy that the Crop DSLRs have the flexibility to use both.



The 700D isn't an EOS M system camera, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

gektor said:


> There are a plethora of techniques that can be grouped under the term "computational photography." Image stacking for greater dynamic range or noise reduction, for example, that cannot be achieved in post-production. The other category of techniques can be achieved in post-production and is similar to human "developing" and retouching of images. For enthusiasts, editing your own image is part of the hobby. For professionals, any automation that gives better results faster is essential. As a professional, being able to deliver perfect results fast is important. There are virtually no customers who want to get RAW images of their wedding or other event. Out of camera JPGs are considered inferior and tinkering with every single RAW is not profitable in most cases. So presets are made, which are a form of automation already. But why are the out of camera JPGs need to be so inferior?
> 
> Several years ago, articles like these would be totally unthinkable: Shooting an Entire Wedding Day with the iPhone 11 Pro (petapixel.com), Pro Wedding Photographers Compare iPhone 11 Pro to Canon 5D Mark IV (petapixel.com). The fact that we can now seriously compare a phone (!) and a pro-class camera is completely out of this world by my photographic standards. Still, phones will always be very limited in terms of sensor and lens size. Imagine what can be achieved with modern smartphone technology combined with large camera sensors. As a professional, you could get perfect pictures and deliver each one without any editing.
> 
> ...



Those "perfect" computational results look really good on a 6-8" screen. Not so much on a 16x20 or larger wall mount frame. Whether there's a need for larger than 6-8" display sizes is a whole other topic, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

gektor said:


> Absolutely. It's not a good thing for photographers. Still, photographers and their tools need to evolve with progress.
> 
> Many professions have become extinct because of automation, and that's not necessarily an exclusively good thing. But it's also well known that you can't stop automation. If the process of carefully "developing" RAWs by hand is replaced by automation, then this slower kind of work associated with classical tools will be pushed out into and become exclusive to the hobby and luxury markets.
> 
> ...



You've talked a lot about automated processes in smartphones in the hands of non-photographers replacing wedding photographers. *But what you haven't said a single word about in several lengthy posts here is anything about external flashes.*

The contraction of the professional wedding photographer market is largely already over in the space once occupied by "natural light" photographers that didn't bring lights and the know-how to use them to the portrait and reception portions of the wedding. Those folks were basically amateur photographers who were only half a step ahead of the guests in that they had a nicer camera and nicer lenses. *Those jobs are, for the most part, already gone. *

The "high end" photographers shooting weddings with iPhones for magazine articles are doing so because the tech is now available to control external flash systems with a smartphone. But that aspect of it is far from automated. One day it will be more automated, I'm sure, but most guests who show up at a wedding with their smartphone don't bring along several flashes, modifiers, stands, etc. in their other pockets. People willing to pay for the type of images one can only get by orchestrating the lighting will continue to pay pros to light them and make images that look like "they belong in a magazine." The pros may be using iPhones, or they will most likely still be using better sensors and better lenses. But *they will be getting paid to light their subjects*, just as pretty much anyone still making a living at photography these days is getting paid to light their subjects. 

Even shooting sports as a way to make a living is dying in many places because well-heeled amateurs can buy some very nice kit, shoot lower level sports for a couple of years and learn enough to get results close enough to what the seasoned pros can get to make customers happy. Then they go to a pro team and agree to shoot as their in-house photographer from the sidelines practically for free, which is still cheaper than they can buy seat licenses and season tickets and have to sit in the stands!


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Many enthusiasts are in the M-system, but they're not who Canon created the M-system to sell cameras to. They're not anywhere near the majority of total M-system buyers, either. They're just the ones who post on forums like this one.



I'm not sure I entirely agree with _created_, the original pricepoint was waaaay too high for that, I think Canon _continued_ the M system for the current majority. Either way, that doesn't make a difference for the future, or lack thereof, of the M system.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The "high end" photographers shooting weddings with iPhones for magazine articles are doing so because the tech is now available to control external flash systems with a smartphone.


People generally hire professionals to do things they either can't or do not want to do themselves.
People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else.
Sometimes professional equipment is needed in order to get clients even if it is not needed to actually do the job.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I'm not sure I entirely agree with _created_, the original pricepoint was waaaay too high for that, I think Canon _continued_ the M system for the current majority. Either way, that doesn't make a difference for the future, or lack thereof, of the M system.



Pricing in North America and Western Europe is rarely the same as pricing in Asia and other markets. Even pricing between Europe and North America is disparate enough that the Europeans complain every time Canon rolls out another big camera launch! And don't even start about what the list price is for an R5 in Australia!

Asia is where the M-series sold the vast majority of the *early* units and the solid majority of *all* units to date. Evidently the price in that market was not too high for that market.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People generally hire professionals to do things they either can't or do not want to do themselves.
> People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else.
> Sometimes professional equipment is needed in order to get clients even if it is not needed to actually do the job.



Those people have already stopped hiring pros to shoot weddings. There's no "probably going to be..." about it. *Those jobs are already gone.*


----------



## dolina (Jan 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Those people have already stopped hiring pros to shoot weddings. There's no "probably going to be..." about it. *Those jobs are already gone.*


There's still a market for wedding/events photographers. The issue is are there enough weddings/events to making a living off from?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2021)

dolina said:


> There's still a market for wedding/events photographers. The issue is are there enough weddings/events to making a living off from?



Please read what I wrote and responded to above carefully. I didn't say the market for wedding/event photographers has disappeared.

"Those people" referred to "people with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures..."

I said the market for "natural light" wedding/event photographers whose only advantage over average attendees with iPhones (or Android phones with good cameras) is a slightly better camera and lenses has disappeared.

In a previous comment in that discussion I laid it out in greater detail. Those who are still being paid to photograph weddings as a full-time occupation are being paid what they are being paid to *light* their subjects so that the results "look like they should be in a magazine."


----------



## dolina (Jan 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Please read what I wrote above carefully. I didn't say the market for wedding/event photographers has disappeared.
> 
> I said the market for "natural light" wedding/event photographers whose only advantage over average attendees with iPhones (or Android phones with good cameras) is a slightly better camera and lenses has disappeared.
> 
> In a previous comment in that discussion I laid it out in greater detail. Those who are still being paid to photograph weddings as a full-time occupation are being paid what they are being paid to *light* their subjects so that the results "look like they should be in a magazine."


I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as *Those jobs are already gone.*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2021)

dolina said:


> I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as *Those jobs are already gone.*



The jobs I was referring to in that comment _*are*_ already gone.

Specifically, the comment to which I was replying said: " People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else."

My response was they're not "going to be hesitant to pay " in the future, those folks (_i.e._ people who are happy with the quality of iPhone/smartphone photos) are *already* not paying a photographer to shoot their weddings.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2021)

dolina said:


> I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as *Those jobs are already gone.*



Is this not how the post appeared when you read it? The comment to which I was responding appears above my response with the applicable part highlighted in red.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 18, 2021)

Many, perhaps most, churches and clergy have a rule of no flash photography during the ceremony. I never had a photographer act in the least bit surprised when I told them the policy. As far as I was concerned, it was fine for them to use flash as the bride enters and as the couple exit, and I told them so. I don't even recall an instance where Aunt Jane or Uncle Herb took a flash shot from the congregation during the service. That may be a regional/cultural thing. With cell phones instead of Instamatics, that might make it even less common.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Many, perhaps most, churches and clergy have a rule of no flash photography during the ceremony. I never had a photographer act in the least bit surprised when I told them the policy. As far as I was concerned, it was fine for them to use flash as the bride enters and as the couple exit, and I told them so. I don't even recall an instance where Aunt Jane or Uncle Herb took a flash shot from the congregation during the service. That may be a regional/cultural thing. With cell phones instead of Instamatics, that might make it even less common.



Folks getting paid to shoot weddings these days aren't just concerned with the ceremony. As far as that goes, those who actually get married inside a church sanctuary are becoming fewer and fewer. "Destination" weddings in scenic outdoor settings or at event hosting facilities that cater to weddings are much more popular, especially for those who plan large weddings.

It's more about the pre-ceremony "getting ready" shots, the post-ceremony formal portraits, both family/wedding party sessions and very often now a short "private" session for the bride and groom, and then the reception which is the "main event" as far as many are concerned in terms of photos.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Folks getting paid to shoot weddings these days aren't just concerned with the ceremony. As far as that goes, those who actually get married inside a church sanctuary are becoming fewer and fewer. "Destination" weddings in scenic outdoor settings or at event hosting facilities that cater to weddings are much more popular, especially for those who plan large weddings.
> 
> It's more about the pre-ceremony "getting ready" shots, the post-ceremony formal portraits, both family/wedding party sessions and very often now a short "private" session for the bride and groom, and then the reception which is the "main event" as far as many are concerned in terms of photos.


All very true. As a pastor, I was not involved with that sort of wedding for the most part, just a few occasions where someone referred the couple to me. Those kinds of weddings would be the ones to hire real professional photographers with lighting, etc., and maybe even assistants. People spending those kinds of bucks would be stupid to do otherwise, though it does happen. People do stupid things.

I have done outdoor weddings in nice settings that were of different scales and budgets. I'm doing a wedding late this summer that was postponed from last summer because of the virus. The couple have bought a house together and want to start a family once they are married. They don't have a lot of money, so it probably won't be expensive, just beautiful. (The bride's mom and grandmother will probably kick in, but that is none of my business. They are good friends and neighbors, so they might mention something anyway, not that it matters to me.) The park canceled all weddings after March last year.

In my part of the South until recently, the ceremony was the bulk of the activities. Wedding photography consisted mostly of group shots right after the ceremony and a few shots of cutting the wedding cake and the bride smearing cake on the groom's face. Receptions had mints and peanuts and punch to hold you until you got a piece of cake. That was in the church fellowship hall. Then the couple left in their decorated car, and everybody went home. Even for these weddings the bride wanted something better than what Uncle Herb took with the Instamatic or cell phone.

That all may be changing faster than I realize. I have performed only one wedding since I retired. It was at a small rural church, and the groom's uncle really is an excellent photographer, a serious amateur, and I'm sure he did a great job. Sadly, I was back at that church in July to speak at the funeral for the groom's grandmother, a good friend of mine who died from the virus. I had last seen her at a basketball game in March, right before everything shut down.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 21, 2021)

stevelee said:


> In my part of the South until recently, the ceremony was the bulk of the activities. Wedding photography consisted mostly of group shots right after the ceremony and a few shots of cutting the wedding cake and the bride smearing cake on the groom's face. Receptions had mints and peanuts and punch to hold you until you got a piece of cake. That was in the church fellowship hall. Then the couple left in their decorated car, and everybody went home. Even for these weddings the bride wanted something better than what Uncle Herb took with the Instamatic or cell phone.



You're describing my parents' wedding in 1960 and both of my sisters' weddings in 1985 and 1993, respectively. My brother's wedding in 1994 was so small that everyone who attended the ceremony, except maybe the preacher (sorry, Rev. - but if he wasn't there I'm sure he had been invited but had somewhere else he needed to be) went to the same restaurant after and sat at the same large table. Those days are long gone from a full-time professional photographer's point of view. Not very many weddings today look like those, and the few that do are not the ones to hire a full-time professional photographer at the rates they need to charge to not starve to death.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 21, 2021)

A good friend in high school became a professional photographer in my hometown, starting in the era when weddings there were as described. I would assume the bulk of his business was wedding photography back then. We are friends on Facebook, but I haven't talked with him since I graduated. He was in the class after mine, so I don't see him at reunions. I just checked his web site, and it looks good. It says:


> *I have been photographing Weddings, Events, Headshots, Real Estate, Senior and Family Portraits across both Carolinas and beyond for over 40 years.*



The professional photographer I know best now does mostly college sports and does a great job. He said last spring he lost $50k in income when sports shut down for the rest of the semester.


----------



## snegri45 (Feb 5, 2021)

OK.

It seems we have drifted some ways away from the original post, which was a (somewhat unsubstantiated) RUMOR. Around this we have gotten some facts, some speculation, and some more rumors. If this is just clickbait it has certainly served its purpose extremely well.

Canon is the 45.4 % gorilla in the camera market place. They are 6.6 percentage points ahead of Sony and Nikon's combined share. It was not specified whether the statistic represented revenue or unit sales. The EOS M system is by far the world's best selling ILC system, starting from scratch 8 1/2 years ago. Speculations about Canon's original plan with the system are likely highly irrelevant today. In the US the M bodies are priced somewhat upmarket, particularly compared with the Rebel cameras. In other parts of the world simpler bodies with lower specs are probably sold cheaper.

Given the above we can safely assume that Canon makes (good) money off the M system. And thus the system is NOT LIKELY to go away anytime soon.


----------

