# IBIS is likely coming to the EOS M lineup [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 23, 2020)

> I have been having some conversations with a source about the EOS M lineup and its future. Canon is apparently behind the system for the long haul by everything the source has been told.
> I asked specifically if IBIS is something we’ll see in future EOS M cameras. The source has told me that Canon will likely be bringing IBIS to a camera or two in the EOS M lineup.
> I was not told which upcoming EOS M camera would be getting IBIS, but I think the EOS M50 Mark II would be a good place to start. There’s also a chance that IBIS will be held for the rumored flagship EOS M camera body.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Konachu (Jul 23, 2020)

I feel like Canon will push APS-C Mirrorless using the EOS M system. A flagship camera and some nice lenses will serve the system well.
My guess is this is a better way for Canon, rather than putting out crop lenses on the RF mount.
Just my guess though.


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jul 23, 2020)

M5

IBIS

Same sensor as my M6ii

Better battery life

Day 1 purchase.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 23, 2020)

I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


Cause my Sigma Primes don't have any stabilization lol.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?



On Oct 1 2018


> _With an in-body IS system you are creating something that needs to work over lots of different types of lenses and different lens groups, so you don’t get a dedicated system for that particular lens.
> All lenses move in different ways, and you get different types of shake depending on what kind of lens you’re using, so dedicating the IS system to the particular lens is, for us, the optimum way of doing it – but that’s not to say that we aren’t looking at in-body IS.
> – David Parry, Product Intelligence Consultant, Canon UK_


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?




That was the old guard, I think Canon leadership retired and the new leadership says put in whatever competes with Sony. I think it is also possible Canon just didn't have the computing power to run IS and DPAF and had to buy time to improve their HW.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 23, 2020)

Since Laowa released native 65mm 2x Ultra Macro for EF-M Mount this new camera can make a good macro camera to carry around. I just hope Canon uses LP-E6 FF batteries instead of smaller batteries.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 23, 2020)

M50 with IBIS would definitely be something I would upgrade my M50 for.

I don't care what it'll be called. M50ii, M5ii, M7, MickeyMouse1... as long as it has the same M50 articulating screen and built in viewfinder and IBIS.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?



In general lens based stabilization is superior. However, it cannot correct for roll (is that the correct term?). Yes, competition has forced Canon's hand. Besides, with IBIS, Canon will now have a market for unstabilized lenses, which means more sales. Maturity of the M system perhaps?


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 23, 2020)

I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?


----------



## miketcool (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?



That was true at a time where you had computational limits. Now that the camera can use full time tracking, the image quality is vastly improved with IBIS. Early versions mostly induced unacceptable levels of warping. The examples on Canon’s iteration looks really good.




SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount.



Canon camera’s current cash cow is the EOS-M. Killing it off would be disastrous. There will be plenty of consumer need for a sub professional lineup of camera.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 23, 2020)

Just let M die ;p!

not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).

Canons M line has/had a heavy slow development... no IBIS until now, slow lenses etc.
Want to see a m6II with dual card, nice weather sealing in a aps-c pro body WITH evf in body!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 23, 2020)

They just need to add a few lenses, especially higher quality zooms. Basically all the zooms they have are dark, fully plastic and just ok optically, with the 11-22 being the only exception.
And the M6 should have had a corner EVF.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 23, 2020)

I am basically obsessed with the M-series cameras. I would love to see a serious M5 Mark II hit the market along with a fixed aperture zoom that still covers the 24mm equivalent...may be a chance to add weather sealing on a lens/body combo and bring out a sealed adapter? For the love of GOD, give us a better buffer on the M6 Mark II if it can be optimized in firmware...but make it a priority on the M5 Mark II.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 23, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?


As I understand it the only issue with RF compat is that you couldn't do a straight through adapter, you'd need a converter of some sort (like a speedbooster). If true then this limitation wouldn't mean much.

That said, the price of RF glass makes it a silly investment for a M mount camera at this point. By the time it matters my guess is there will be a solution. In the meantime, the number of M mount lenses is rapidly increasing and EF is easy to adapt/mount.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


They have read my posts at canonrumors that I want to reuse FD lenses and that I will be grateful for some image stabilization.

I think the true reason might be some development of a very good IBIS which might roll and shift the sensor not only by some gyro but also by pattern recognition during sensor readout. I do not know if other companies or Canon do that but I think this is much more precise than reading gyro / accel sensors - my experience with medium priced sensors is that they are good if you can average but if you need an exact readout of current values at higher rates they aren't that good.

And maybe there is some magic with RF lenses, Ibis and the additional RF specific contacts ?!


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 23, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Just let M die ;p!
> 
> not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).
> 
> ...


1) EF-M 32mm
2) EF-M 22mm
3) Sigma 16mm
4) Sigma 56mm

And EF itself is dead, no new lenses in a couple years, so Canon is really only doing two systems right now.


----------



## secant (Jul 23, 2020)

This info not only sheds light to the possible M50 II, but also a potential flagship M coming out?!


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 23, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> M50 with IBIS would definitely be something I would upgrade my M50 for.
> 
> I don't care what it'll be called. M50ii, M5ii, M7, MickeyMouse1... as long as it has the same M50 articulating screen and built in viewfinder and IBIS.


And the form factor, it's extremely comfortable in the hand especially with the Smallrig cage available for it.


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?


It is about having a system without compromises.

In EF-M, they can make truly small, compact crop lenses. They couldn't be so small in RF, due to the much wider throat. The current lenses are essentially just as wide as the mount and if you never have helt one in your hands I highly recommend trying them. I was shocked to see how small they really are, compared to the impression I got from pictures.

Also, this way, we don't need to get into the messy boundary between high end APS-C and low end FF lenses, where equivalency makes for some redundant designs. They don't need to make a 17-55 mm 2.8 when you can just buy a 24-105 mm 4.0 L. With the RP showing that Canon can approach APS-C body pricing already, and future sales numbers likely reducing fixed cost per unit further, I find it easy to think of APS-C as something that is only needed for very compact cameras and lenses now. And the EF-M mount is just perfect for that.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 23, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses,



The vast majority of Canon shooters are not going to have any RF lenses in a few years, or possibly ever. Why would they? They don't want a large and expensive R body or large and expensive RF lenses for it. The RF mount is too large to fit truly compact cameras and lenses like the M series. Canon probably sells *dozens* of M's for every R sold. Absolutely no sense to kill it off.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 23, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?



simple:

1. size 
size of body
size of lenses
size of complete system

2. more sales 
#1 selling Canon mirrorless camera
people who want 2 systems (1- portable/travel; 2- high quality FF) now will buy for 2 systems


----------



## ashmadux (Jul 23, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> M5
> 
> IBIS
> 
> ...



SAME m6mkii with ibis.....amazing

At this point its all the M series is missing after eye af and 4k DPAF was added.

Were almost there, cmon canon!


----------



## bhf3737 (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


The physics does not change: lens based stabilization is always superior *for longer focal lengths*.
But product development strategies may change, due to having more in-camera processing power and further exploration of consumer video market. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 23, 2020)

I love my EOS M5 and would buy the M50 II if they put IBIS and the new improved AF something like the R6

That would make a great crop sensor compact camera


----------



## scottw (Jul 23, 2020)

IBIS in EF-M would be great. I'd expect it to happen with a flagship model rather than the M50 replacement due to the M6 Mark II unless they augment the M50's ergonomic design a bit more.

Before the M6 Mark II came out I was also thinking EF-M might end, but as things have progressed I think it makes sense to keep them seperate and keep EF-M going. At the very least M200 style bodies which are the original purpose of the system, but with the success of the M50 maybe Canon got the message that there is a market for more in EF-M. With the release of the RP and R6 I don't see much space for APS-C in RF. Having APS-C lenses in RF also would muddy the waters, IMO.

I'd definitely consider a higher-end EF-M camera to replace the M5 I use for the photo side of things. I use a pair of M50 bodies for mostly video that I wouldn't mind dedicating to filming stations if I pick up something new. I'd personally like a mini R6 styled camera in EF-M mount and might consider an M6 Mark II for video once it drops in price a lot. I don't think I'd buy an M50 Mark II upon release if it doesn't have custom modes like the M5/M6. 

Even now with the Sigma primes and such EF-M is sufficient for what I do, but there are a few focal lengths I'd like that don't exist natively like a ~12mm prime with IS that can work with IBIS and a f/4 telephoto lens.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 23, 2020)

Oh wow. Had in mind purchasing an M6mkII as travel camera. Now what? Is this coming in 2021. May still wind up getting it since I wont be doing much travel for quite some time.


----------



## idahobill (Jul 23, 2020)

No suprise that Canon is behind the system. The M50 changed everything for the M-series's future by becoming the best selling mirrorless camera among all brands.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 23, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?



Because it's compact and it sells way more than the RF mount cameras right now.

Your APS-C lenses in the past weren't compatible with full frame DSLRs when you upgraded, so nothing really new here. EF-M mount is here to stay because it's a different market to the R. I use both systems and have never once thought "I wish I could use my EF-M lenses on my R body!"


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 23, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> And the form factor, it's extremely comfortable in the hand especially with the Smallrig cage available for it.


Same here but until now without some cage - Smallrig is more or less on my list if I do more video, good to hear that is well suitted for the M.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jul 23, 2020)

...anybody (and I mean anybody!) who is surprised that Canon is in with the M format for the long haul hasn't been paying attention (at least to my posts!).

Two letters matter for Canon's future customers thinking about replacing their DSLRs: R. And M.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 23, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> Same here but until now without some cage - Smallrig is more or less on my list if I do more video, good to hear that is well suitted for the M.


I'm not doing any video at this time, I wanted the physical protection and the easy mount point for my monopod. By chance it turns out it's a rally nice extension to the physical grip on the right side as well.

The initial revision was apparently easy to loosen as it was designed for the M5, the second revision, which I have, seems to stay firmly in place and hasn't loosened up in the few months since I got it. If I have one complaint though it's that the wifi button is partially blocked by it. I can still press it but it requires a little effort.


----------



## i_SH (Jul 23, 2020)

Waiting for Canon EOS M7 with LP-E6NH battery and lenses 9-18/4, 18-45/2, 45-90/2 and with black (!) 90-450/4-7. 1!


----------



## RMac (Jul 23, 2020)

An ef-m 32mm f1.4 on and IBIS body would be a fantastic little on-the-go hybrid shooting combo. I love that lens but the lack of stabilization means it doesn't get use for video unless I have it on a tripod.

As a travel/hiking/casual-around-the-house camera I love the M5 aside from the lack of stabilization, 1/4000 max shutter speed, and inability to specify manual exposure settings in its timelapse video mode.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jul 23, 2020)

I don't think the availability of M mount lenses is such big issue. I have kept my 22 mm and Sigma 56 mm. The rest of the time I shoot with an EF-S 15-85 IS USM and EF 70-300 IS USM II via a £25 adaptor.

The current M50 is a pocket powerhouse and a revision with IBIS and a few other improvements will keep attracting buyers. The availability of glass in three ranges makes it a compelling purchase if you want the form factor.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 23, 2020)

Nobody really talks about this Camera but the EOS M200 is a little cracker

If they ever update this camera and add a tilt twisty screen rather than a flip out one, it really would be the perfect ultra-compact APS-C Camera especially paired with the EF-M 22 f/2


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 23, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> Nobody really talks about this Camera but the EOS M200 is a little cracker
> 
> If they ever update this camera and add a tilt twisty screen rather than a flip out one, it really would be the perfect ultra-compact APS-C Camera especially paired with the EF-M 22 f/2


My partner uses the M100 I got her so we could share lenses and completely concurs.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Jul 23, 2020)

M50 mark II with IBIS in combo with 32mm 1.4, or sigma´s 1.4 trio will easily compete to full frame, as latest APS-C sensor from Canon is more than sufficient now.


----------



## Stuart (Jul 23, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


Canon once said Lens IS was typically better overall than Body IS. Though they now say the combined IS is better again. It seems that way with some 1-2s handheld exposed on the R5/6.


----------



## secant (Jul 23, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Because it's compact and it sells way more than the RF mount cameras right now.
> 
> Your APS-C lenses in the past weren't compatible with full frame DSLRs when you upgraded, so nothing really new here. EF-M mount is here to stay because it's a different market to the R. I use both systems and have never once thought "I wish I could use my EF-M lenses on my R body!"



Yeah and the numbers agree on this the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera for Canon and on the market period right now at least according to Amazon.





Amazon Best Sellers: Best Mirrorless Cameras


Discover the best Mirrorless Cameras in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Electronics Best Sellers.



www.amazon.com





The market saids there's room to separate those that want the R and those that want the M and there's also people who have both like you and me. The M50 has been one of the top choices for vlogging and 1-person content production probably until the Sony ZV-1 is out and I'd say its still a good choice especially for those who want to be able to change lenses as oppose to the ZV-1. The M50 is basically like a swiss army knife in a small compact package and good price point that hits a lot of users.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 23, 2020)

Don't have a crystal ball nor Canon's internal company roadmap, but...wouldn't be surprised to see a crop-sensor RF mount camera for the 7D class of users IN ADDITION TO maintaining the EOS M system for entry-level, compact mirrorless options.


----------



## Trout Bum (Jul 24, 2020)

All I really want more of from my M series is IBIS. Video without a tripod ( !!! ) further stabilized in post, for my walk-around / travel system that so beautifully complements my full-frame gear.
Those who wonder why the M line exists just don't get it...


----------



## slclick (Jul 24, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> M5
> 
> IBIS
> 
> ...




The M5 is a far better body than the M6 imho so if they beef up the sealing and grip, yeah, it would be a good candidate for the crop folx missing the 7 series successor. Not a replacement nor a betterment but it could placate them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Just let M die ;p!
> 
> not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).
> 
> ...


How much development need is there for a system aimed squarely at people who want a small but capable camera most of whom are happy with and will only ever buy the zoom lens it comes with? The 22 prime is a great lens, as is the 28 macro, the 32mm f1.4 and the 11-22 zoom.

All cameras don’t have to be your next camera and it seems Canon know what they are doing because the EF-M system is the best selling MILC system on the planet.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 24, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> How much development need is there for a system aimed squarely at people who want a small but capable camera most of whom are happy with and will only ever buy the zoom lens it comes with? The 22 prime is a great lens, as is the 28 macro, the 32mm f1.4 and the 11-22 zoom.
> 
> All cameras don’t have to be your next camera and it seems Canon know what they are doing because the EF-M system is the best selling MILC system on the planet.



Indeed. If they should let something die...it'd be the RFs. And I really don't want them to do that!


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 24, 2020)

Hope this commitment to ef-m also means more lenses. 18-45mm f2.8, 55-135mm f2.8. 56mm f1.4, 11mm f1.4 please and thank you.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Jul 24, 2020)

slclick said:


> The M5 is a far better body than the M6 imho so if they beef up the sealing and grip, yeah, it would be a good candidate for the crop folx missing the 7 series successor. Not a replacement nor a betterment but it could placate them.



Maybe it has the better body, but I still prefer the M6. I'm getting the camera for the smaller size, and so I prefer the smaller version. If I need more, that's what my DSLR's (and soon R5) are for. I hope Canon continues to make both form factors.


----------



## shire_guy (Jul 24, 2020)

I would be very tempted to upgrade my M50 with a replacement M50 model with IBIS, but I think it will probably go only to the top line M camera. However I am just happy this rumour adds further weight behind Canon continuing with the M series camera and lenses.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 24, 2020)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Maybe it has the better body, but I still prefer the M6. I'm getting the camera for the smaller size, and so I prefer the smaller version. If I need more, that's what my DSLR's (and soon R5) are for. I hope Canon continues to make both form factors.



Couldn't agree more. The M6 is about as large as I'd tolerate for an M-series APS-C camera. As the bulk increases beyond that I may as well grab the DSLR (or RP as of recently). 

In fact, part of me wonders whether to downsize it to an M200 as the RP is taking over some of my "compact camera uses" (such as everyday walkaround shooting) so to speak. The FF IQ just can't be beat, especially in low light. But at the end of the day, I still need something that can pass as a "P&S" to take into select concert/stadium venues, etc. and this is where the M series still holds relevance for me.


----------



## Marximusprime (Jul 24, 2020)

I just want an R7.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 24, 2020)

The conversation needs to start with better EFm lenses.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

docsmith said:


> The conversation needs to start with better EFm lenses.


What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.


----------



## scottw (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> The initial revision was apparently easy to loosen as it was designed for the M5, the second revision, which I have



The loosening happens when it gets attached to a tripod or something similar. I think the bottom flexes a bit which loosens the screw. While the cage can kinda sorta hold the M5, if the thread is tightened it would probably break something in the camera. The M5's top grip side is a lot wider than the M50. I don't know why store listings had it as compatible with the M5.


----------



## BroderLund (Jul 24, 2020)

I know it's a lot to ask for, but I wish for 10bit 422 clog like the R5/R6. Make that the standard for the whole line up. Sony does slog on all their cameras, Canon can too, but with better codec, 10 bit not 8 bit.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

scottw said:


> The loosening happens when it gets attached to a tripod or something similar. I think the bottom flexes a bit which loosens the screw. While the cage can kinda sorta hold the M5, if the thread is tightened it would probably break something in the camera. The M5's top grip side is a lot wider than the M50. I don't know why store listings had it as compatible with the M5.


Question: Why would someone use a screw in tripod when the Smallrig is by default Arca-Swiss compatible? I threw a compatible AS plate on my monopod and it works perfectly.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.


I would start with a better standard zoom, both IQ and faster aperture. 
Disagree on the EF to EFm adapter. It’s good it works, I use it all the time with telephoto lenses but find it awkward with general purpose zooms.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I would start with a better standard zoom, both IQ and faster aperture.
> Disagree on the EF to EFm adapter. It’s good it works, I use it all the time with telephoto lenses but find it awkward with general purpose zooms.


Fair enough, I don't really use Zooms for much. I bought the 55-200 first after getting the camera but it's turned out that 1) most of my pictures are events or street style, and 2) I am enjoying primes a lot more. So my 15-45 & 55-200 I rarely even have with me. I most commonly take out the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 32mm (or the EF 50 f/1.4 with Viltrox speedbooster) when I'm out. If I were doing nature photography I'd probably use zooms more though.

How is the 18-150? I've wondered for a while if that would be a way to simplify the 15-45/55-200 into a single lens.


----------



## scottw (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Question: Why would someone use a screw in tripod when the Smallrig is by default Arca-Swiss compatible? I threw a compatible AS plate on my monopod and it works perfectly.



I do have a few of that style of mount as plates that attach to a tripod head, but currently do not have any dedicated tripods with that connection type. I don't use them all of the time. One setup I use for filming videos at a camera shop uses a table top tripod with the cage and an LED light. I connect the cage directly to the tripod. I don't have a reason to use an arca-swiss plate between the two. That generally works okay and if it loosens I can easily fix it. I guess I should have also said it does occasionally loosen over time from pressure on the camera grip side, at least the one I have (version 1 preorder). I still use it but mine is definitely flawed. Some of the smallrig designs hook into the strap lugs. Had the M50 one done that I think it would have helped a lot.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

scottw said:


> I do have a few of that style of mount as plates that attach to a tripod head, but currently do not have any dedicated tripods with that connection type. I don't use them all of the time. One setup I use for filming videos at a camera shop uses a table top tripod with the cage and an LED light. I connect the cage directly to the tripod. I don't have a reason to use an arca-swiss plate between the two. That generally works okay and if it loosens I can easily fix it. I guess I should have also said it does occasionally loosen over time from pressure on the camera grip side, at least the one I have (version 1 preorder). I still use it but mine is definitely flawed. Some of the smallrig designs hook into the strap lugs. Had the M50 one done that I think it would have helped a lot.


Nice! Thanks for responding. I'm not trying to be combative or doubt anyone's experience, I'm only a year and a half into this and am learning mostly by hearing how others do things. There is rarely any active discussion on the M line so I'm taking advantage. ;p


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 24, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> Hope this commitment to ef-m also means more lenses. 18-45mm f2.8, 55-135mm f2.8. 56mm f1.4, 11mm f1.4 please and thank you.



I'd go for that 18-45 and for sure the 11.

Hope we can at least get some most watering rumor going on about them soon!! ( *hint, hint * )


----------



## derpderp (Jul 24, 2020)

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling


----------



## Jethro (Jul 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling


Well, given this thread is about the credible rumour of new M mount bodies (updated with IBIS), the mount seems to be far from dead, and developing new lenses isn't baffling at all.


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jul 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling


In what way is it dead? I keep hearing this, but the M50 is the best selling mirrorless camera so are you saying everything is dead? Are you saying this due to lens availability? The Sigma Primes are great, the Laowa 65mm Macro is super crisp, and the Tamron 18-200mm zoom is better than people give it credit. That’s just 3rd party lenses, the 11-22mm and 22mm are fun walk around lenses if you need it to be 1st party. All of the above can had for less than the cost of the new R5 body. ‍

Not all of us get paid to shoot, and not all of us have deep pockets. I’m never going to get any sort of ROI (I don’t shoot professionally) on an investment in the R system. It’s a luxury that maybe after I put my kids through school I can justify that type spend.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling



If you want to know, just start by reading page 1 and onward


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.



I have the adapter, but in the end, the 50 1.8 STM is the only lens I use with it. I tried adapting other lenses, but after the novelty wore off of having a tiny camera attached to giant lenses, I mostly didn't like using it. I got the camera because it's small. That's how it's different from my DSLRs. Where the EF/S and EF-M lenses have near exact equivalents, the EF-M lens is much smaller, and I prefer that a lot.

As for what lenses, BakaBokeh made a pretty good list. There are only three primes from Canon right now, so the prime lens line up could be filled out a bit more. And if they're going to come out with a top of the line M camera with IBIS (and all the eye auto focus updates?) it would be nice if they had more than just the 11-22 and 22 that people rave about. Sharper, faster focusing Mark II versions of a lot of the current lenses would be nice.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Fair enough, I don't really use Zooms for much. I bought the 55-200 first after getting the camera but it's turned out that 1) most of my pictures are events or street style, and 2) I am enjoying primes a lot more. So my 15-45 & 55-200 I rarely even have with me. I most commonly take out the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 32mm (or the EF 50 f/1.4 with Viltrox speedbooster) when I'm out. If I were doing nature photography I'd probably use zooms more though.
> 
> *How is the 18-150? I've wondered for a while if that would be a way to simplify the 15-45/55-200 into a single lens.*



I bought the M5 a few years back, and love it. It's notably more compact than any of my DSLRs. With the 15-45mm or 22mm prime, I can slip it in a very small pocket or part of a bag.

Having said that, I also do have the 18-150mm and it's a great lens. Optically better than any of Canon EF-S 18-135mm lenses (there are 3 of them). But yes, it makes the whole package a bit longer than the shorter lenses obviously.
However, for a single lens option with some reach, it works really well. And yes, I find it covers 90% of the shots that a 15-45mm and 55-200mm will do. (The extra 50mm between 150mm and 200mm is not that noticable.. and 24MP or 32MP images crop quite well).

I also have the Rokinon (Samyang) EF-M 12mm f/2 lens, and I use that for astro photography or as an UWA option too (it's a really good lens and amazingly compact for what it is) So at times I go out with those 2 lenses, the 12mm f/2 and 18-150mm. But for a 1 lens option, I go with the 18-150mm most often, or the 15-45mm when I need a truly compact zoom. Interestingly, my copy of the 15-45mm is very sharp.. I think some early adopters got poor copies, but I have owned 2 and both were very good in terms of resolution, colour rendition, etc).

Regarding the original theme of this post, I am very much looking forward to Canon putting IBIS in a future EF-M camera... it would breath even more life into my Rokinon 12mm f/2 as well as my Canon 22mm f/2 prime (another great lens). 

Cheers

PJ


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 24, 2020)

derpderp said:


> why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling



The only mount that is dead is EF (and EF-S). If the announcement about the 5D range being canned is true you can be pretty sure Canon won't launch any new EF or EF-S lenses in the future.

EF-M is far from a dead mount, it's Canon's highest-selling mount.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 24, 2020)

EF (-S) is not dead. Just mature.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.



What im missing is a nice telephoto zoom which is smaller and lighter than an 70-200 F4 and does not need an adaptor. But just as sharp. Not the current mediocre 50-200. 
Make it 50-150 and F4 or F4.5 for smaller size and weight but don't compromise in image quality.


----------



## Mike9129 (Jul 24, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?


I guess its handy for the lens' that dont have IS really more than the ones with it?


----------



## docsmith (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Fair enough, I don't really use Zooms for much. I bought the 55-200 first after getting the camera but it's turned out that 1) most of my pictures are events or street style, and 2) I am enjoying primes a lot more. So my 15-45 & 55-200 I rarely even have with me. I most commonly take out the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 32mm (or the EF 50 f/1.4 with Viltrox speedbooster) when I'm out. If I were doing nature photography I'd probably use zooms more though.
> 
> How is the 18-150? I've wondered for a while if that would be a way to simplify the 15-45/55-200 into a single lens.


Sure. I am mostly a zoom shooter that uses primes to fill in specific niches. But, that is with L glass where the zooms have gotten so good. I am not saying we need "L" EFm zooms, although that would be nice, but something in the EFs 15-85 or EFs 17-55 IQ caliber range would be nice. Currently, I do like the 11-22, and 28 macro. Maybe I should pick up the primes you mention, but I prefer zooms.

That said, the 18-150 is one I do not have, but I know others that use it for exactly what you propose, I have heard it is good, but still in the same general level as the other EFm zooms. 

I actually have invested a fair amount into the M-ecosystem (5 lenses, M6 II, EVFs, etc). It is good Canon is going to continue it. It has become my primary video set up and I even use it on the 500 f/4 (it does great, but not with TCs). I would absolutely consider buying a new "M1" type of camera, but before I invest more, I really would like to see some better zoom lenses. Maybe I could shift over to prime, but would prefer to have a kit based on good zooms and a few primes to fill specific needs, similar to my FF gear.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 24, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I'm not doing any video at this time, I wanted the physical protection and the easy mount point for my monopod. By chance it turns out it's a rally nice extension to the physical grip on the right side as well.
> 
> The initial revision was apparently easy to loosen as it was designed for the M5, the second revision, which I have, seems to stay firmly in place and hasn't loosened up in the few months since I got it. If I have one complaint though it's that the wifi button is partially blocked by it. I can still press it but it requires a little effort.


Thanks for the reply - so I will check if it is a second revision item if I order it!

I am starting with video and I need to fix my audio equipment. I would like to have very good mono (Videomic NTG) but some ambient stereo which can be processed later - all with 2 channels of internal audio recording via mid side stereophonie. There are bulky 2000 EUR / USD solutions but I am after a 300 bucks-small solution which doesn't exist. So I have to build it which isn't that simple. If I find my ideal solution maybe the hot shoe is sufficient for the mic setup. If not a good cage is the solution.


----------



## CafeAvian (Jul 24, 2020)

With the announcement of the 600mm and 800mm f11, I think Canon has effectively allocated any enthusiast/prosumer wildlife photographers that used to be on APS-C DSLR to the RF system. There just needs to be a reasonably priced RF 70-300mm replacement. I think the M is really good for on the go photography that does not need significant magnification better than the RF due to being lightweight. The M is also ideally sized to replace point and shoot cameras for people that do not want to use cell phones via the M200. 

Personally, I would prefer an RP-sized mirrorless camera body, APS-C sensor, M-mount sized wide/standard/telephoto lenses, and APS-C super telephoto lenses, but that probably isn’t going to happen from Canon.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 24, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Just let M die ;p!
> 
> not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).
> 
> ...



Nonsense.

The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system available (except for video, which is mediocre in all M cameras to date). All they need is a 50 or 60mm f/1.4.


----------



## drama (Jul 24, 2020)

Etienne said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system available (except for video, which is mediocre in all M cameras to date). All they need is a 50 or 60mm f/1.4.



Agree on this. Looking at pricing, there's a sweet spot for a sub 1k flagship APS-C mirrorless, and something at around the 6-700 mark that uses that glass and perhaps one or two other new lenses. Tons of life in the system yet, and if marketed properly a useful feeder into their RF full frame system.


----------



## Stichus III (Jul 24, 2020)

Etienne said:


> The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system (...)



I mostly agree. When coupled with the M5 and M6 (ii) it makes for a fun, small, light, and surprisingly powerful system. That being said, the EOS M lineup is lagging behind the competition. Canon needs to update the M5 with a modern sensor, DPAF 2, IBIS, an articulated screen and competitive video specs.

On another note: anyone suggesting that it is a good idea to use full frame lenses on small EOS M style bodies, must not have much experience doing this in practice. The crop factor, the size and the weight of full frame lenses offer a quick reality check. In my experience (and paradoxically) only full frame long lenses have lots of practical value on an EOS M style body, due to the crop factor. The EF 70-300L adapted to my EOS M5, gives me a whole lot of reach, but at the same time the system becomes painfully unbalanced.


----------



## photonius (Jul 24, 2020)

Konachu said:


> I feel like Canon will push APS-C Mirrorless using the EOS M system. A flagship camera and some nice lenses will serve the system well.
> My guess is this is a better way for Canon, rather than putting out crop lenses on the RF mount.
> Just my guess though.


But then, why not release the 600mm and 800mm f11 consumer lenses also for EOS M?


----------



## photonius (Jul 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> It is about having a system without compromises.
> 
> In EF-M, they can make truly small, compact crop lenses. They couldn't be so small in RF, due to the much wider throat. The current lenses are essentially just as wide as the mount and if you never have helt one in your hands I highly recommend trying them. I was shocked to see how small they really are, compared to the impression I got from pictures.
> 
> Also, this way, we don't need to get into the messy boundary between high end APS-C and low end FF lenses, where equivalency makes for some redundant designs. They don't need to make a 17-55 mm 2.8 when you can just buy a 24-105 mm 4.0 L. With the RP showing that Canon can approach APS-C body pricing already, and future sales numbers likely reducing fixed cost per unit further, I find it easy to think of APS-C as something that is only needed for very compact cameras and lenses now. And the EF-M mount is just perfect for that.


The messy boundary problems remain even more so, when you have two mounts. Now there is no 17-55 f2.8 on EF-M, and maybe there never will. So, you are saying that if I have EOS-M, but want a better standard zoom lens, I have to also buy a FF camera with 24-105 lens? 
The EF / EF-S universe made a lot more sense, since on the APS-C bodies, one could mount the whole lens range, which is not possible with EOS-M, Canon has to maintain two lens ranges.... And like with EF/EF-S, guess where most effort goes. Yes, the throat is larger on RF, but it's actually the same size as EF/EF-S. And Canon was able to make a compact dSLR with the SL line. If one takes away the mirror box, I think even with RF one can be quite compact. Admittedly, not quite as compact as EOS-M, but then, Canon painted themselves into a corner with the two incompatible mounts.


----------



## Joules (Jul 24, 2020)

photonius said:


> The messy boundary problems remain even more so, when you have two mounts. Now there is no 17-55 f2.8 on EF-M, and maybe there never will. So, you are saying that if I have EOS-M, but want a better standard zoom lens, I have to also buy a FF camera with 24-105 lens?


Well, if you are interested in a 17-55 2.8 on crop, what you really want is a lens to get blurry backgrounds and decent low light performance, right? An equivalent lens on FF will do that for you. And you are fine with paying the money and weight associated with that. So what is the point of using such a lens on the M system, that is explicitly about small, lightweight and affordable lenses? Why pollute a clean system with compromised options?

It makes perfect sense to me to separate the shrinking market into the size and weight enthusiasts and the picture quality and ergonomics enthusiasts. There may be an overlap there, but as I said: the market is shrinking. Only the users who are numerous enough will get what they want without paying more than they might like.


----------



## addola (Jul 24, 2020)

I personally want a retro-style camera, like the Fujifilm X-T4, but with EF-M mount. 

The EOS M needs more lenses. Maybe fast wide lenses for vloggig since the system is small & compact for that purpose!


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

Stichus III said:


> I mostly agree. When coupled with the M5 and M6 (ii) it makes for a fun, small, light, and surprisingly powerful system. That being said, the EOS M lineup is lagging behind the competition. Canon needs to update the M5 with a modern sensor, DPAF 2, IBIS, an articulated screen and competitive video specs.
> 
> On another note: anyone suggesting that it is a good idea to use full frame lenses on small EOS M style bodies, must not have much experience doing this in practice. The crop factor, the size and the weight of full frame lenses offer a quick reality check. In my experience (and paradoxically) only full frame long lenses have lots of practical value on an EOS M style body, due to the crop factor. The EF 70-300L adapted to my EOS M5, gives me a whole lot of reach, but at the same time the system becomes painfully unbalanced.


I am currently using the EF f/1.4 50mm with the Viltrox speedbooster and a ND filter. I believe that is full frame and so far it's a tough call between that and the Sigma 16mm for my favorite and most used lenses (both are always in my bag).

Are you just referring to longer zooms? For smaller primes it does not seem to be a problem.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> I bought the M5 a few years back, and love it. It's notably more compact than any of my DSLRs. With the 15-45mm or 22mm prime, I can slip it in a very small pocket or part of a bag.
> 
> Having said that, I also do have the 18-150mm and it's a great lens. Optically better than any of Canon EF-S 18-135mm lenses (there are 3 of them). But yes, it makes the whole package a bit longer than the shorter lenses obviously.
> However, for a single lens option with some reach, it works really well. And yes, I find it covers 90% of the shots that a 15-45mm and 55-200mm will do. (The extra 50mm between 150mm and 200mm is not that noticable.. and 24MP or 32MP images crop quite well).
> ...


Thank you for this feedback. Right now the only use I'm getting out of my zoom is at protests where I capture the faces of facists/nazis for later identification. I don't need 200mm for that, which is why I was asking. The 150 is likely just as useful, although I'm not sure if I can get enough money selling off my 55-200 & 15-45 to cover it or not.

Also I didn't notice any issues with the 15-45mm but I'm not an expert and maybe I didn't know what to look for. I just almost never use it.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Sure. I am mostly a zoom shooter that uses primes to fill in specific niches. But, that is with L glass where the zooms have gotten so good. I am not saying we need "L" EFm zooms, although that would be nice, but something in the EFs 15-85 or EFs 17-55 IQ caliber range would be nice. Currently, I do like the 11-22, and 28 macro. Maybe I should pick up the primes you mention, but I prefer zooms.
> 
> That said, the 18-150 is one I do not have, but I know others that use it for exactly what you propose, I have heard it is good, but still in the same general level as the other EFm zooms.
> 
> I actually have invested a fair amount into the M-ecosystem (5 lenses, M6 II, EVFs, etc). It is good Canon is going to continue it. It has become my primary video set up and I even use it on the 500 f/4 (it does great, but not with TCs). I would absolutely consider buying a new "M1" type of camera, but before I invest more, I really would like to see some better zoom lenses. Maybe I could shift over to prime, but would prefer to have a kit based on good zooms and a few primes to fill specific needs, similar to my FF gear.


The 11-22 is the one zoom I have a lot of interest in, if I did start doing video that seems to be the most relevant. Plus it's not giant like the Sigma.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> That was the old guard, I think Canon leadership retired and the new leadership says put in whatever competes with Sony. I think it is also possible Canon just didn't have the computing power to run IS and DPAF and had to buy time to improve their HW.


None of that is in evidence.

The fact is that in-lens stabilisation _is _better - in particular where long lenses are concerned: this has been proven time and again - but IBIS brings stabilisation to lenses that didn't previously have it; and - when done right - can add more stabilisation to lenses with IS.

But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 24, 2020)

jam05 said:


> Oh wow. Had in mind purchasing an M6mkII as travel camera. Now what? Is this coming in 2021. May still wind up getting it since I wont be doing much travel for quite some time.


The M6 Mk II is a great little camera - it'd be a great travel camera, IBIS or not.


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 24, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> None of that is in evidence.
> 
> The fact is that in-lens stabilisation _is _better - in particular where long lenses are concerned: this has been proven time and again - but IBIS brings stabilisation to lenses that didn't previously have it; and - when done right - can add more stabilisation to lenses with IS.
> 
> But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.



Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS. 

There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).









Canon U.S.A. Announces the Retirement of Eliott Peck, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Imaging Technologies and Communications Group


/PRNewswire/ -- Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that Mr. Eliott Peck, the company's executive vice president and...




www.prnewswire.com










__





Canon Newsroom | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Welcome to the Canon Newsroom where you can find all the Press Releases from Canon U.S.A., Inc. including news about upcoming product releases.




www.usa.canon.com













Canon's Toyotsugu Kuwamura to Retire


In a recent letter to Canon partners, Canon U.S.A. Chairman and CEO Joe Adachi announced the retirement of Toyotsugu Kuwamura, Executive VP and GM, Business Imaging Solutions Group (BISG), Canon U.S.A., after more than 38 years with the company.




www.piworld.com


----------



## SteveC (Jul 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.
> 
> There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).
> 
> ...



It's possible that they were trying to tune it to do it right. If their IBIS turns out to be superior to others, then it will have been worth the wait. But following such a strategy (if indeed that was what they were doing) can be a huge marketing risk before it finally comes to market as people could decide that someone else's IBIS is better than no IBIS at all.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers


Which isn't what you said at all.


> And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.


Overall, Sony is catching up with Canon, not _vice versa._


> There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility


It was a pointless, finger-in-the-air speculation - you might as well have speculated that it was for religious reasons. There is nothing out there to even _hint_ at the idea of Canon not being able to build the processing power to drive IBIS and DPAF.


> whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner.


Nope, I said no such thing. I said it was rational for Canon to embrace IBIS. That's not the same at all as saying that doing so earlier would have been irrational. In fact I said nothing specific about the timing:


> But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.


Canon is a _very_ canny reader of the market: that they've had IBIS technology for a while is beyond debate - plenty of Canon patents to that effect - so the reason for them moving in this direction now _because it's the right time in marketing terms _makes a damn' sight more sense than an imagined lack of computing power or old staff being replaced by younger staff.

Since when does that change the culture of a Japanese company anyway? Canon must have been through several generations of new management by now, but they've remained culturally conservative (according to some) throughout.


> IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).


You _opinion_ is worth as much - and as little - as mine here. But the _facts _are that Canon has had IBIS technology to hand for some time, that it is a rapidly developing market which Canon doubtless understands very well; and that Canon knows its business better than we do.

It makes perfect sense for Canon to have waited until there's no question of the perceived value to photographers of IBIS, before committing. That's just Canon's way of working, sometimes.

And - again - _Canon_ isn't playing market catch-up here. They still sell more cameras than anyone else, and now they'll sell even more.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 24, 2020)

Stichus III said:


> I am referring to that which is representative of the average EF or RF lens.
> 
> The EF f/1.4 50mm is one of the smaller EF lenses and is not representative of the size and weight of the average EF or RF lens (especially not the premium lenses).


That's fair, and as someone not using zooms for much it's not an issue I'd run into. Honestly I wonder if a compact system will make much sense though, any really long zoom is going to be a big lens regardless of the smaller attachment point.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 24, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What im missing is a nice telephoto zoom which is smaller and lighter than an 70-200 F4 and does not need an adaptor. But just as sharp. Not the current mediocre 50-200.
> Make it 50-150 and F4 or F4.5 for smaller size and weight but don't compromise in image quality.



I have a EFS 55-250 and it is a stellar lens. I have read reviews that either say the 55-200 is on par or better than the 55-250, so you copy may just be a bad one. 
For comparison, I also have the Sigma 18-35 and although it is more of a portraiture lens, comparatively speaking, my 55-250 is just as good.

Along the same vein, my copy of the EFS 10-18 is just crap. Because it is a WA lens, I never used it much and by the time I realized it was bad, it was too late to exchange it. Quite sure you have a bad copy of the 55-200.


----------



## Fast351 (Jul 24, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Don't have a crystal ball nor Canon's internal company roadmap, but...wouldn't be surprised to see a crop-sensor RF mount camera for the 7D class of users IN ADDITION TO maintaining the EOS M system for entry-level, compact mirrorless options.



That would be my guess too. I don't think they'll even bother coming out with R-S lenses either. The R7 has a small (but vocal  ) crowd. That crowd is just fine with more expensive lenses since they don't buy the 7D for the cheaper EF-S lenses. They want it for the longer reach of the crop sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?






fox40phil said:


> Just let M die ;p!
> 
> not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).
> 
> ...






blackcoffee17 said:


> They just need to add a few lenses, especially higher quality zooms. Basically all the zooms they have are dark, fully plastic and just ok optically, with the 11-22 being the only exception.
> And the M6 should have had a corner EVF.






LSXPhotog said:


> I am basically obsessed with the M-series cameras. I would love to see a serious M5 Mark II hit the market along with a fixed aperture zoom that still covers the 24mm equivalent...may be a chance to add weather sealing on a lens/body combo and bring out a sealed adapter? For the love of GOD, give us a better buffer on the M6 Mark II if it can be optimized in firmware...but make it a priority on the M5 Mark II.





You totally ignore the market the M system is aimed at. *Canon understands this market, which has made the EF-M system the best selling mirrorless camera system on planet Earth.* They're not going to kill off the ILC system that is currently making them the most money any more than they would have killed off the entry level Rebel series a decade ago.

The EOS M system is *not* aimed at anyone who will be "heavily invested" in any lens system.

The EOS M system is *not* aimed at anyone who might be more than casually interested in the EOS R system.

The EOS M system is *not* aimed at "Photographers", either professional or enthusiast semi-pros or enthusiast amateurs.

The EOS M system is aimed at "non-Photographers" who want a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera with one or two (or maybe even three for the most extreme buyer) compact, lightweight, and affordable lenses no more or no less than 61mm in diameter that is easy to carry with them to family events, holidays/vacations, etc.

*The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.
> 
> There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).
> 
> ...



What happens at Canon USA has very little to do with design decisions made in Japan, particularly for the EOS M system that is a worldwide best seller everywhere except North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe.

Canon USA is primarily a _marketing_ arm of Canon, not a design driver.


----------



## Philip V (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You totally ignore the market the M system is aimed at. *Canon understands this market, which has made the EF-M system the best selling mirrorless camera system on planet Earth.* They're not going to kill off the ILC system that is currently making them the most money any more than they would have killed off the entry level Rebel series a decade ago.
> 
> The EOS M system is *not* aimed at anyone who will be "heavily invested" in any lens system.
> 
> ...





Michael Clark said:


> What happens at Canon USA has very little to do with design decisions made in Japan, particularly for the EOS M system that is a worldwide best seller everywhere except North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe.
> 
> Canon USA is primarily a _marketing_ arm of Canon, not a design driver.



This and this. You put the words right out of my mouth.

I can't believe how some just don't get that majority of EOS M buyers will not upgrade to EOS R primarily due to size and price. And majority of EOS M buyers will be happy with the kit lens and maybe a portrait lens (nifty fifty or the EF-M 32mm will do).

Though I myself will be happy with a bigger but higher IQ and faster zoom lens for travel. Maybe 15-55mm f4 or even f3.5-4.5


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 25, 2020)

I would tend to concur. Unless someone starts paying me to take photos (and I'm nowhere near that skill level), there is little chance I'd ever end up with an R. Not because it wouldn't be nice to tool around with. Not because I couldn't afford it if I chose to spend money that way. But because it just can't be justified for a non-pro. It adds weight, size, cost and complexity that would reduce the fun I'm having. Not because it's a bad system, but because I'm not there yet, and probably won't get there until someone is willing to pay me to do this work.

That said, Canon has done a damn good job not *hampering* the line. I can use pro lenses if I want to, for instance. Most features are not gimped or restricted. The CPU's and sensors are among Canon's best. They are still fully accessorizable.

I think it's a very good balance and I'm glad it's been successful.


----------



## Joules (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."*


That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.

The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.

There is no upgrade path the RF, but there still should be an upgrade path within the system towards slightly higher end bodies and lenses. And the number may not be substantial, but there are users who buy the M system as a small compliment to their FF ILC. And as long as the system has a good standing with enthusiasts, they can push more casual people around them into EF-M by way of word of mouth. 

The thing I wonder the most about is if Canon will dare to go outside of their lens diameter restriction. Maybe to release a set of slightly wider lenses that are marketed like 'crop L lenses'. They probably won't and focus on bringing down the cost of FF bodies instead. But at this point things are changing, and I don't think we have been given a proper impression of where Canon is planning to go with the future.


----------



## BryanS (Jul 25, 2020)

Joules said:


> That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.
> 
> The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly. I consider myself an enthusiast and really enjoy the M system. A few years ago I left Canon for Fuji and just recently came back to Canon and the M system. At the time I felt that mirrorless was going nowhere with Canon. Now they've shown me that they are much more serious and now I feel (and hope) that Canon is going to expand on the system to keep their existing base and grow it as well.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 25, 2020)

drama said:


> Agree on this. Looking at pricing, there's a sweet spot for a sub 1k flagship APS-C mirrorless, and something at around the 6-700 mark that uses that glass and perhaps one or two other new lenses. Tons of life in the system yet, and if marketed properly a useful feeder into their RF full frame system.



I'm not sure that the M is much of a feeder for Full Frame, but as a little system on its own, I really like it. I'd buy the "pro" M model even if just to park the 32 f/1.4 on it permanently. And I have brought the M6 with two lenses alone on trips: just the 11-22 IS for wide and day time and the 32 f/1.4 for shallow DOF and low light shots. That tiny package delivers great shots from a trip.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M system is *not* aimed at "Photographers", either professional or enthusiast semi-pros or enthusiast amateurs.



Canon would disagree, just check https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-m5/ or https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-m5 or https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ameras/mirrorless/eos-m5-ef-m-18-150mm-is-stm

It *is* aimed at enthusiasts. Also it's obvious just by looking at the feature set: interchangeable lenses, raw shooting, advanced menus, advanced external ports.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 25, 2020)

Joules said:


> That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.
> 
> The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.


Yep.

There's no question that the M6 Mk II can be a serious little camera in the right circumstances - I'm very impressed by its sensor, and it has some properly useful performance tricks up its sleeve which belie its outwardly modest appearance - and I did indeed buy mine with the thought that it was a 90D in a smaller package (aware of its relative ergonomic limitations, of course).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Joules said:


> That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.
> 
> The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.
> 
> ...






BryanS said:


> My thoughts exactly. I consider myself an enthusiast and really enjoy the M system. A few years ago I left Canon for Fuji and just recently came back to Canon and the M system. At the time I felt that mirrorless was going nowhere with Canon. Now they've shown me that they are much more serious and now I feel (and hope) that Canon is going to expand on the system to keep their existing base and grow it as well.




Just because a few enthusiasts buy them _*does not*_ mean Canon is aiming the M system at them. 

Canon is squarely targeting the non-enthusiast buyer with every design decision they make for the entire system. Making the EF-M system compatible with EF and EF-S lenses via adapter was not about easing the transition to M for enthusiasts and professionals, it was about easing the transition for Rebel owners with a couple of EF-S lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Canon would disagree, just check https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-m5/ or https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-m5 or https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ameras/mirrorless/eos-m5-ef-m-18-150mm-is-stm
> 
> It *is* aimed at enthusiasts. Also it's obvious just by looking at the feature set: interchangeable lenses, raw shooting, advanced menus, advanced external ports.



That's aimed at those who might fancy themselves as enthusiasts but really aren't.

It's aimed at people who want to take pictures on their trip, not at people who want to take a trip in order to take pictures and explore the possibilities of their photographic skills. The former are not photographic enthusiasts, they are travel enthusiasts. The latter are photo enthusiasts.

"Whether you're navigating the tight alleys of an old European city or enjoying the view after a strenuous hike"

is a far cry from (the blurb in the same spot at the R5 page)

"It’s an ideal choice for a large range of photographic and cinematographic environments from weddings, portraits, sports, journalism, landscape, cinematography and more."


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It *is* aimed at enthusiasts. Also it's obvious just by looking at the feature set: interchangeable lenses, raw shooting, advanced menus, advanced external ports.



All things the 2000D, 4000D, etc. also offer. So now you are saying those are also enthusiast cameras? So basically _*anyone*_ who wants to use anything more than a phone to take a photo is an enthusiast?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That's aimed at those who might fancy themselves as enthusiasts but really aren't.



I wonder if they agree they're not enthusiasts 
People who depart from snapshots and learn some more advanced stuff about ISO, aperture, shutter speed, raw processing, and/or use external flash, and/or use an ILC camera for vlogging - I'd clearly call them enthusiasts. And the M series is clearly aimed at this category.



Michael Clark said:


> It's aimed at people who want to take pictures on their trip, not at people who want to take a trip in order to take pictures and explore the possibilities of their photographic skills. The former are not photographic enthusiasts, they are travel enthusiasts. The latter are photo enthusiasts.



So enthusiasm is defined by their ability to travel on dedicated photo trips?



Michael Clark said:


> is a far cry from (the blurb in the same spot at the R5 page)



So an enthusiast must buy an R5 or similar, and the M line isn't worthy?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So an enthusiast must buy an R5 or similar, and the M line isn't worthy?



No, an enthusiast can buy whatever they want. If they feel it is worthy for their purposes, more power to them.

But that's not the same thing as saying Canon is intentionally designing and marketing the EOS M series of cameras and lenses at the enthusiast market.

It's also not the same thing as Canon marketing the EOS M system to those who fancy themselves as "enthusiasts".

Just because Nissan makes commercials that show two ladies riding around in a Sentra that appears to be a higher performance machine than anything else on the road with them, does that make the Sentra a "car enthusiasts" car? No, it means Nissan wants to make non-enthusiast drivers think they are buying an enthusiast car when they buy a Sentra...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I wonder if they agree they're not enthusiasts
> People who depart from snapshots and learn some more advanced stuff about ISO, aperture, shutter speed, raw processing, and/or use external flash, and/or use an ILC camera for vlogging - I'd clearly call them enthusiasts. And the M series is clearly aimed at this category.





So, by your definition, an enthusiast is now anyone who learns about ISO, Av, Tv, raw processing, etc.?


How about those who do those things only with their smartphone cameras?

Anyone who buys a smartphone based on the ability to save "raw" DNGs is now an enthusiast?

Anyone who buys a smartphone based on the ability to manually set Tv and ISO is now an enthusiast?

Anyone who buys an accessory that allows one to fire external flash in sync with a smartphone camera is now an enthusiast?

Anyone who uses a smartphone to vlog is now an enthusiast?

Tune in next time on Oprah when she says:

YOU'RE AN ENTHUSIAST! YOU'RE AN ENTHUSIAST! YOU'RE AN ENTHUSIAST!

*EVERYONE IS AN ENTHUSIAST!!!!*


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 25, 2020)

@Michael Clark What did you smoke?


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."*



No.

The M system is not for the masses.

Cell phone cameras are for the masses.

I know lot's of people who just a few years ago walked around with their T6i (and other entry level models) and now they never use it. Telling me their phone works just as good. They ask me "why do you have a camera? Cell phones are just as good now".

M is simply for anyone looking for something better than Cell phone quality and/or wanting to switch out lenses.
And they the choose it over FF because of cost and/or size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

bbb34 said:


> @Michael Clark What did you smoke?



Not a single thing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> No.
> 
> The M system is not for the masses.
> 
> ...



You may not see a difference between someone who wants a single camera body and a lens or two that are compact, affordable, and easy to take along to social events, hikes, etc. that offers a bit more than a smartphone does and those who are interested in building a collection of multiple bodies and as many lenses as they can afford (or convince their spouse to allow them to buy) for use in a wide ranging body of specialized photographic pursuits.

Canon certainly sees a difference between designing and marketing camera systems to those two distinct groups of potential buyers. The EOS M system is Canon's answer to the former, who far outnumber the latter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.
> 
> There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. It would be nice if more sites did a better job of actually covering industry news like this.

Earlier today I was just thinking that I hope Canon is not making a big mistake by apparently going all-in on mirrorless at the expense of DSLRs. I also hope they haven't made a big mistake in chasing the RF mount at the expense of the universal EF mount. There is a lot enthusiasm on this site (which is primarily composed of tech geeks) for the shiny new object called mirrorless. I'm guessing that the Canon leadership that is retiring includes many who were responsible for Canon's long march to market supremacy. I hope that this new generation of leaders doesn't squander everything that the previous generation built.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 25, 2020)

OK. Now let's discuss which of Canon's cameras are _professional_ cameras...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2020)

I'm trying to figure this out. It seems we now have at least two tiers of "enthusiasts." 

Tier One would be comprised of people who have developed an interest in photography and are willing to invest somewhere around $1,000 to pursue that interest? Tier Two would be people with serious GAS issues who buy multiple cameras and multiple lenses and spend thousands of dollars on their hobby?

It seems to me that this is more of a continuum rather than a distinction. I don't know where the line is and I'm not sure when I crossed the line, but I'm pretty sure most people who end up in the "spending thousands" category got there through the gateway drug of one body and one lens. True not every recreational user becomes an addict, but a certain percentage do.

So, I'm trying to figure out what all this has to do with the discussion. If I understand correctly @Michael Clark seems to have a pretty narrow definition of the M line and is appalled at the idea that Canon might decide to offer a high-end "enthusiast" camera in the M line, when he believes that only the R line should be reserved for "enthusiasts." Am I close?

I'm squarely in the "I don't know what the heck Canon is doing these days" camp (which might be a camp of one). Canon _might_ create a one-off APS-C body in the R line. Or, it _might_ decide to keep things clean by reserving the R for full frame and the M for APS-C. I think I could make a pretty good case that drug-dealer Canon might get a lot more people addicted if they used the most popular mirrorless line on the planet (M) to entice people with a seductive top of the line M camera that would appeal of all tiers of enthusiasts. 

But, heck if I know what their strategy might be.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 25, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I'm squarely in the "I don't know what the heck Canon is doing these days" camp (which might be a camp of one).



I can assure you you're not the only one in that camp. Though you do seem to be among the very few who will admit, not just to themselves but to others, that they are in that camp.

In fact, there are dozens of people in that camp, here, who won't admit that they don't actually know what Canon is planning to do, so instead, in some cases, they put in post after post telling people they're wrong, but in the end all they have is the loudness of their own assertions.

They don't know any more than you or I do.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I can assure you you're not the only one in that camp. Though you do seem to be among the very few who will admit, not just to themselves but to others, that they are in that camp.
> 
> In fact, there are dozens of people in that camp, here, who won't admit that they don't actually know what Canon is planning to do, so instead, in some cases, they put in post after post telling people they're wrong, but in the end all they have is the loudness of their own assertions.
> 
> They don't know any more than you or I do.



I don't even know what I want to buy next!! R6 or future M w/IBIS...or both. CANON. TELL ME WHAT TO BUY!!!


----------



## Rocky (Jul 26, 2020)

There is another camp out here. People that likes to take picture and good at it. As they age, lugging 2 DLSR body with the lenses on a long tour become a chore. The eyesight also gets worse so they become less critical about the result. Then the later Ms' ( anything before the M5 are not acceptable due to slow AF) will be perfect for that group. With focal length from 11mm to 250mm. Even with slower zooms, it is more than enough for most people. As a system, it is much smaller and lighter. The result is acceptable as long as no large enlargements are made.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> They don't know any more than you or I do.


I'm firmly in the "_I don't really care what Canon does next_" camp.

What's the point of worrying about it and wasting your life away second-guessing them?

My current cameras never let me down;
Their files respond really well to conversion in my Raw converter of choice;
I don't subscribe to the "_if I get a perfect new camera I'll instantly become a better photographer and my inability to expose an image properly won't matter any more..._" fallacy; and
As you so rightly state, no bugger but Canon _knows_ anyway.
So if Canon does pop something up that presses the right buttons, I'll take an interest. Otherwise, I've got more important things to worry about.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 26, 2020)

I'm just going to point out that it's really a continuum between casual photographer to pro. I don't think there is a single bright line and people can wander back and forth from one space into the other depending on their skill level, where they are in life and what their priorities are.

If I was good enough to get paid, sure I'd be happy to get paid to get a nicer setup and go to beautiful locations to shoot beautiful people. Until then I'm happy to learn to take interesting shots around town and on trips.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 26, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> But that's not the same thing as saying Canon is intentionally designing and marketing the EOS M series of cameras and lenses at the enthusiast market.
> 
> It's also not the same thing as Canon marketing the EOS M system to those who fancy themselves as "enthusiasts".



But evidently, they are designing and marketing with enthusiasts in mind, especially the top M-series cameras.

So you're saying there's fake self-complacent enthusiasts and real enthusiasts whose demands are higher than any of the M cameras can offer? 



Michael Clark said:


> So, by your definition, an enthusiast is now anyone who learns about ISO, Av, Tv, raw processing, etc.?



If it's not your trade and you learn all these things out of interest in photography, then yes, you're an enthusiast.



Michael Clark said:


> Anyone who buys a smartphone based on the ability to save "raw" DNGs is now an enthusiast?



If they actually use those DNGs and learn and use processing techniques, they are enthusiasts. Next step they may want some better quality and voila - there's Canon with its M line offerings for enthusiasts.

Enthusiasts are those who are... guess what... enthusiastic about the photography process.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 26, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I'm trying to figure this out. It seems we now have at least two tiers of "enthusiasts."
> 
> Tier One would be comprised of people who have developed an interest in photography and are willing to invest somewhere around $1,000 to pursue that interest? Tier Two would be people with serious GAS issues who buy multiple cameras and multiple lenses and spend thousands of dollars on their hobby?
> 
> ...



_To me the line is somewhere around the difference between folks who decide to buy a ("a" as in "one") "real" camera to take photos of the things they do anyway and the places they would already go as they live their lives as contrasted with other people who buy cameras and lenses (MANY lenses), and then decide to go certain places and do certain things, which are places and things they probably wouldn't otherwise go to and do, primarily in order to take photos._

Pretty much everyone you describe in your first paragraph falls into the second group in the paragraph immediately preceding this one. But the first group is who are buying the majority of cameras. They're who are buying the vast majority of EOS M cameras, too.

I'm not appalled at anything. I don't think only the R line should be reserved for "enthusiasts". It's Canon's company and they can do with it whatever they wish.

*I just think Canon has made it fairly clear, through what they've offered in the EOS M line over the eight-plus years it has been in existence, what Canon wishes the EOS M line to be. 

Not me. 

Canon.*

For the vast majority of those eight years the "enthusiasts" have been begging for Canon to release "a fuller range" of EF-M lenses.
They've been crying for at least a mid-level (or higher), constant aperture, walk-around zoom.
They've been constantly puzzled at the lack of a "real" telephoto lens for EOS M.

_Don't you think if Canon were designing and marketing the EOS M system for those "enthusiasts" they would have already done at least some of that over the past eight years?_

Instead, Canon has offered a limited but very consistent line of compact, lightweight, and affordable bodies paired with a limited range of compact, lightweight, affordable lenses that are all 61mm in diameter. Every single lens. All of 'em.

That system has quietly become the best selling mirrorless camera system in the world not because "enthusiasts" are buying them in droves but because those who, at least for the foreseeable future, want only a compact, lightweight, affordable camera and a compact, lightweight, and affordable lens or two are buying them in greater numbers than other folks are buying other mirrorless camera system. The enthusiasts and vloggers who are buying EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses, particularly those in North America or western Europe, may be making a lot more noise but they are only a drop in the bucket compared to the legions of EOS M buyers in Japan, the Pacific Rim, and even emerging markets like India.

Canon is still the company that "stays the course" and takes their time to move the rudder of their various ships and point them in different directions. I'd be really surprised if Canon alters the course of the EOS M system at the same time they are pushing their upper tier DSLR buyers into EOS R territory. Could they do that? Sure, there's always a chance. But it seems to me, based on observing Canon's history over the past four decades, that it is highly unlikely they will go that route at this time.

As to the "certain percentage" who start out in the "one body - one lens" camp and go on to be what I call enthusiasts: I'd say it's probably well less than two or three percent of those who at one time or another buy a "real" camera. It's almost certainly less than five percent. And, truth be told, most of us that do later get much more into photography in terms of how much gear we own would have bought more when we started out if we could have afforded more when we started out. I sure would have!

Of all of the people I know through non-photography related connections, such as family (including extended family like cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and such), grade school, high school, college, various non-photography related jobs, church, local social circles, friends of family members, family members of friends, etc. there are dozens upon dozens who at one time or another bought either a single SLR and one or two lenses during the film era or a single entry level digital body and the kit zoom that came with it and _maybe_ one or two other lenses (a nifty fifty and/or a 55-250 or practically "free" 75-300?). Among those hundreds of people in my life who bought cameras, there's only two that I know of who have bought more than one interchangeable lens camera body in, say, any ten year period - and I'm one of those two folks.

Just look at the difference between the number of Rebels sold over the years versus the number of 1D, 5D, 7D, and even x0D cameras sold. Just look at the number of compact "point and shoot" cameras sold in relation to the number of DSLRs sold between around 2000 and 2010 when no one could make digital cameras fast enough to sell what the market wanted. It's a very wide pyramid, with the base being much larger than the peak.

Phone cameras have all but replaced compact point and shoots. That was at least 75-80% of the digital camera market during the digital photography explosion.

Micro Four-Thirds, EOS M, Fuji APS-C, and Sony APS-C has replaced a LOT of the Rebel/D3x00/"other" (Pentax, etc.) APS-C DSLR market, especially outside of North America where entry level APS-C DSLRs still sell in significant, though greatly reduced, numbers. Even with the huge drop in sales for those types of cameras, those types of ILCs still outsell all FF ILCs. That was another 15-20% of the digital camera market during the heyday of digital camera sales.

Sony α, Nikon Z, and Canon R are transitioning many mid to upper level DSLR users to FF mirrorless. But those were only about 5% of the total market at the peak in around 2010.

We are not the typical buyer, even today, of interchangeable lens cameras! Stop thinking that everyone that ever buys a single ILC will eventually get GAS and want to "transition" to higher tier cameras like we did! Very few actually do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 26, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> I don't even know what I want to buy next!! R6 or future M w/IBIS...or both. CANON. TELL ME WHAT TO BUY!!!



Canon: "All of them. Buy all of them. Every.Single.One."


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 26, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I'm just going to point out that it's really a continuum between casual photographer to pro. I don't think there is a single bright line and people can wander back and forth from one space into the other depending on their skill level, where they are in life and what their priorities are.



Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't mean at any one time, one group does not vastly outnumber the other. The group who's lives revolve around photography and who buy multiple bodies and many, MANY lenses are not the larger end of the spectrum.



ReflexVE said:


> If I was good enough to get paid, sure I'd be happy to get paid to get a nicer setup and go to beautiful locations to shoot beautiful people. Until then I'm happy to learn to take interesting shots around town and on trips.



Then you're not the typical EOS M buyer to whom any aspiration of "gearing up" rarely occupies a second thought. If you're willing to actually put in the time and hard work to become that good, at the expense of devoting more time to other areas of your life, you're certainly not among the larger group.


----------



## BryanS (Jul 26, 2020)

I never said, or implied that Canon is soley aiming the M system at enthusiasts. I was merely saying that I am an enthusiast and that I like the M system. A number of enthusiasts really like the platform too.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 26, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't mean at any one time, one group does not vastly outnumber the other. The group who's lives revolve around photography and who buy multiple bodies and many, MANY lenses are not the larger end of the spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not the typical EOS M buyer to whom any aspiration of "gearing up" rarely occupies a second thought. If you're willing to actually put in the time and hard work to become that good, at the expense of devoting more time to other areas of your life, you're certainly not among the larger group.


I've noticed you seem to delineate travel for photographs as part of what makes someone more than a base level buyer. I have some issues with that definition, as you write it it basically implies people with substantial means who can spare the time and money to travel to, say, Europe expressly for the purpose of taking photographs. I don't really feel that defines the mindset of someone doing more than 'normal stuff but a nicer camera' however. Lots of people get very good at photographing thier environment, whether it's local events or street shots around town or documenting people they find interesting. Travel photography is its own class and I don't really think it can be part of the dividing line.

I know for me, I'm happy to have this camera when I travel, but most of my photos are around town, often at protests, sometimes for purposes that aren't 'art' but instead documentation (police violence, fascist assaults, political campaigns, etc). I still consider myself a complete amateur, but I also don't know that I fall into a category that is just people wanting to do a bit better than a cell phone. I'd actually argue that a cell phone would serve those people better, one thing I noticed is that by default photos with these cameras will be worse than what a cell phone produces for a typical person who has no clue how to use one.

I'm not comfortable tying enthusiast and above to someone's means or the type of photography they are doing. Citizen journalists use this gear a lot for example and they may not be pros but they also aren't just regular people looking for a slightly better shot than their phone.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 26, 2020)

There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.

One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.

Anyway, it is pointless.

Canon loves all of them.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 26, 2020)

bbb34 said:


> There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.
> 
> One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.
> 
> ...


There are also a lot of people who make good money but don't take photography seriously, however they still spend on an expensive FF system just because they percieve it as 'better'. When I got my M50 my boss had to go on about his FF Sony and how much better FF was. So far as I can tell he uses it to take family photos and some night sky shots. And that's about it. I doubt he could even tell me why it's better or what the tradeoffs are. He just had to have what he percieved as 'the best'.

Meanwhile the guy who prompted me to get a real camera is a buddy of mine who was in Lisbon with me a couple years ago. He shot the city with his Rebel T3i and a couple cheap EF-S zoom lenses and his shots made the city look amazing. By far beat the heck out of the other friends with us, even the ones with substantially newer/better equipment. He hasn't really seen a reason to upgrade, but he definitely knows what he's doing.

I don't really think the equipment tells us much about the photographer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I've noticed you seem to delineate travel for photographs as part of what makes someone more than a base level buyer. I have some issues with that definition, as you write it it basically implies people with substantial means who can spare the time and money to travel to, say, Europe expressly for the purpose of taking photographs. I don't really feel that defines the mindset of someone doing more than 'normal stuff but a nicer camera' however. Lots of people get very good at photographing thier environment, whether it's local events or street shots around town or documenting people they find interesting. Travel photography is its own class and I don't really think it can be part of the dividing line.
> 
> I know for me, I'm happy to have this camera when I travel, but most of my photos are around town, often at protests, sometimes for purposes that aren't 'art' but instead documentation (police violence, fascist assaults, political campaigns, etc). I still consider myself a complete amateur, but I also don't know that I fall into a category that is just people wanting to do a bit better than a cell phone. I'd actually argue that a cell phone would serve those people better, one thing I noticed is that by default photos with these cameras will be worse than what a cell phone produces for a typical person who has no clue how to use one.



Which is why I usually say something like "*do certain things* (e.g. in their own area) *and/or go certain places* (that may or may not be located in areas other than their own)."

You're putting words in my mouth if you claim I'm saying one _has_ to take travel trips planned for the purpose of photography to be an enthusiast. But there are many who do plan such trips. There are also many who might go to places or events within their own communities in order to take photos that they might otherwise not attend. For example, I shoot a lot of youth and high school sports and attend many such events in my own community. I rarely, if ever, attend such events or go to the youth league ballparks if I am not there to shoot in a somewhat official capacity.

Thus, I go places (the youth ball field a few miles from my home - not necessarily somewhere halfway around the world) only because I'm planning to take photos of the games being played there, rather than someone who would decide to take their camera along because they'd be at those games anyway, with or without a camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> I'm not comfortable tying enthusiast and above to someone's means or the type of photography they are doing. Citizen journalists use this gear a lot for example and they may not be pros but they also aren't just regular people looking for a slightly better shot than their phone.



You're free to hold that opinion. I'm free to disagree.

In my mind, folks who would be at the protest anyway because they intensely care about whatever cause is being protested, or intensely care about how protesters for any cause are treated by the authorities, are exactly who I'm talking about. They want a camera that can provide better images in order to prove something happened.

They're not going to the protest as a means to taking artistically creative photos, they're taking photos as a means to another end - e.g. documenting perceived police brutality.

That, in my mind, is what separates the "photographic enthusiasts" from the "non-photographic enthusiasts."

For one, the photograph itself is the end and the event is a means to that end.

For the other, the photograph is merely a means to a different end: proving what happened at a protest.

It doesn't mean the "enthusiasts" are somehow superior to the "non-enthusiasts", it just means each group is different from the other in how they approach photography.

From the viewpoint of camera makers, it also means successfully designing and marketing products to one group will require a different approach than successfully designing and marketing products to the other.

Can someone be both at the same time? Certainly. But they are few and far between.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

bbb34 said:


> There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.
> 
> One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.
> 
> ...




You can't get gear level out of your head to save your life.

I'm not talking primarily about gear level. I'm talking about why people buy cameras and how they use them, which leads to how Canon markets different product lines to various types of folks who buy cameras for different reasons and use them for different purposes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> There are also a lot of people who make good money but don't take photography seriously, however they still spend on an expensive FF system just because they percieve it as 'better'. When I got my M50 my boss had to go on about his FF Sony and how much better FF was. So far as I can tell he uses it to take family photos and some night sky shots. And that's about it. I doubt he could even tell me why it's better or what the tradeoffs are. He just had to have what he percieved as 'the best'.
> 
> Meanwhile the guy who prompted me to get a real camera is a buddy of mine who was in Lisbon with me a couple years ago. He shot the city with his Rebel T3i and a couple cheap EF-S zoom lenses and his shots made the city look amazing. By far beat the heck out of the other friends with us, even the ones with substantially newer/better equipment. He hasn't really seen a reason to upgrade, but he definitely knows what he's doing.
> 
> I don't really think the equipment tells us much about the photographer.



Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying equipment defines a photographer.

Not to mention, you're looking down your own nose at someone else for "only" using an expensive camera for family portraits and astrophotography. Astro can contain some of the most obsessive photo enthusiasts anywhere! Just because astro or family portraits (which happens to be one of the few commercial categories left that is still paying a lot of photographers' bills) are not your thing does not make them any less of a "photographer" (e.g. "enthusiast") than you.

Please stop letting your own insecurities affect how you define those different from yourself!

*I'm not saying those who aren't "photo enthusiasts" are any less as persons than those who are "photo enthusiasts", I'm just saying those folks who take photos as a means to another end are usually not "photo enthusiasts" in the same way that those whose end for engaging in any activity is the photograph itself are "photo enthusiasts".*

What I'm saying is that Canon (and other camera manufacturers) design different camera systems that will appeal to different groups of buyers. There are always exceptions to the rule when marketing departments start identifying large numbers of potential buyers that share common traits. Not everyone will fit neatly into one or the other of various categories. But most people _will _fall into one of those categories.

Sure, stereotypes can misrepresent some folks, and some stereotypes may even misrepresent most of the folks to which they refer, but many stereotypes are actually based on reality for a large percentage of the people they identify as this or that type of buyer. That's why marketing is effective and why it works for the companies that do it well. They identify a certain type of potential buyer that exists in large enough numbers and they design a product or product line and then market it in such a way that it appears to meet the perceived needs (or wants) of those buyers. Does that mean everyone who buys that product falls into the "stereotypical" buyer profile of that product? Absolutely not. But it does mean that almost all of the folks who buy that successful product do fit the stereotype. Those folks who _do_ fit the stereotype are the folks who make the company who created and marketed that product to meet those folks' specific perceived need/want profitable.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 27, 2020)

Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space). 

You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.

You type a lot of words, but you are juuuuust vague enough to claim you aren't saying the things people are calling you out for saying. The issue here is you: If you don't mean the things people read from you, then practice being more clear so others don't 'misunderstand' you so much.

I still agree with a lot of your posts and insights, but man, at a certain point it feels very much like you just believe nobody is as nuanced as you are and thus you must shift every discussion into the viewpoint you are personally most comfortable with.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> [...]



TL;DR.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space).
> 
> You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.
> 
> ...



(Red) Nope. There are plenty of pros shooting weddings in order to get a paycheck and nothing more. I don't consider such folks "enthusiasts".

(Green) You claim you don't look down upon your boss. Then you go on to tell us in detail after detail how (you think) you are a better photographer than he is because you do things differently than him.

I'm not sure I've remotely implied that "enthusiasts" are better photographers than anyone else. I've said their primary reason for doing photography is for the sake of photography.

My apologies if I'm not able to express the ideas I'm trying to communicate well enough for others to understand what I'm trying to convey. I do the best I can. Maybe practicing at being more clear is what I'm trying to do here?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 27, 2020)

bbb34 said:


> TL;DR.



Your loss, not mine.


----------



## BryanS (Jul 27, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space).
> 
> You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jul 27, 2020)

secant said:


> This info not only sheds light to the possible M50 II, but also a potential flagship M coming out?!



Yes, the M5 Mark II rumored a while back .


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> (Red) Nope. There are plenty of pros shooting weddings in order to get a paycheck and nothing more. I don't consider such folks "enthusiasts".


You are welcome to your opinion.



> (Green) You claim you don't look down upon your boss. Then you go on to tell us in detail after detail how (you think) you are a better photographer than he is because you do things differently than him.


You are the one putting the moral statement on this. I don't look down on him. I am describing him. There is a difference. I didn't make a value judgement, that was you. I also didn't say I was a better photographer, only that I understood the equipment better.

That said, yes I am also a better photographer.


----------



## nads (Jul 28, 2020)

bhf3737 said:


> The physics does not change: lens based stabilization is always superior *for longer focal lengths*.
> But product development strategies may change, due to having more in-camera processing power and further exploration of consumer video market. There is nothing wrong with that.


This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges. 

Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 28, 2020)

nads said:


> This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.
> 
> Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.



This is very interesting for me. Just the other day I watched a video discussing 'wide angle edge/corner wobble' - and how IBIS influences how that occurs. I didn't know about this phenomenon before. Thanks for explaining this above, makes sense..

I was aware that ILIS is more effective for longer focal lengths. The photography genres I enjoy taking photos of mainly are landscape, wildlife and macro - hence image stabilisation (in either and both lens and body) - cover both (ultra) wide and tele. 

At this stage I intend to buy the R5, to cover the above genres. 

PJ


----------



## stevelee (Jul 28, 2020)

derpderp said:


> why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling


You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.


----------



## derpderp (Jul 28, 2020)

stevelee said:


> You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.



It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).


----------



## derpderp (Jul 28, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The only mount that is dead is EF (and EF-S). If the announcement about the 5D range being canned is true you can be pretty sure Canon won't launch any new EF or EF-S lenses in the future.
> 
> EF-M is far from a dead mount, it's Canon's highest-selling mount.



You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet. People watching from the sidelines might be cheering it on, hoping it'll survive for just a few more painful years so that they can hope (in vain) that Canon will give them (1) the mythical adapter which will let them use their old EF-M lenses on new bodies or (2) the (frankly delusional) premium lenses which perform on the same level as the newer RF lenses but costing only a mere fraction of the price. Truth is, it is the inconvenient truth that Canon will find it more financially and technically plausible to consolidate all of the mounts, and that the EF-M mount will go the way of its older brothers, the EF and the EF-S. And those cheerleaders on the sidelines will have to go through the inevitable five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 28, 2020)

derpderp said:


> It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).


Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!

Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 28, 2020)

derpderp said:


> It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).





derpderp said:


> You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet. People watching from the sidelines might be cheering it on, hoping it'll survive for just a few more painful years so that they can hope (in vain) that Canon will give them (1) the mythical adapter which will let them use their old EF-M lenses on new bodies or (2) the (frankly delusional) premium lenses which perform on the same level as the newer RF lenses but costing only a mere fraction of the price. Truth is, it is the inconvenient truth that Canon will find it more financially and technically plausible to consolidate all of the mounts, and that the EF-M mount will go the way of its older brothers, the EF and the EF-S. And those cheerleaders on the sidelines will have to go through the inevitable five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.


These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...


----------



## derpderp (Jul 28, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!
> 
> Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.



They're big, heavy and expensive because they're currently catering to the professional and advanced amateur users. But as you rightly pointed out, it's past due for Canon to introduce a smaller body (with the RF mount) and the relevant lenses to cater to other users beyond the above two.


----------



## derpderp (Jul 28, 2020)

brad-man said:


> These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...



And your post demonstrates that you barely read beyond the first sentence before passing judgement. To each his own.


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 28, 2020)

derpderp said:


> They're big, heavy and expensive because they're currently catering to the professional and advanced amateur users. But as you rightly pointed out, it's past due for Canon to introduce a smaller body (with the RF mount) and the relevant lenses to cater to other users beyond the above two.


I don't really have a ton of brand loyalty. If they bring RF to the price/size/weight/quality level of the M mount, I'm there because why the hell not? If they don't and they end the M line, I'll do one of the following:

1) Sell everything while I can still get back most of what I spent and go buy into another system that delivers similar to M (probably Sony)
2) Just hang on to everything because it already has most of what I need and use it for years because it does not need Canon support to still produce great photos

Either would be fine for me. With EF and an adapter it's not like I can't get a lens for every possible use I could have as-is. But sure, if Canon wants to put RF in this space I'd be fine with that as well.


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 28, 2020)

miketcool said:


> That was true at a time where you had computational limits. Now that the camera can use full time tracking, the image quality is vastly improved with IBIS. Early versions mostly induced unacceptable levels of warping. The examples on Canon’s iteration looks really good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree it's going to be difficult for Canon to kill of the M mount. But I think it is going to be inevitable, because it's going to become very cumbersome having two incompatible mirrorless systems. In fact, I'd say Canon's reluctance to expand the M lens system is a sign that they've always been aware that at some point they'll probably have to kill it off, and it'd be embarrassing if they did this after getting people to buy into a more comprehensive range of lenses.


----------



## photonius (Jul 28, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, if you are interested in a 17-55 2.8 on crop, what you really want is a lens to get blurry backgrounds and decent low light performance, right? An equivalent lens on FF will do that for you. And you are fine with paying the money and weight associated with that. So what is the point of using such a lens on the M system, that is explicitly about small, lightweight and affordable lenses? Why pollute a clean system with compromised options?
> 
> It makes perfect sense to me to separate the shrinking market into the size and weight enthusiasts and the picture quality and ergonomics enthusiasts. There may be an overlap there, but as I said: the market is shrinking. Only the users who are numerous enough will get what they want without paying more than they might like.



You seem to know better than the actual user what he/she wants... No, I am not fine with paying extra money and extra weight for a FF solution, when APS-C is fine. I like the smallness of lighter weight of Rebel bodies coupled with the decent trio of EF-S kit lenses. But that hasn't stopped me from buying an EF 100-400 tele, which I can't do with the EOS-M. I have money to buy what I think I need, but I don't need a FF system, and I don't buy a system that has only a few lenses. Buying two systems just to solve this, is a no-go.

It seems to make perfect sense to focus on one mount, which uses less resources, in a shrinking market. 
Indeed EOS-M is best selling, but because Canon painted themselves into a corner, the question is how to they get out of it without loosing that. 
If the EOS-M line is so great according to you, Canon just can keep it as is, and do nothing. No new lenses, maybe a new body once in a while, not much investment basically.
Only invest in RF. 
How does Canon catch the people who still want to be small and compact, but want more? The Canon 600 and 800 lenses are clearly something that a lot of people could afford, even I'm tempted. But are they all supposed to buy expensive FF bodies, to enjoy them? Not me. So I keep using my EF-100-400.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2020)

brad-man said:


> These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...



Do look more closely at his user name, it fits.


----------



## Joules (Jul 28, 2020)

photonius said:


> You seem to know better than the actual user what he/she wants... No, I am not fine with paying extra money and extra weight for a FF solution, when APS-C is fine. I like the smallness of lighter weight of Rebel bodies coupled with the decent trio of EF-S kit lenses.


Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:

At Amazon Germany, I can pay 1950 € for an RP with the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS. Or buy them separately at 1265 + 1065 = 2330 €.

I can also get a 90D for 1265 as well, and the Canon EF-S 17-55 mm 2.8 for 675 € (1940 € total) or Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 for 460 € (1525 € total).

Total weight of the RP combo is 480 g + 700 g = 1180 g

For the Crop DSLR:
700 g + 645 g = 1345 g (With Canon lens)
700 g + 570 g =1270 g (With Tamron lens)

They are all roughly the same length (if you account for the flange distance, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is the longest one).

It is not a complete apple's to apples comparison, of course. The 24-105 mm is a straight upgrade over the other options, but the RP and 90D are build for very different purposes.

But the point I was trying to make is this: If you want a 2.8 Zoom on crop, not just because you do, but because you want to get the associated results (Low light performance, background blur), there's nothing really favoring APS-C. You'll get those results and more going for an FF option, while paying a similar price for the total system and carrying less weight.

Sure, this matters not at all, if you don't look at the whole system. But Canon has to look into the future, where buying a new body and lens becomes more likely for most users.



photonius said:


> It seems to make perfect sense to focus on one mount, which uses less resources, in a shrinking market.


Don't forget why it is shrinking: many people simply aren't willing to carry or pay as much as they used to. In that environment, having a system that prioritizes size above all else, for those who want to go further than smartphone quality while keeping size and weight reasonable, makes a lot of sense to me. And a system for the enthusiats that chase quality and are ready to compromise on size, weight and cost.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 29, 2020)

nads said:


> This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.
> 
> Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.



On the other hand, lens based IS works by intentionally misaligning the lens just a tiny bit. Wide angle lenses are more susceptible to minor misalignments than longer lenses are, so there's that too. Both sacrifice image quality in exchange for reducing blur caused by camera movement. Each just does it in a different way.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 29, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> You are welcome to your opinion.
> 
> 
> You are the one putting the moral statement on this. I don't look down on him. I am describing him. There is a difference. I didn't make a value judgement, that was you. I also didn't say I was a better photographer, only that I understood the equipment better.
> ...



Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?


----------



## nchoh (Jul 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?



There is a very prevalent idea on this forum that enthusiasts only buy expensive cameras and lenses. I say an enthusiast is anyone who spends a lot of effort learning about photography and cameras. Some enthusiasts have a budget of$10K, some have a budget of less than $3K.

The reality is that if you are an enthusiast who has only budgeted less than $3K, you have to work a lot harder, spending a lot more time choosing the right equipment for the type of photography you want to do. It is difficult to find good combinations of lenses to achieve the same when you have a minimal amount to spend. With a budget of $10K (5DX+ L lenses), most of the work is already done for you. So who is the real enthusiast?


----------



## ReflexVE (Jul 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?


That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.


----------



## photonius (Aug 1, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!
> 
> Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.


Actually, if you look at the Canon EOS SL cameras, e.g. the Rebel SL1 with 407 g, versus the M50 with 387 g, you can see it's possible to make a rather compact camera with a mount (EF/EF-S) that has the SAME diameter as the RF mount. Now you take out the mirror box etc., and only leave the RF mount, and you can make a lightweight rather compact APS-C RF mirrorless camera. And because it;'s mirrorless, you can now make all the EF-M lenses as RF APS-C lenses. They will be a bit heavier, due to larger mount diameter. So, it should be possible to make an APS-C RF mount system, that comes rather close to the EOS-M system.


----------



## photonius (Aug 2, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:
> 
> At Amazon Germany, I can pay 1950 € for an RP with the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS. Or buy them separately at 1265 + 1065 = 2330 €.
> 
> ...


Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges. 
But that's the point of the APS-C line. You can get lighter and cheaper. Look at the SL line, which I was always contemplating, though in the end I stuck with the Rebel line for weight and price reasons. 
Since you compare a lowest priced FF system (the RP) with a standard kit zoom, you should do the same comparison at APS-C level,
so, take a Rebel and the 18-55 lens, (similar to the EOS-M kit lenses) and calculate price and weight. Price will be 560 Euro for the 250d at Amazon.de. And the weight is ~ 750g, almost half of the FF system. The 250D has a mirror box, but a mount with the same diameter as RF. Take away the mirror box, and you can make an APS-C RF body that can be very lightweight, that can use EF-M / EF-S style compact lightweight APS-C lenses. But it will be able to take advantage of the whole RF lens line-up that will come along eventually. (Basically replicating the EF-S/EF situation, i.e. small, inexpensive APS-C bodies that can take all lenses, but also a small selection of APS-C only lenses. 
As to the 2.8 zoom, indeed it's quite heavy. That's why I actually don't have it. I mentioned that only because so many people seem to crave it for APS-C. Me, for bokeh, I just stick the EF 50mm f1.8 lens on the rebel body - again, a simple basic lens that Canon has not replicated for EOS-M. 
I totally agree that size/weight is important for people. But those people still buying camera system can probably be considered more enthusiastic. The Polaroid/Instamatic crowd are all using their smartphones nowadays. And for enthusiasts, the EOS-M system is limited. I'd rather go with another system like Fuji or MFT then. Now, the EOS-M crowd can still be kept happy with EF/EF-S lenes and adapters if EF-M doesn't cover it, but eventually that is going to disappear.


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2020)

photonius said:


> Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges.
> But that's the point of the APS-C line. You can get lighter and cheaper.


Well, that's exactly the point: The RP is only 30 g heavier than the 200D. That's so close, it's almost negligible.

In absolute terms, FF is currently more expensive. But you are also getting higher quality lenses, usually. And more importantly, the RP is the only entry level FF Canon has on offer currently. From the current line up, I get the impression that Canon will try to push down the price of FF further down.



photonius said:


> Since you compare a lowest priced FF system (the RP) with a standard kit zoom, you should do the same comparison at APS-C level,
> so, take a Rebel and the 18-55 lens, (similar to the EOS-M kit lenses) and calculate price and weight. Price will be 560 Euro for the 250d at Amazon.de. And the weight is ~ 750g, almost half of the FF system.



Well, I have only chosen the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS, because it is a superset of the 17-55 mm 2.8 in terms of equivalency. Everything you can shoot with the 17-55 mm 2.8 in crop you can do better with the 24-105 4.0.

Compared to an 18-55 mm 3.5 - 5.6 Kit Zoom, you'd have to go with the RF 24-105 mm 4-7.1 as the closest equivalent. Although still a lens with greater range and better total light gathering when compared to the crop system, it is at least very comparable in terms of weight:

RP + 24-105 mm 4.0-7.1 = 485 g + 395 g = 880 g
SL3 + 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6 = + 450 g + 205 g = 655 g

So you end up carrying 225 g more and pay 1460 € / 580 € = 2.5 times as much, for a more capable setup. Still no apples to apples comparison.

But I am not arguing that you can or will ever get FF at the same price as a crop system. Just that if you go up, you can still get a lightweight system and that the price for entry to FF will likely come down further as the RF system evolves. So not having an APS-C system to use with higher end lenses may become less problematic as time goes on.



photonius said:


> The 250D has a mirror box, but a mount with the same diameter as RF. Take away the mirror box, and you can make an APS-C RF body that can be very lightweight, that can use EF-M / EF-S style compact lightweight APS-C lenses.


I can't follow you here. You suggest a crop RF mount with crop only RF lenses? I don't think it will happen.



photonius said:


> And for enthusiasts, the EOS-M system is limited. I'd rather go with another system like Fuji or MFT then. Now, the EOS-M crowd can still be kept happy with EF/EF-S lenes and adapters if EF-M doesn't cover it, but eventually that is going to disappear.


EF-M only has small and inexpensive lenses. It is an ideal, clean ecosystem for the people who are just enthusiastic enough to carry a little gear and spent a little time researching what lenses they should buy. As you go to more enthusiastic customers, EF-M certainly doesn't cut it as a main system. But MFT, Fuji and EF-S come with their own restrictions. What suits you best depends on a lot of variables. But in the end, you and me don't matter, the market as a whole does. From my perspective it looks like Canon believes having EF-M (APS-C) for the low end and RF (FF) for the rest is the way to go, to capture enough casual users and photo enthusiasts. RF Yan offer decently inexpensive and very light lenses as well, and body costs will come down eventually. Sure, an EF-S style system could be even lighter and less expensive, but at that point you're compromising in quality anyway, so why not go all the way to EF-M? It may just be that in the long term, there is not enough market for the type of camera and lenses in the middle of the inexpensive, light and compact - expensive, heavy, high performance spectrum.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 2, 2020)

ReflexVE said:


> That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.



Imagine I said the same kind of things about EOS M buyers that you said about your boss? Would you think I wasn't judging them? I think not.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 2, 2020)

nchoh said:


> There is a very prevalent idea on this forum that enthusiasts only buy expensive cameras and lenses. I say an enthusiast is anyone who spends a lot of effort learning about photography and cameras. Some enthusiasts have a budget of$10K, some have a budget of less than $3K.
> 
> The reality is that if you are an enthusiast who has only budgeted less than $3K, you have to work a lot harder, spending a lot more time choosing the right equipment for the type of photography you want to do. It is difficult to find good combinations of lenses to achieve the same when you have a minimal amount to spend. With a budget of $10K (5DX+ L lenses), most of the work is already done for you. So who is the real enthusiast?



Yes, one can spend more money in the RF system buying the most expensive RF products than one can spend in the EOS M system. But one does not _have to buy_ the most expensive RF cameras and lenses to be in the RF system. *By the time the RF system is eight years old, as the EOS M system now is, there will almost certainly be many more affordable options in the RF system than there currently are. *In fact, in terms of RF lenses, by the end of this year there will be far more options that are considered "affordable" by those with limited budgets than there were at the beginning of this year.

Even so, right now an RP + RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro compares fairly well in terms of cost to a camera in the EOS M system with features comparable to the RP's features, combined with the cost of needing to buy both the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (for comparable maximum aperture) plus EF-M 28mm f/2.8 IS Macro (for comparable macro capabilities).

The cameras and lenses currently offered in the EOS-M system, which has been around for eight years, are aimed at more limited capabilities in exchange for size/weight/cost considerations that are more heavily favored by many more casual camera buyers.

The cameras and lenses currently offered in the EOS R system already, less than two years in, offer a far wider breadth of use cases, features, and price points for the specific needs of those who take time to determine exactly what they need for a particular niche of photography. That breadth of choice will be even much wider in the year 2026 by the time the EOS R system has been on the market for eight years.


----------



## photonius (Aug 2, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, that's exactly the point: The RP is only 30 g heavier than the 200D. That's so close, it's almost negligible.
> 
> In absolute terms, FF is currently more expensive. But you are also getting higher quality lenses, usually. And more importantly, the RP is the only entry level FF Canon has on offer currently. From the current line up, I get the impression that Canon will try to push down the price of FF further down.
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide. 
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF


----------



## stevelee (Aug 2, 2020)

I considered getting the M50 when I was looking at alternatives to my G7X II. I chose to stick with something that would fit in my pocket, so I got the G5X II instead. (I also looked at Sony’s camera, but they made it slower and zoom farther, so not a good fit for me for travel.) I came away with a positive impression of the M series, so if there were some use situation for me when I wanted something in between pocketable and FF, I would definitely buy an M of some sort. So far I haven’t thought of a scenario for me where that fits. Right now, I don’t have occasion to use the Aps-c cameras I already have.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 2, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> M5
> 
> IBIS
> 
> ...



Maybe make the EVF to sit a bit lower like on the RP and don't add a huge bump on the top of the camera.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 2, 2020)

Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF
[/QUOTE]

Comparing M6 Mark 2 and 15-45 to the RP with the 24-105, the M is significantly smaller. 
Same with the M6+22mm compared to RP with 35mm 1.8. The M is a dwarf compared to the RF.
The 22mm F2 is 101g vs 305g for the 35mm 1.8. Instant 200g saving.

That's the main advantage in my opinion. Canon just needs a better kit lens, something like a 15-60 F2.8-5.6 maybe with better built and sharpness.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 2, 2020)

M system do need better lenses.15-45 is a very versatile lens. Canon just need to make it better opically. If they make it as 15-60 2.8-5.6, it will be much bigger than its present form.


----------



## ReflexVE (Aug 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Imagine I said the same kind of things about EOS M buyers that you said about your boss? Would you think I wasn't judging them? I think not.
> 
> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


You are adding judgement to what I am simply describing. That's on you.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 3, 2020)

derpderp said:


> You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet.



You really don't understand who EF-M is aimed at. It's the market for compact, inexpensive APS-C lenses. There's no way Canon will replace it with RF. No way at all.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 3, 2020)

I really don’t understand the RF Über Alles cult, as if everything else has to be assimilated or eliminated.


----------



## photonius (Aug 5, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
> As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF



Comparing M6 Mark 2 and 15-45 to the RP with the 24-105, the M is significantly smaller.
Same with the M6+22mm compared to RP with 35mm 1.8. The M is a dwarf compared to the RF.
The 22mm F2 is 101g vs 305g for the 35mm 1.8. Instant 200g saving.

That's the main advantage in my opinion. Canon just needs a better kit lens, something like a 15-60 F2.8-5.6 maybe with better built and sharpness.
[/QUOTE]
The m6 lacks a viewfinder! Take away the viewfinder bump on the top of the RP, reduce the big grip to m6 size, and you are very close. And with an APS-C sensor in such a body, and an RF mount on the 15-45 and 22 f2 lenses, they will work just as on the m6. The lenses will be a little bigger at the back due to the larger mount diameter.


----------

