# The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 27, 2020)

> I continue to receive little bits of information in regards to the future of the EOS M lineup, and it sounds like Canon is still working on new cameras and lenses for the system, but obviously at a much slower pace the EOS R system.
> I have been pretty adamant that there wouldn’t be an EOS M5 Mark II, however, I have been told that there will be an EOS M5 replacement in Q4 of this year. The source claims that specifications for the camera would be very similar to the EOS M6 Mark II, but with IBIS, a built-in EVF and better build quality.
> The same source claims that the EOS M50 Mark II won’t come until very early next year.
> As far as lenses, I have now had a couple mentions about an EF-M 52mm f/2 STM coming in 2020. This would be the equivalent of an 85mm f/2 for full-frame.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 27, 2020)

++++ similar to the EOS M6 Mark II, but with IBIS, a built-in EVF and better build quality. ... Q4 of this year ...

A.M.: Dear Santa, I was such a good boy in 2020. Would you be so kind....


----------



## i_SH (Feb 27, 2020)

Great hearing! Thanks.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 27, 2020)

I wonder what the plans for the M?00 line is. I've very happy with my M6II, but I miss the smallness of the M1. So an M200 sized camera, with the M6II sensor, IBIS and digic X be ideal. Or an M6III identical to the M6II, but with a proper tilty-flippy screen


----------



## docsmith (Feb 27, 2020)

Good. I was just playing with my M6 II last night. It is a heckuva camera. In my opinion, Canon has the opposite issue that they are known for here, they now have a great camera but only ok lenses (not bad, but when you are used to "L" glass, there is room for improvement). 

So, please, bring on the very good (ex...EFs 17-55 or EFs 15-85 equivalents) zoom lenses. I could easily see a 100-300. The M6 II actually pairs very nicely with my 70-300 L. But a smaller version would be great (300/5.6 = 54 mm, so maybe 55 or 58 mm front threads).


----------



## vangelismm (Feb 27, 2020)

Please, just put bigger battery.


----------



## Mark3794 (Feb 27, 2020)

This is really good news if it's true! M series with ibis is a dream! I've used a lot of canon cameras from rebels to 1d series but the M are so small and so fun i can't stop shooting with them


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 27, 2020)

> *equivalent *of an 85mm *f/2* for full-frame


Oh no..!


----------



## freejay (Feb 27, 2020)

I bought the M6 II for now, but I'd really like to see a built in EVF and IBIS especially for using manual lenses (my Kamlan 50mm 1.1 would be unbeatable in low light with IBIS ).


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 27, 2020)

If this M5ii rumor is true I don't see the need for an M50ii unless is goes down market and they consolidate the mxxx line.


----------



## Daner (Feb 27, 2020)

I would like to see an M-mount body with the sensor from the M6II, the DIGIC X processor, IBIS, a really good EVF, tilty-flippy screen, a single CFExpress card slot, and using the LP-E6N battery. Combine that with the upcoming EF-M 100-400 (which is really a 120-360), or use an adapter to use it with any EF-S or EF glass.


----------



## BillB (Feb 27, 2020)

docsmith said:


> So, please, bring on the very good (ex...EFs 17-55 or EFs 15-85 equivalents) zoom lenses. I could easily see a 100-300. The M6 II actually pairs very nicely with my 70-300 L. But a smaller version would be great (300/5.6 = 54 mm, so maybe 55 or 58 mm front threads).


All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.



Except that RF can not adapt to EF-M, unless they build an adapter with glass in it. The more the RF system takes over the EF system, the more need there is for EF-M to stand on its own. EF lenses can be used for both RF and EF-M, but that is not where Canon is putting its R&D effort.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 27, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> If this M5ii rumor is true I don't see the need for an M50ii unless is goes down market and they consolidate the mxxx line.



The M50 is basically a Rebel equivalent while the M5 is a 90D/7D type of camera.
Different category and price points.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.



I suspect this is part of the reason we have not seen more EF-m lenses. That said, this would be true for any lens in the EF/EFs lineup. There would be no need for an EFm 35 f/1.4, yet, they made it. The rumored EFm 52 f/2 and 100-300? There are EF lenses close enough. 

If Canon continues the M system, they will populate the EFm lineup. And, given the rumor and the very real M6 II, looks like they are continuing the system.


----------



## Canfan (Feb 27, 2020)

The M6mkii is a great camera, love the size and removable EVF. It really makes it compact. An upgrade would be fixing the trade off like loss of the hot shoe with EVF in place maybe a different mounting arrangement, Variangle flip screen and IBIS. Wont change anything else. 
What is lacking most though is the lack of Native lenses. Sigma has a few like the 56mm 1.4 and 16mm 1.4 could we get that?
Another thing would be software. Still waiting on the promised firmware upgrade hopefully with improved autofocus algorithms like pet or animal AF. 
with features like that I believe this camera will be a best seller.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 27, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The M50 is basically a Rebel equivalens while the M5 is a 90D/7D type of camera.
> Different category and price points.


As for price points, I am thinking if they take the features of the M6 II, add an EVF/IBIS, better build quality (i.e. the rumor) then you basically have the Fuji XT4 (sure, hairs can be split, but ballpark). The X-T3 is $1,800. I can see Canon moving the M5 II price put up pretty significantly from the $950 the M5 came in at. I am thinking $1,200-1,400. Which leaves room for the m50 and M6 II (no IBIS, no EVF, lessor build quality) below.


----------



## davidj (Feb 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.


I have a 17-55mm on an M6 right next to me and it's not a match made in heaven. The lens plus adapter absolutely dwarfs the body.

I think the M6 is an amazing hiking and travel camera. The 11-22mm lens is wonderful. I just wish there was similarly impessive standard zoom. I wonder how light a constant f/2.8 could be?


----------



## Trey T (Feb 27, 2020)

davidj said:


> *I have a 17-55mm on an M6 right next to me and it's not a match made in heaven. The lens plus adapter absolutely dwarfs the body.*
> 
> I think the M6 is an amazing hiking and travel camera. The 11-22mm lens is wonderful. I just wish there was similarly impessive standard zoom. I wonder how light a constant f/2.8 could be?


YUP!!! I had a 18-35mm sigma on the original EOS-M and it's analogous to a 70-200mm on a 5D.

Canon should put in the same amount of resources to build capable lenses like the RF


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.



The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.


----------



## cerealito (Feb 27, 2020)

*And this comes just *hours* after the announcement of the Fujifilm X-T4... coincidence? or controlled leak?*


----------



## i_SH (Feb 27, 2020)

There is another rumor about the EF-M 18-45 mm f / 2-4 IS STM lens and the EOS M60 camera








Canon EOS M5 Mark II Coming October 2020, And New Lenses Too


The Canon EOS M5 Mark II (all rumors) might be announced later this year, in October 2020. Along with the EOS M5 Mark II,




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## DanCarr (Feb 27, 2020)

Canon Rumors: hears brand new rumor.

Canon Rumors: “This is a CR1 rumor so treat it accordingly”

CanonWatch: “THIS IS DEFINITELY A THING THAT IS HAPPENING”


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Feb 27, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.


I mostly strongly agree, however, the 55-250 EF-S is great size and balance and high quality on the M6II, and the EF-S 60 macro is just fine as well, noticeably smaller even with MT24 or similar flash. The only problem then is the palm of your thumb mashing buttons, which is such a problem I'm going to get a cage/grip for macro. The 90D wouldn't have had that problem, but choices have to be made.....


----------



## melgross (Feb 27, 2020)

Considering everything we continue to read about how well this series sells, I don’t have a single reason why Canon should abandon it. The people who insist they MUST have a single mirrorless mount are wrong. There are apparently a lot of people out there who like this smaller, lighter system. They don’t seem to care about faster, pro level lenses either. They also don’t seem interested in moving to full frame. If they did, they wouldn’t be buying into this, knowing there’s no direct upgrade path.

Canon knows what’s selling. If they are going to upgrade the line, they must feel as though there’s a good market for it. People need to stop whining about it.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 27, 2020)

It's also telling at we've been getting a new M camera at least once a year since the M launched, so Canon isn't 'neglecting' the system, quite the opposite.


----------



## jam05 (Feb 27, 2020)

A lot may have to wait until after the Virus is curtailed


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 27, 2020)

docsmith said:


> As for price points, I am thinking if they take the features of the M6 II, add an EVF/IBIS, better build quality (i.e. the rumor) then you basically have the Fuji XT4 (sure, hairs can be split, but ballpark). The X-T3 is $1,800. I can see Canon moving the M5 II price put up pretty significantly from the $950 the M5 came in at. I am thinking $1,200-1,400. Which leaves room for the m50 and M6 II (no IBIS, no EVF, lessor build quality) below.



Unless I really want a smaller body at that price I will go R series.
I am disappointed at lack of compatibility between the r and M cameras.
Drop the M mount, change to R mount and keep the same small body form with APSC sensor. Make small APSC lenses for it but allow large FF RF lenses to also mount. The FF RF would use the APSC lenses cropped as they do now with EFs lenses.
Just do not want to mess with 2 systems any more.


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 27, 2020)

Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 27, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The M50 is basically a Rebel equivalent while the M5 is a 90D/7D type of camera.
> Different category and price points.



The M50 isn't to the M5 what a rebel was an XXD and even less so a 7D. Aside from ergonomics/build the M50 was arguably a better featured camera that had a specific market it was tailored to (video/vlogging). I don't think that argument could have ever been made for contemporary rebel and xxD models in the past. I can't recall a time when a rebel introduced an all new feature for DSLR line either, whereas 4k on the M50 was a first.

For someone who wants what the M50 brought to the table it seems that this rumored M5ii would check all those boxes where the original M5 didn't. I can see either no M50ii/M60 if this camera is real regardless of the fact that it sits at a lower price point, and those in that market are steered to the next Mxxx or the M50ii/M60 essentially becomes what was the Mxxx was.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 27, 2020)

kocmonabt said:


> Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
> Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
> Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.


Side swivel displays aren't going anywhere. One of the fastest growing uses for these cameras is vlogging, where having a swivel screen saves you $$$$ from having to purchase an external display and/or renders the camera practically useless to the vlogger if they record on the move.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 27, 2020)

melgross said:


> Considering everything we continue to read about how well this series sells, I don’t have a single reason why Canon should abandon it. The people who insist they MUST have a single mirrorless mount are wrong. There are apparently a lot of people out there who like this smaller, lighter system. They don’t seem to care about faster, pro level lenses either. They also don’t seem interested in moving to full frame. If they did, they wouldn’t be buying into this, knowing there’s no direct upgrade path.
> 
> Canon knows what’s selling. If they are going to upgrade the line, they must feel as though there’s a good market for it. People need to stop whining about it.


And then, there are those who actually understand optimization and simply by both. Horses for courses. If that mentioned M5 replacement comes down the pike I will preorder it. DItto for the 100-400 (120-360). I think the M5 II is waiting for the new processor so as to fit 90D style video processing (or maybe even better) into the small battery. Just a bit more girth to add a tilty-flippy would be completely acceptable.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 27, 2020)

kocmonabt said:


> Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
> Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
> Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.


Sorry, but tilty-flippys are far more than "selfie displays". They are useable from the back, the top, the bottom, and the front and all angles in between, not to mention less fragile than the typical flip up/down display with its exposed flex cable.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 27, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Unless I really want a smaller body at that price I will go R series.
> I am disappointed at lack of compatibility between the r and M cameras.
> Drop the M mount, change to R mount and keep the same small body form with APSC sensor. Make small APSC lenses for it but allow large FF RF lenses to also mount. The FF RF would use the APSC lenses cropped as they do now with EFs lenses.
> Just do not want to mess with 2 systems any more.


I really think this decision comes down to how many lenses would you really use with the M if you have an R as your main body. Personally, if I were going to be using a larger lens it would make no sense to put it on the M body.

I think a lot depends on what kind of smaller R lenses are going to be developed if there are a few nice pancake options than maybe there isn't a need for the M. But if that doesnt materialize or isn't small enough...I just wouldn't think I'd own more than 1 or 2 lenses for an M body, and if its worth it to save the space/weight on occasions that you need to then perhaps it isn't that bad.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 27, 2020)

Daner said:


> I would like to see an M-mount body with the sensor from the M6II, the DIGIC X processor, IBIS, a really good EVF, tilty-flippy screen, a single CFExpress card slot, and using the LP-E6N battery. Combine that with the upcoming EF-M 100-400 (which is really a 120-360), or use an adapter to use it with any EF-S or EF glass.



I think you are talking an R type camera with a APS-C sensor.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 27, 2020)

I really like the m6 II, but I would immediately throw it under the bus for: 

M5 II
At least the M6 II performance & spec
Weather Sealed / sturdier body
IBIS
Improved tracking
Improved battery life
EVF capable of following action
EF-M 100-300 would be a buy if no more than a f5.6 (doubt this because of the trend of f7.1 on the R)
Basically an X-T4 in an M body. I have don't mind adapting EF lenses for the time being, ALTHOUGH I will be moving to the R and would like to eventually replace my EF lenses. This would be an issue if I want some compatia


----------



## Dragon (Feb 27, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I think you are talking an R type camera with a APS-C sensor.


Replace the CFE slot with UHS II and replace digicx with digic9 (the consumer flavor) and probably skip the weather seal and you have an M5 II. All the rest makes sense. Not much sense in adding weather seal to an M body when none of the lenses have it. The rest makes sense.


----------



## Danglin52 (Feb 27, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Replace the CFE slot with UHS II and replace digicx with digic9 (the consumer flavor) and probably skip the weather seal and you have an M5 II. All the rest makes sense. Not much sense in adding weather seal to an M body when none of the lenses have it. The rest makes sense.



Weather sealing the body would give you at least some protection of the body in light weather - whether fog, humidity, drizzle, etc. Since we can shoot EF L lenses, it would also make sense to deliver a sealed EF-M adaptor. Basically, we get a mini 7dIII that can be used in inclement weather. I want this as a backup in my bag for my 1dx II, etc. I have shot the m6 II on the back of my 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x. Looks weird, but good pictures. I also carry the m6 II a lot with my 70-200 f4 L IS II. Much better balance than you think on the m6 II and great images.


----------



## canonmike (Feb 27, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Love my M50 when hiking in the wilderness. Small form function is perfectly suited for this, so, a native EF-M 52mm F2 would be a great compliment to my EF-M 22mm F2. Look fwd to seeing this lens come to fruition. I really like my Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART zoom but it's just such a big heavy lens, especially since you need the EF-M adapter to be able to use it on the M50, thus making the combo much bigger than I like for camping/hiking. So, the Sigma usually gets left behind. Just glad to see Canon will continue to support the M series bodies.


----------



## dwarven (Feb 27, 2020)

I wonder if Canon will keep the M series for APS-C mirrorless or eventually swap everything over to the RF system? I'm leaning towards the latter.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Feb 27, 2020)

I know a lot of people dislike the removable EVF, but for someone like me who's left eye dominant the EVF is a godsend! When I tried the R the touch and drag method of moving AF points worked horribly as my nose is always on the screen (which is why I am excited the R5 will have the joystick) but with the way the EVF sits on the M6II being higher up and protruding it gives clearance and I can use the touch and drag method (which then works wonderfully).

Would still love to have IBIS and vari-angle screen though.


----------



## padam (Feb 27, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I wonder if Canon will keep the M series for APS-C mirrorless or eventually swap everything over to the RF system? I'm leaning towards the latter.


No, the EF-M will be gone way after EF-S, which also doesn't show signs of discontinuation just yet.
There is really not much of an advantage for the RF-mount for APS-C lens design over EF-M. In fact, the flange distance is actually a little longer.

Of course there will be an APS-C RF-mount body eventually, but it will be made mainly for for telephoto work, it won't have cheap lenses like the EF-M.
I mean, there is a 7D Mark II but there are no lenses specifically designed for it. But it makes perfect sense for using it with FF higher-end telephoto lenses.


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 27, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Side swivel displays aren't going anywhere. One of the fastest growing uses for these cameras is vlogging, where having a swivel screen saves you $$$$ from having to purchase an external display and/or renders the camera practically useless to the vlogger if they record on the move.


I understand that and respect videographers needs but can’t we have at least some cameras for photographers? It is so freeing when the camera doesn’t have to be glued to your eye and so natural when the display is in line with the lens. Like the Hasselblads of old but way better. M6’s controls are all under right hand and the left supports the camera. Not at all comfortable with side swivel. I was so happy when they arrived on the scene 15 years ago (for me) but the times had moved forward. Simply put - cameras for people who shoot predominantly video and people who shoot predominantly stills show be in different lines and hopefully, cameras for photographers will continue to exist.


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 27, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sorry, but tilty-flippys are far more than "selfie displays". They are useable from the back, the top, the bottom, and the front and all angles in between, not to mention less fragile than the typical flip up/down display with its exposed flex cable.


That’s great if you use or camera at such angles all of the time. I use mine at waist level mostly. For tricky angles I remote control the camera with smartphone.


----------



## 19COLIN52 (Feb 27, 2020)

I bought my M50 after reading a review or two and the fact it has a built-in EV. I bouggt a few M lenses but then frustration set in. Last year I bought a Mitakon 35mm f/0.95. It’s one hell of a fun lens, for want of a better word. Yes, it’s manual but helped by the manual focusing of the camera. Coloured outlines, ( you can choose which colour you like) for what ever is in focus. With the aperture of f/ 0.95 I had to use the fastest shutter speed! I am now waiting for the Venus Optics Laowa 65mm 2x macro lens, can’t wait!
If Canon don’t introduce something more exciting like these lenses soon, they won’t be able to sell any new ‘M’ lenses!
PS I also own a 5D III, 70D, 100D and find myself more and more taking out my little M50 because it is small and light and less of a ‘burden’


----------



## geffy (Feb 28, 2020)

m50 is the most underrated kit i have owned


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Feb 28, 2020)

Sorry admin but, no, an APS-C 52mm f2 lens is absolutely not the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2 lens, but rather of a FF 85mm f3.2 lens. I was really hoping for a 52mm lens of at least f1.4, which will be the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2.2 lens. I guess that Canon wants to keep this lens small, perhaps for it to even share a 43mm filter thread with the 22mm f2 and the 32mm f1.4, but subject separation is already not that great with the Sigma 56mm f1.4 used wide open, at least compared to the results of a FF 85mm f1.8 shot also wide open on a FF body and taking into account each lens' price. I am on the fence for a FF 85mm equivalent lens, as my current portraiture setup, a 50mm f1.8 STM+EF to M adapter, is not optimal size-wise, weight-wise, IQ-wise, or AF-wise, but given that the only current choice, the aforementioned Sigma, is relatively expensive for what it does (FF, native, 85mm f1.8 DSLR lenses are cheaper than it), and that this Canon 52mm f2 will probably be even more expensive (should cost around the same as the 32mm f1.4), my only possible and sensible choice will be the upcoming Viltrox 56mm f1.4, which its MTF chart points it to be somewhere between the Sigma 56mm f1.4 and the 50mm f1.8 STM.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 28, 2020)

davidj said:


> I have a 17-55mm on an M6 right next to me and it's not a match made in heaven. The lens plus adapter absolutely dwarfs the body.
> 
> I think the M6 is an amazing hiking and travel camera. The 11-22mm lens is wonderful. I just wish there was similarly impessive standard zoom. I wonder how light a constant f/2.8 could be?


Unless Canon deviates from their heretofore limit of 2.4" diameter for EF-M lenses, there will never be a constant f/2.8 zoom. Hopefully a constant f/4 zoom is doable, but not a 2.8.


----------



## JMZawodny (Feb 28, 2020)

I hope this is true. I use my M5 several times a day. It is such a handy camera with an acceptable selection of lenses.


----------



## Ben18 (Feb 28, 2020)

According to canonwatch.com, the 100-300mm is f/5.6-f/8 which is very dark. But if the physical size is similar to the 55-200mm which easily fit in a small bag, I will still consider getting it. We can always adapt EF 70-300mm if we want a brighter telephoto zoom anyway.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 28, 2020)

Ben18 said:


> According to canonwatch.com, the 100-300mm is f/5.6-f/8 which is very dark. But if the physical size is similar to the 55-200mm which easily fit in a small bag, I will still consider getting it. We can always adapt EF 70-300mm if we want a brighter telephoto zoom anyway.


It is dark indeed for an OVF equipped camera however with EVF a dark viewfinder isn’t an issue. 
Focusing at F8.0 isn’t an issue. So...
Let’s look at the bright side: you focus at F8 and shoot at F8. no focus shift issue then


----------



## i_SH (Feb 28, 2020)

Ben18 said:


> According to canonwatch.com, the 100-300mm is f/5.6-f/8 which is very dark. But if the physical size is similar to the 55-200mm which easily fit in a small bag, I will still consider getting it. We can always adapt EF 70-300mm if we want a brighter telephoto zoom anyway.



Absolutely right! I can’t say anything about large lenses, but with my EF 24-105 / 4 L IS USM lens and, especially, with the EF 70-300 / 4-5.6 IS II USM, it’s convenient to hold the camera in my hands.
And if you assume that IBIS and Canon will make the camera a little bigger and the grip deeper and even more convenient, then it will be great!


----------



## dcm (Feb 28, 2020)

The 52 and 100-300 address both of the shortcomings I noted last month - a fast longer prime for portraits and low light, and a longer telephoto in the small form factor. I didn’t really expect the later so I’ve been using adapted EF 70-300s. With around a 40mm max entrance pupil on the EF-M I didn’t expect better than f/8 to keep the form factor. To get a small f/5.6, you are suddenly at the size of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM which you can already adapt. It will be interesting to see the size trade off for 1 stop.


----------



## Daner (Feb 28, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I think you are talking an R type camera with a APS-C sensor.



I think that there could be room in the market for that exact same set of features with an R-mount and with an M-mount.


----------



## vxcalais (Feb 28, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Good. I was just playing with my M6 II last night. It is a heckuva camera. In my opinion, Canon has the opposite issue that they are known for here, they now have a great camera but only ok lenses (not bad, but when you are used to "L" glass, there is room for improvement).
> 
> So, please, bring on the very good (ex...EFs 17-55 or EFs 15-85 equivalents) zoom lenses. I could easily see a 100-300. The M6 II actually pairs very nicely with my 70-300 L. But a smaller version would be great (300/5.6 = 54 mm, so maybe 55 or 58 mm front threads).



Agreed. And the build quality of the M6ii is excellent. Some reports mention better quality so i assume its weather sealed ? Strange that reports mentioned M6ii was replacement for M5ii. I prefer the removable EVF as I was weighing up against a Ricoh GR3.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 28, 2020)

vxcalais said:


> Agreed. And the build quality of the M6ii is excellent. Some reports mention better quality so i assume its weather sealed ? Strange that reports mentioned M6ii was replacement for M5ii. I prefer the removable EVF as I was weighing up against a Ricoh GR3.



With what seems like a year between the M6II and rumoured M5II release, Canon wants people to keep buying cameras, not sit on their money for another year.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Feb 28, 2020)

BillB said:


> All of these lenses adapt to EF-M. I doubt that there will be native EF-M equivalents any time soon.


They also all adapt to RF. 
Just because a lens can adapt doesn't nullify all reasons for having a native version.


----------



## 19COLIN52 (Feb 28, 2020)

I agree with others. Until I bought the EF-M 11-22mm, I used an adapted EF-S 10-18mm but it is massive compared to, say, the M 15-45mm. I’m just not a fan of the adapted lenses. 
Canon need to introduce more quality lenses and quickly, otherwise independent lens manufacturers are going to cash in.


----------



## freejay (Feb 28, 2020)

kocmonabt said:


> ...M6’s controls are all under left hand and the right supports the camera. Not at all comfortable with side swivel...



I don't understand, what you are complaining about: The M6 II doesn't have a "side swivel": It uses a screen that tilts up or down only. So this should be ideal for you.

And the controls are on the right side and the left hand mostly supports the lens. No idea what you mean with "M6’s controls are all under left hand and the right supports the camera".

If the M5 II comes, I really hope it has a full articulating screen. I'm not doing much video work but I miss my "side swivel" on the M6 all the time...


----------



## Mark3794 (Feb 28, 2020)

padam said:


> No, the EF-M will be gone way after EF-S, which also doesn't show signs of discontinuation just yet.
> There is really not much of an advantage for the RF-mount for APS-C lens design over EF-M. In fact, the flange distance is actually a little longer.
> 
> Of course there will be an APS-C RF-mount body eventually, but it will be made mainly for for telephoto work, it won't have cheap lenses like the EF-M.
> I mean, there is a 7D Mark II but there are no lenses specifically designed for it. But it makes perfect sense for using it with FF higher-end telephoto lenses.



Yes, i think it will go this way: EF and EF-S will slowly fade out (no new lens design, maybe just one or two new lens so it doesn't look dead like sony A-mount), RF will be the bread and butter for canon even with some APS-C cameras: R7 and a 90D equivalent.

EF-M will be the powershoot and rebel substitute with small cameras and compact lenses.


----------



## padam (Feb 28, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> RF will be the bread and butter for canon even with some APS-C cameras: R7 and a 90D equivalent.


RF is first and foremost a FF system, not APS-C.
EF-S can be adapted of course, but they will likely to not start making crop sensor "RF-S" lenses.
EF-M is the way to go if one prefers to have smaller, cheaper lenses specifically designed for APS-C sensors. They are not going to start all over once again.

Nikon has been thinking the same way (they are not going to make premium APS-C lenses, only the smaller and cheaper ones like EF-M), except using the Z-mount for both systems.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 28, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I really think this decision comes down to how many lenses would you really use with the M if you have an R as your main body. Personally, if I were going to be using a larger lens it would make no sense to put it on the M body.
> 
> I think a lot depends on what kind of smaller R lenses are going to be developed if there are a few nice pancake options than maybe there isn't a need for the M. But if that doesnt materialize or isn't small enough...I just wouldn't think I'd own more than 1 or 2 lenses for an M body, and if its worth it to save the space/weight on occasions that you need to then perhaps it isn't that bad.



I guess with IBIS now a smaller R lens, not real fast like M lenses are not as fast and allow for a relatively small series of APSC lenses and even FF lenses if you want to go that route. Just a larger mounting end. This is not unusual.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 28, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.



I've been using the 10-22efs for years on an M1. It's not poor anything.

The usability of the combo (and most adapted lenses) outclasses even the (too small!) 11-22. For landscapes at f7.1, every thing looks great. Turning the zoom on the extending barrel of the 11-22 has been a bad experience, so much so I'm thinking of selling that and the m50. That lens just too small and you have to do these awkward hand movements.

I understand a certain crowd once the tiniest cameras imaginable, however then we get issues like the cheapo, no weight M50 and the ridiculous shutter slap that results in soft images 90% of the time. That's why this camera is on death watch for me.

Besides that, my M1 with adapted lenses used to get so much attention nobody knew what the hell I was shooting with. It was interesting times for sure.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 28, 2020)

I was one of the first to buy the original M5 pre ordering it as soon as it was announced based on its positive pre-launch reviews on YouTube, and I have enjoyed using the M5. However, it was a little confusing soon after when Canon announced the M50 a model that sits below the flagship M5 but has an improved auto focus system over the M5 and a full articulating screen (which is far better for portrait orientation photography)

Probably because of popular factors like these the price of the M5 soon dropped heavily unlike the price of the M50 that has stayed consistent.

I like the hi-res screen on the M5 and the small compact size. I would have bough an M6II if it had a quality hi-res fully articulating screen but sadly that wasn’t to be.

An M5II would be a welcomed camera that I would buy, IBIS too would be a massive plus and also the improved spec from the M6II, but please Canon give us an improved AF system on the M5II at least as good as the M6II, keep the quality EVF and hi-res screen but make it full articulating screen.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 28, 2020)

kocmonabt said:


> Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
> Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
> Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.



Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?

Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 28, 2020)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> Sorry admin but, no, an APS-C 52mm f2 lens is absolutely not the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2 lens, but rather of a FF 85mm f3.2 lens. I was really hoping for a 52mm lens of at least f1.4, which will be the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2.2 lens.



Sorry but, no, that's not how it works. The f-stop number is an expression of the ratio of size of the aperture diameter compared to the focal length of the lens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the imaging sensor. Saying that the 52mm is the equivalent of 85mm doesn't make it an 85mm lens, it only makes a statement about the relative difference in capture area between APS-C and full frame. But you're still shooting with a 52mm lens, and the expression of aperture to focal length doesn't change. Similarly, the smaller imaging sensor isn't magnifying the image, just capturing less of it. The whole confusion about 1.6x "magnification" between APS-C and Full Frame is only discussing the image that arrives on the sensor, and is completely unaffected by the lens, the aperture, or the actual focal length. It only is an expression that the image that the sensor captured appeared to have been taken with an equivalently larger focal length. The camera doesn't suddenly capture less light, only less of the image that arrives at the sensor. If you don't believe me, take the same lens and try it on both an APS-C camera and a full frame camera, and spot meter the center of the frame. You'll find that the same conditions deliver the same EVs for both.


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 28, 2020)

freejay said:


> I don't understand, what you are complaining about: The M6 II doesn't have a "side swivel": It uses a screen that tilts up or down only. So this should be ideal for you.
> 
> And the controls are on the right side and the left hand mostly supports the lens. No idea what you mean with "M6’s controls are all under left hand and the right supports the camera".
> 
> If the M5 II comes, I really hope it has a full articulating screen. I'm not doing much video work but I miss my "side swivel" on the M6 all the time...


Oops. I meant “controls under right hand”.
Complaining about the danger of fully articulating screen replacing the current ones. I hope they keep it as is.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 28, 2020)

52mm f2 equivalent to FF 85mm f2? Was that a typo?
I'd expect that kind of wishful reasoning from the MFT group, who loves to say their 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to a FF 600mm f4 lens - they might as well say a 600mm f4 lens is equivalent to a 600mm f8 lens as the aperture doesn't matter.

You should have mentioned equivalent to a FF ~85mm f3.2, using a ~1.6x crop factor. Of course, if it was an oversight, then as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, "Never Mind!".


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 28, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?
> 
> Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.


I believe I had explained it in detail in later post.
Yes, the tools available ... but I don’t see the point in going back in tech evolution. At least this is how I feel about side swivels.
I’m obviously very biased and you are free to have a different opinion. This is why there should be 2 types of cameras - one for me and one for you.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Feb 28, 2020)

Tilty flippy screens are NOT a going back in tech WTF. The *only* valid complaint is they reduce how bulletproof a camera is. And to be honest, outside of a brick with a lens meant for bludgeoning enemies to death it's not THAT much of an issue.


----------



## kocmonabt (Feb 28, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Tilty flippy screens are NOT a going back in tech WTF. The *only* valid complaint is they reduce how bulletproof a camera is. And to be honest, outside of a brick with a lens meant for bludgeoning enemies to death it's not THAT much of an issue.


Are you a M5 or M6II user?
Don’t you find their ergonomy superior to anything on the market?


----------



## stevelee (Feb 28, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> 52mm f2 equivalent to FF 85mm f2? Was that a typo?
> I'd expect that kind of wishful reasoning from the MFT group, who loves to say their 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to a FF 600mm f4 lens - they might as well say a 600mm f4 lens is equivalent to a 600mm f8 lens as the aperture doesn't matter.
> 
> You should have mentioned equivalent to a FF ~85mm f3.2, using a ~1.6x crop factor. Of course, if it was an oversight, then as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, "Never Mind!".


A 52mm lens is equivalent to a 52mm lens. The f-stop math is focal length divided by something that is the aperture, if not the actual lens opening. Sticking the lens on different cameras doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.

A court can try a kid as an adult. It could also try the kid as a Brussels sprout. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 29, 2020)

Before the days of me shooting with moveable screens, I admittedly liked the look of the M5 style pull out screen, being a bit of a symmetrical freak I liked the idea of the screen more or less being always in the middle of the camera body, and for landscape orientation photography that is still true.

However where the fully articulating screen shines is in portrait orientated photography, granted it isn’t as good for landscapes, pulling the screen to the side of the camera to the left of the lens isn’t as good, but still the articulated screen is a far better combination for general photography.

So, if you are still going to shoot a mixture of portrait and landscape orientation photography as many photographers will do, then the fully articulating screen is the one to go for.

If on the other side, you only ever plan to shoot landscape style photos and videos the M6II style screen may appeal more to you.

All this only ever matters if you are going to shoot using the back of the LCD screen, if you only ever plan to use the EVF then I guess it doesn’t really matter.

When shooting portrait style photos, it is so much more comfortable to look at a screen in a vertical position with the benefit of being able to then also move the screen backwards and forwards. I think you must try it to be able to fully appreciate this, it was the case with me at least!

You must shoot with them both to fully understand and appreciate this and having owned camera bodies with both styles of screens this is my opinion.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 29, 2020)

stevelee said:


> A 52mm lens is equivalent to a 52mm lens. The f-stop math is focal length divided by something that is the aperture, if not the actual lens opening. *Sticking the lens on different cameras* doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.


The "equivalence" talk is not about sticking the same lens on different cameras, it is about sticking different lenses on different cameras that produce the same output (well, a bigger sensor will likely have resolution and sharpness advantage still).


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Feb 29, 2020)

kocmonabt said:


> Are you a M5 or M6II user?
> Don’t you find their ergonomy superior to anything on the market?



I own a M6 mk II along with (checks.... ) half a dozen other cameras (One of which is a Sony A7R so hey another tilty but not flippy). I would have preferred a flippy screen and LOL NO its screen isnt the best ergonomically. 

Complaining about tilty flippy screens in TYOOL 2020 is just silly outside of the already stated "You need to bludgeon someone first before getting the shot" ruggedness reasoning, which IS completely valid.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 29, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> The "equivalence" talk is not about sticking the same lens on different cameras, it is about sticking different lenses on different cameras that produce the same output (well, a bigger sensor will likely have resolution and sharpness advantage still).


I don’t follow what you mean at all. Different lenses on different cameras with different sensor sizes can be analogous in different ways. For example, when people say “equivalent,” they usually just refer to angle of view. A longer lens stopped down more can have “equivalent” depth of field. Two lenses can have equivalent exposure at the same T-stop. More total light will fall on a larger sensor, everything else being equal. You can choose what things you want to be “equivalent “ up to a point, but you can’t get the same output in all respects.


----------



## PHRank21 (Feb 29, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> It is dark indeed for an OVF equipped camera however with EVF a dark viewfinder isn’t an issue.
> Focusing at F8.0 isn’t an issue. So...
> Let’s look at the bright side: you focus at F8 and shoot at F8. no focus shift issue then


Until ISO 1600 looks as good as ISO 200-400 of current cameras, I would think twice. Whatever sensor improvements especially in this budget probably won't suffice.


----------



## PHRank21 (Feb 29, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?
> 
> Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.


It isn't so much this but the fact that Canon in recent years has catered to vloggers and videographers. Then the fanboys start to wave it like it's something _everyone_ needs, but look at the amount of backlash Fuji has got from still photographers for utilizing a similar screen on the XT-4.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 29, 2020)

PHRank21 said:


> Until ISO 1600 looks as good as ISO 200-400 of current cameras, I would think twice. Whatever sensor improvements especially in this budget probably won't suffice.


yeah. good light outdoors.. up to ISO 1800 I guess we are safe on APS-C


----------



## TinTin (Feb 29, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Sticking the lens on different cameras doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. *The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.*



That is a salient point, isn't it?

A lens designed for a full frame sensor will produce an image circle to enclose that sensor. A crop sensor with that same lens is only making use of the central part of its image circle; if the outside part of the aperture of the lens were to be obscured, effectively giving it a smaller aperture (and, hence, changing its f-number), the lens could still produce an image circle large enough to cover a crop sensor, but it would no longer cover a full frame sensor.

The point is often made that, using a lens designed for full frame on a crop frame camera is using only the central portion of the lens and thus avoids some of the aberrations at the edge of the lens.

Presumably, a lens designed specifically for crop sensor cameras will produce a smaller image circle, just sufficient to cover the sensor (but not big enough to cover a full frame sensor), so the entire light-gathering power of that lens is delivered to the smaller area, making it a "brighter" lens (in a T-stop kind of way) than it would have been had it covered the full frame image circle.


----------



## TinTin (Feb 29, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> All this only ever matters if you are going to shoot using the back of the LCD screen, if you only ever plan to use the EVF then I guess it doesn’t really matter.



If you're only going to use the EVF, a fully-articulated screen has the advantage of being able to turn it screen-inwards, to keep it protected. If you're going to use the EVF, but want the screen for moving the focal point, then it doesn't matter.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 29, 2020)

PHRank21 said:


> It isn't so much this but the fact that Canon in recent years has catered to vloggers and videographers. Then the fanboys start to wave it like it's something _everyone_ needs, but look at the amount of backlash Fuji has got from still photographers for utilizing a similar screen on the XT-4.



I understand that some people may not like it. That’s their prerogative. But the OP I was replying to specifically used the word ”crippling”. And there’s a world of difference between “I don’t like it” and “the camera is crippled by it” Nobody replying can seem to bridge that gap.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 29, 2020)

I very much look forward to an M5ll. The M6ll specs coupled with improved weather sealing is all I require, everything else will be gravy. While the 22 pancake is a great compact companion, I'm not too confident it will be a match for the new sensor. I would like an f/1.4 version akin to the 32mm. The 52 f/2 will be welcome as well, particularly if they give it macro capability. It's good to dream...


----------



## melgross (Feb 29, 2020)

I think the floppy display thing is interesting. Some won’t buy a camera unless it has one, and some won’t buy a camera if it does.

what is a manufacturer to do.

a floppy display is definitely more useful. But a built-in display is definitely more secure and reliable


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 1, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I very much look forward to an M5ll. The M6ll specs coupled with improved weather sealing is all I require, everything else will be gravy. While the 22 pancake is a great compact companion, I'm not too confident it will be a match for the new sensor. I would like an f/1.4 version akin to the 32mm. The 52 f/2 will be welcome as well, particularly if they give it macro capability. It's good to dream...



I simply don't get the entire M line.

Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body. 

Personally, I just don't see the point of buying a compact system like this if the only reasonable lenses are a 22 prime and 32 prime. If I want a *small travel* camera, I would want a pair of zooms. Not to be a snob; but if I am buying a top flight body; I would not think to pair it with F6.3 zooms. I don't need F2 zooms. . .but F4 zooms are quite useful.

. . . .And if I am going to lug EF lenses around, then that defeats the purpose of "compact kit"; and I may as well have an EF body with me. 
. . .And I love shooting with primes. I have more than 3.  When I travel, however, I still need the zooms for the casual pics.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Mar 1, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Sorry but, no, that's not how it works. The f-stop number is an expression of the ratio of size of the aperture diameter compared to the focal length of the lens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the imaging sensor. Saying that the 52mm is the equivalent of 85mm doesn't make it an 85mm lens, it only makes a statement about the relative difference in capture area between APS-C and full frame. But you're still shooting with a 52mm lens, and the expression of aperture to focal length doesn't change. Similarly, the smaller imaging sensor isn't magnifying the image, just capturing less of it. The whole confusion about 1.6x "magnification" between APS-C and Full Frame is only discussing the image that arrives on the sensor, and is completely unaffected by the lens, the aperture, or the actual focal length. It only is an expression that the image that the sensor captured appeared to have been taken with an equivalently larger focal length. The camera doesn't suddenly capture less light, only less of the image that arrives at the sensor. If you don't believe me, take the same lens and try it on both an APS-C camera and a full frame camera, and spot meter the center of the frame. You'll find that the same conditions deliver the same EVs for both.


I was writing about equivalent depth of field here. This rumored 52mm f2 will be a lens aimed mainly at portraiture, in which case a shallower depth of field is preferred. A 52mm f2 lens shot wide open on an APS-C sensor will paint the same depth of field as an 85mm lens shot at f3.2 on a FF sensor. As for what you are explaining, yes, same EV, but not same overall amount of light captured by each sensor. For example, given the same exact EV, an image shot with a 25mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3 sensor (2x crop) will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 32mm f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop), which itself will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF sensor. Don't trust me? Go ahead and try it, I have, that's why I unloaded all my 4/3 gear. I'll still be shooting FF were it not for the heft and size of my previous setup. Canon's APS-C M system is my goldilocks in terms of size/weight/IQ compromise.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 1, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> I simply don't get the entire M line.
> 
> Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.
> 
> ...


I understand your pessimism, but the ratio of size to quality of output is still high. If Canon would just release a proper telephoto macro and a 17-50mm f/4 zoom built to EF-M 32mm standards, it would be phenomenal. As always, YMMV...


----------



## PeterT (Mar 1, 2020)

IBIS ticks one very important box for me. I was waiting for a "small" APS-C body with IBIS from Canon or Fuji.
Fuji just announced X-T4, which is for me one step to the right direction, but still quite big and quite expensive. So while I will wait whether its price settles down (with the emphasis on _down_) and whether the (probably upcoming soon) X-T40 will have IBIS, too, I can also wait for this new Canon E-M5II.

It would be a cheaper upgrade for me than any Fuji because having some EF and F-S lenses to start with. But, similarly to others in this discussion, I think that adapted lenses are good only for a while, later I would like to use a native lens. Thanks to Canon and Sigma, we have (will have in near future) a good set of native primes from 16 to 56. So a 52mm f/2 (maybe pancake) is, in my opinion, useless (unless it is really small, very decent IQ and noticeably cheaper than the sigma 56 f1.4). On the other hand, I would like to see an 85mm f/2 and/or 105mm f/2 "soon". Even a 15mm f/2 would make more sense to me (because the Sigma 16mm is just way too huge for the M system) than a 52 f/2.

But what bothers me more is that the M system has no suitable native walkaround/travel zoom for me (I "grew up" the superzooms, they are just too low IQ for me). Currently I love my 15-85mm 3.5-5,6 IS on 80D. Adapting it means adding 26mm to its length. And it is also quite heavy for a smaller body because of its IS. So I am hesitating to enter the M line if I do not see coming soon a zoom like 15-85 (or at least 80, or in worst case 75) f4-5,6 without IS, which would be not longer than my current lens (i.e. the final length would be less by the length of the adapter) and possibly a bit smaller in diameter (because of the lack of IS).

So it seems that I will sit on the fence between Canon and Fuji for a while (at least a year) and still using my 80D, which is for me technically sufficient and I can do nice pictures with it, but it is just too big and heavy.


----------



## sulla (Mar 1, 2020)

I think it's good to see Canon keeps M alive. To have a small, light APS-C system with small, light bodies and lenses is much better in my view than to have much larger RF-Lenses used for large APS-C R-bodies. I'm a fan of keeping R and M systems separated, even if that means incompatibility of the lenses, because with compatibility come heavy compromises. I was never a fan of EF lenses on APS-C EOS bodies and never a fan of EF-S lenses either. And the R5 being such a fast camera (in terms of fps) eliminates the need of an "R7" APS-C.
You want it light and small? The M is for you.
Want best IQ and low-light capability? Shoot for the R.


----------



## BillB (Mar 1, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> I simply don't get the entire M line.
> 
> Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.
> 
> ...


Some people find EF-M zooms that work for them, others don't.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 1, 2020)

I briefly looked at the M50 for my travel camera, but decided that the G5X II was a better fit for my purposes. The G7X II had served me quite well. With upgrade I found the little popup EVF and the slightly longer zoom handy. I am favorably disposed toward the M series, but don’t really have a use case to justify buying one. I don’t use my T3i any more since I got the 6D2. But I can see the appeal of the Ms.


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 1, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I really like the m6 II, but I would immediately throw it under the bus for:
> 
> M5 II
> At least the M6 II performance & spec
> ...



I am simple man, just give me M6 II with integrated EVF and call it M5 II.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 1, 2020)

melgross said:


> I think the floppy display thing is interesting. Some won’t buy a camera unless it has one, and some won’t buy a camera if it does.
> 
> what is a manufacturer to do.
> 
> a floppy display is definitely more useful. But a built-in display is definitely more secure and reliable


A fixed display is more reliable than a tilty/flippy, but a flip-up/flip-down display is not, and that is really the other alternative in the discussion.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Mar 1, 2020)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> I was writing about equivalent depth of field here. This rumored 52mm f2 will be a lens aimed mainly at portraiture, in which case a shallower depth of field is preferred. A 52mm f2 lens shot wide open on an APS-C sensor will paint the same depth of field as an 85mm lens shot at f3.2 on a FF sensor. As for what you are explaining, yes, same EV, but not same overall amount of light captured by each sensor. For example, given the same exact EV, an image shot with a 25mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3 sensor (2x crop) will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 32mm f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop), which itself will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF sensor. Don't trust me? Go ahead and try it, I have, that's why I unloaded all my 4/3 gear. I'll still be shooting FF were it not for the heft and size of my previous setup. Canon's APS-C M system is my goldilocks in terms of size/weight/IQ compromise.



That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen. The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly. As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance. Either way, I think we can both agree that the aperture shouldn't have been referenced at all in the original post, and the 52mm is equivalent to 85 should've been it.

That being said, I will say that I have been shooting with Canon for nearly four decades, and transitioned from film to digital in-brand to leverage my existing equipment. So I have no experience with the micro 4/3 format as far as size of equipment, etc. But I do agree with you as far as the M series performance vs. size. I have taken my Ms to Europe twice now, and have dearly enjoyed them. I rented an EOS RP for a week-long domestic trip last July, and loved it - particularly the performance of the RF lens that I rented. But the difference in size is hard to get past - even with a smaller FF body like the RP.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (Mar 1, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen. The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly. As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance. Either way, I think we can both agree that the aperture shouldn't have been referenced at all in the original post, and the 52mm is equivalent to 85 should've been it.
> 
> That being said, I will say that I have been shooting with Canon for nearly four decades, and transitioned from film to digital in-brand to leverage my existing equipment. So I have no experience with the micro 4/3 format as far as size of equipment, etc. But I do agree with you as far as the M series performance vs. size. I have taken my Ms to Europe twice now, and have dearly enjoyed them. I rented an EOS RP for a week-long domestic trip last July, and loved it - particularly the performance of the RF lens that I rented. But the difference in size is hard to get past - even with a smaller FF body like the RP.


I suggest you use a DOF calculator, inputting all the variables I have mentioned, and see the calculated results, I think you will find them surprising.

What I am arguing is that my $350 M5+a $410 Sigma 56mm f1.4, both brand new, do not provide the same amount of subject isolation and noise performance as a (currently) $375 Nikon D600+a $300 Nikon 85mm f1.8G, both in slightly used condition (I don't use a 6D+85mm f1.8 USM as reference because the 6D sensor is actually slightly worse than the M5's at 100 ISO, and the 85mm f1.8 USM is a very old optic design, albeit you will probably get them both at even lower prices; also I did own the mentioned Nikon gear but never any bayonet mount FF Canon gear, only breech lock AE-1 Program and FD 50mm f1.4). A 52mm f2 STM that will very likely cost around $500 (it is certainly not going to be a cheap pancake like the 22mm f2, not if Canon intends it to resolve 32Mp) will give even less subject isolation than any of the mentioned combos, which doesn't make economical sense to me. So I'll probably just settle with a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 when it becomes available at probably $200 as long as it outperforms my current 50mm f1.8 STM+EF to M adapter in IQ and AF speed.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 1, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> I simply don't get the entire M line.
> 
> Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.
> 
> ...


Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob .


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2020)

First off,I want to know what is top flight about the M line. We have our usual group discussing myriad shortcomings of features on a mid level line, a line which is a great tool in the right hands.A line which bridges consumer to enthusiast. Seems like every thread about a body or a lens on CR which is not red ringed or full frame has folks coming out of the woodwork and moaning how it's not this and not that. fwiw, you'll never get your custom ala carte body. It doesn't exist. So, acceptance is in order.

Crippling. It really brings out the worst in someone when they start with that term. If we didn't have differentiation we'd have nothing but Leicas and Holgas. CR has been so glass half empty lately, it's very sad. Especially in an era with so many choices... we're spoiled and many of you are acting like brats. Why not look at all the innovation and options and be simply amazed? It's there.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob .


The 11-22 zoom is very good.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 1, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen.


There's an obvious difference between a lens looking onto the world using a 52/2 mm entrance pupil and a lens looking onto the world using a 85/2 mm entrance pupil. The former produces background bokeh balls up to 52/2 mm in diameter (in object plane dimensions), the latter 85/2 mm.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly.


The idea that the lens rendering of the world (as well as the amount of light the lens gathers from the scene) is basically defined by the lens entrance pupil's position, form and size is very easy to demonstrate to people who have even basic understanding of ray optics.

The people who, instead, try to play with formulas without understanding the physics behind them, are very easy to confuse themselves into "proving false" practically everything.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance.


The lens with the same entrance pupil focused on the sensor capturing the same angle of view during the same exposure time will produce the same photon shot noise no matter what the sensor size/focal distance is. The DoF/bokeh rendering will also be about the same. The smaller sensor will get a higher exposure (energy per unit of area), though, so it would need to be kept at lower ISO to prevent overexposure. If this ISO is lower than the sensor's base ISO, overexposure will happen anyway.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 2, 2020)

While I'm clearly on the side with those who believe that the laws of optics don't change just because you put the lens on a camera with a different sensor size, I will add that depth of field discussions become a bit more complicated. Generally for smaller sensors we prefer smaller circles of confusion, so the DOF calculators will take that into account.

"Equivalent" is a short-cut word that works fine as long as the parties involved agree on the answer to "in what way?" Most of us most of the time seem to mean just in terms of angle of view.


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2020)

stevelee said:


> While I'm clearly on the side with those who believe that the laws of optics don't change just because you put the lens on a camera with a different sensor size, I will add that depth of field discussions become a bit more complicated. Generally for smaller sensors we prefer smaller circles of confusion, so the DOF calculators will take that into account.
> 
> "Equivalent" is a short-cut word that works fine as long as the parties involved agree on the answer to "in what way?" Most of us most of the time seem to mean just in terms of angle of view.


Thank you for injecting rational thought into this nutty thread


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 2, 2020)

vangelismm said:


> I am simple man, just give me M6 II with integrated EVF and call it M5 II.


Hey, it is a rumors forum, let’s go for the gold! Seriously, I hate to take the hit on the m6 II, but I agree with you. I NEVER shoot without the EVF, so it would be one last thing I have to worry about loosing or breaking. I am always nervous about carrying the camera on a strap because of either hanging the EVF on something or it disconnecting. If I had to pick my priority other than integrated EVF it would be rugged, weather sealed body AND a weather sealed EF adaptor.


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2020)

The M52 is a wonderful dream. It has come and come and come back again. I also cannot do the lcd only thing, that's what my phone is for. I loved my short lived time with the M5, except for cramped controls, albeit very adjustable, and an early and very unrealistic EVF I like my shots. I always thought a Mk2 would be amazing....I also kept it in a realistic place with cost, sensor specs and lens lineup. It was never meant to be a heavy hitter. It had a sweet spot and more pluses than minuses.


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2020)

Who says the M zooms suck?
Waimea Canyon, Kauai M5, 11-22 Christmas Day


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Unless I really want a smaller body at that price I will go R series.
> I am disappointed at lack of compatibility between the r and M cameras.
> Drop the M mount, change to R mount and keep the same small body form with APSC sensor. Make small APSC lenses for it but allow large FF RF lenses to also mount. The FF RF would use the APSC lenses cropped as they do now with EFs lenses.
> Just do not want to mess with 2 systems any more.


If they did that they would be dropping the best selling MILC platform on the planet, why would anybody in their right mind do that? If they were to do anything they would drop the RF mount for the EF-M mount!

The M is a completely different beast to the R and it is deliberately distinct, personally I have uses for both but never need both at the same time.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Mar 2, 2020)

Kit. said:


> There's an obvious difference between a lens looking onto the world using a 52/2 mm entrance pupil and a lens looking onto the world using a 85/2 mm entrance pupil. The former produces background bokeh balls up to 52/2 mm in diameter (in object plane dimensions), the latter 85/2 mm.



You've made the same fundamental mistake made earlier - assuming that the optics of the lens have somehow changed because of the size of the imaging sensor. That's simply not true. The lens never changes. It's still a 52mm f/2 whether its mounted on a crop sensor, a full frame, or to a lens board on a 4x5 camera. The lens focal length to aperture size ratio is unchanged regardless of how much of the image the sensor picks up. The whole concept of x focal length on crop sensor = y focal length on full frame is little more than obfuscation designed to help us understand the difference between the two sensors, nothing more. 



Kit. said:


> The idea that the lens rendering of the world (as well as the amount of light the lens gathers from the scene) is basically defined by the lens entrance pupil's position, form and size is very easy to demonstrate to people who have even basic understanding of ray optics. The people who, instead, try to play with formulas without understanding the physics behind them, are very easy to confuse themselves into "proving false" practically everything.



If you're going to scold me about basic physics, then don't start by erroneously assuming that the imaging sensor is looking through the lens. It isn't. It's a recording device seeing an image that the lens projects onto it. Nothing more. The image circle is projected at a fixed size, which doesn't change, and the size of the imaging sensor means that it is recording a smaller portion of that image circle. The image isn't somehow magically concentrated onto the sensor as some people seem to think. By the thin argument of "relative" aperture, the lens isn't f/2.0 for full frame because the image circle is larger than what a full frame sensor sees as well. As well, if we go ahead and accept that the sensor is looking out through the lens, and that the size of the aperture carries meaning relative to the size of the imaging sensor, wouldn't a smaller imaging sensor against the same size aperture make it seem relatively larger? I only say this to make a point. Don't answer, because my same argument applies - it's flawed logic, just like everything else. The lens optics, focal length, and aperture are unchanged regardless of what you put them on. The variable is in how much of the image created by that lens is seen by the sensor. Trying to make it anything more than that is fundamentally incorrect. And the overcomplicated arguments that stem out from those flawed assumptions also don't hold up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2020)

The only two criteria that impact dof are absolute aperture size and reproduction ratio. If either is changed in a scenario then the resultant images will be different. 

If both are changed they can be done in a way to make both images identical.

Focal length and sensor sizes both impact reproduction ratio given a constant output size.

An image shot with a crop camera and a ff camera can look identical but for a same sized output you need to change focal length and lens aperture and iso to satisfy the two fundamentals, reproduction ratio and absolute aperture size.

Neither lenses nor sensors nor apertures are sentient, they don't 'look' or 'care' about anything, lenses collimate and project, sensors record photons and apertures regulate.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 2, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If they did that they would be dropping the best selling MILC platform on the planet, why would anybody in their right mind do that? If they were to do anything they would drop the RF mount for the EF-M mount!
> 
> The M is a completely different beast to the R and it is deliberately distinct, personally I have uses for both but never need both at the same time.



That is fine, just too bad they could not use an adapter to use RF om M like EF on M.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> That is fine, just too bad they could not use an adapter to use RF om M like EF on M.


That's what happens when you give engineers blank pieces of paper 

As I understood it all the Canon engineers needed to do was make the best new mount they could within the R design parameters, registration distance etc, whilst retaining EF compatibility, I think universal opinion is they did a superb job. 

Personally I appreciate the fact they didn't try to make it do lots of other stuff and subsequently compromise current or future designs, ultimately I have no desire to use big $2-3,000 lenses on a tiny cropped $400 body.


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 2, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob .



Yes indeed; I am being an aperture snob. 

Also, I don’t shoot Program mode. Not on a camera like a M6 II; or any advanced camera. Shooting daylight in P with a super slow lens - - at what point do you just shoot with your phone instead?

when I want simple no thought shooting; I have G7 II. I shoot P on that all the time. Very happy with it.

When I get serious; I grab my x0D with a fast lens. That camera basically lives on aperture priority. Generally with a F4 lens. Generally shooting in low light where I am pushing ISO and tolerable noise. If I had bright sunny day and wanted F10 - - > there are smaller cameras (say, phone) that can do that. 

Seeing the M6 II as having the same guts as a 90D; I figure that it should provide good performance - if you put the right glass on it. Get an EF-M 24-100ish F4, and I would pair it with the 11-22 and buy one tomorrow.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 2, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> You've made the same fundamental mistake made earlier - assuming that the optics of the lens have somehow changed because of the size of the imaging sensor.


No, you have. A 52mm f/2 won't somehow magically get a 42.5mm entrance pupil when it projects its image onto a crop sensor.

The entrance pupil is what matters in determining which rays from the scene enter the lens and reach the sensor plane from a given angle, and thus in determining the depth of field, the bokeh size and the photon noise (given that the scene illumination and the exposure time are the same and the lens is sufficiently transparent) of the captured plane of focus.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> The lens focal length to aperture size ratio is unchanged regardless of how much of the image the sensor picks up. The whole concept of x focal length on crop sensor = y focal length on full frame is little more than obfuscation designed to help us understand the difference between the two sensors, nothing more.


That's exactly what I am telling you but you are refusing to notice:

A 52mm f/2 lens on a crop sensor is _not_ "equivalent" in depth of field, bokeh effects and photon noise to a 85mm f/2 lens.

It is only equivalent in the field of view, but not equivalent in the entrance pupil size.

If you want to get a "lens equivalent" in _both_ the field of view and the entrance pupil size, you need to "change" _both_ the focal lens and the f-number.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> If you're going to scold me about basic physics, then don't start by erroneously assuming that the imaging sensor is looking through the lens. It isn't. It's a recording device seeing an image that the lens projects onto it. Nothing more. The image circle is projected at a fixed size, which doesn't change, and the size of the imaging sensor means that it is recording a smaller portion of that image circle. The image isn't somehow magically concentrated onto the sensor as some people seem to think. By the thin argument of "relative" aperture, the lens isn't f/2.0 for full frame because the image circle is larger than what a full frame sensor sees as well. As well, if we go ahead and accept that the sensor is looking out through the lens, and that the size of the aperture carries meaning relative to the size of the imaging sensor, wouldn't a smaller imaging sensor against the same size aperture make it seem relatively larger? I only say this to make a point. Don't answer, because my same argument applies - it's flawed logic, just like everything else. The lens optics, focal length, and aperture are unchanged regardless of what you put them on. The variable is in how much of the image created by that lens is seen by the sensor. Trying to make it anything more than that is fundamentally incorrect. And the overcomplicated arguments that stem out from those flawed assumptions also don't hold up.


Too much of hot gas, but absolutely no content. A good illustration that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 2, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> Yes indeed; I am being an aperture snob.
> 
> Also, I don’t shoot Program mode. Not on a camera like a M6 II; or any advanced camera. Shooting daylight in P with a super slow lens - - at what point do you just shoot with your phone instead?
> 
> ...


But a 24-100ish f/4 would be awkward for general use on a body as small as an M6 II. That is one of the reasons why I got the 90D instead. The other was the much better video in crop mode. I would like to see an M5 replacement with at least 90D video quality and a proper EVF. That I would buy for use with M lenses and the occasional adapter application.


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But a 24-100ish f/4 would be awkward for general use on a body as small as an M6 II. That is one of the reasons why I got the 90D instead. The other was the much better video in crop mode. I would like to see an M5 replacement with at least 90D video quality and a proper EVF. That I would buy for use with M lenses and the occasional adapter application.


Question for you. How do you feel about wanting a premium ml crop body such as the rumored M52 while the RP is available now with lower and lower prices, not to mention the very real possibility of many more R bodies to chose from in the next year? I would think there are many who would guess that an M52 might be more feature laden than an RP but there are some trade offs of course. Plus, not everyone sees FF as an eventual upgrade path.


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> Question for you. How do you feel about wanting a premium ml crop body such as the rumored M52 while the RP is available now with lower and lower prices, not to mention the very real possibility of many more R bodies to chose from in the next year? I would think there are many who would guess that an M52 might be more feature laden than an RP but there are some trade offs of course. Plus, not everyone sees FF as an eventual upgrade path.



a few things; my EF 24-105/4 is a monster that I would not want on a M camera. One would hope an EF-M 24-xx /4 would not be a monster. A bit bigger - but not a monster.

personally, not sure I need EVF for a camera like this. The live view on my G7 isn’t bad. If I NEED the viewfinder experience; then my dSLR is there.

now, I asked myself the same question about the RP last year. I gave it a good look in a camera store. Frankly - - > it was Meh. If you HAVE evf; I expect more than the laggy viewfinder I saw in the RP. Plus; again; the lenses. The thought of adapters to use my EF lenses is not THAT appealing. And the RF lenses (last fall) made me thing I was just rebuying capability I already had at premium price. Maybe image quality was a skosh better; but there were no size/weight savings. And goodness - - > the new crop of RF “mid grade” lenses are F7.1. I am whining about F6.3; and here is a collection of F7.1s . .
It’s all good. I was spending too much money on camera toys.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> Question for you. How do you feel about wanting a premium ml crop body such as the rumored M52 while the RP is available now with lower and lower prices, not to mention the very real possibility of many more R bodies to chose from in the next year? I would think there are many who would guess that an M52 might be more feature laden than an RP but there are some trade offs of course. Plus, not everyone sees FF as an eventual upgrade path.


I have both crop and FF systems and don't see one as excluding the other. The M system is ideal for portability with a pretty decent lens line. I have an EF-s 55-250 with a Kenko 1.4 extender (f/8 at 350mm) that goes in the M bag and the rumored 100-400 f/7.1 (120-360 in the patent) because it would be smaller and likely AF better. If a nicely configured M5 II cost more than an RP I wouldn't be in the least offended. At the other end, I have a 5DSr and an 800mm L, but also use the 800 with a 90D for a little extra reach (and better video). The idea that someone will buy a crop camera and then have a passion to throw it out and "upgrade" to FF is overblown in my view. I think most folks who have crop and buy FF keep both and use them accordingly. I think most of the FF ML bodies (including the R) are painfully small to mange big, fast lenses comfortably, so only time will tell whether we see some more robust ML bodies. An R1 the size of the R5 will NOT sell to the pros.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 2, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> a few things; my EF 24-105/4 is a monster that I would not want on a M camera. One would hope an EF-M 24-xx /4 would not be a monster. A bit bigger - but not a monster.
> 
> personally, not sure I need EVF for a camera like this. The live view on my G7 isn’t bad. If I NEED the viewfinder experience; then my dSLR is there.
> 
> ...


But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy .


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2020)

fwiw, I used the 24-105, 70-200 and 135L on my M5 for thousands of shots. It was nowhere as balanced as using them with a 5D series body but also not the silly combination many use with smaller M bodies and 70-200's. Hand size, grip style and how you carry, i.e. hand strap/neck strap/other factor in as well. One thing I can attest to is adapting EF glass onto the EF-M body is a compromise, unlike EF to RF. Size wasn't the issue but IQ, speed and crop equivalence focal length of full framed lenses.I never once considered any of the the EF a monster, unlike some of the RF lenses on the R. Once again, ymmv with things being slightly disproportionate or very disproportionate. Also again, hand size.


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy .



Fair enough. 
To be honest, "where do I put the crud" is also an issue. Buy a lens every two years. . . . . .for 20 years. . . plus a body here and there. . . .flash units. . . P&S's. . . . 

When I was looking at the RP; I found the EVF of both the "R" and "RP" a bit laggy. 

So what I came closest to buying was a 100-400/II. I have the 100-400/I, but didn't realize the new one was a "twist zoom" until I was in the store. But honestly. . not sure I would buy any EF lenses at this point (For one thing, I have enough)(for another thing. . .look where the market is going)



slclick said:


> fwiw, I used the 24-105, 70-200 and 135L on my M5 for thousands of shots. It was nowhere as balanced as using them with a 5D series body but also not the silly combination many use with smaller M bodies and 70-200's. Hand size, grip style and how you carry, i.e. hand strap/neck strap/other factor in as well. One thing I can attest to is adapting EF glass onto the EF-M body is a compromise, unlike EF to RF. Size wasn't the issue but IQ, speed and crop equivalence focal length of full framed lenses.I never once considered any of the the EF a monster, unlike some of the RF lenses on the R. Once again, ymmv with things being slightly disproportionate or very disproportionate. Also again, hand size.



The 24-105/4 is my most often used lens. On a X0D; it has good balance. On a "M" body; not so sure. I figure that with a "M" body; I should have smaller "M" lenses for day-to day use. Things like the 100-400 would only be for special occasions.

I hear you regarding the RF lenses. I saw the 28-70/2. Yikers. I was also hoping the other RF lenses would be smaller; but I guess with a full frame sensor; one would not expect the diameters or weight to really drop. I wasn't a fan of the the other RF lenses either. . . . at the time, they were focused on the 2.8 trinity. . . which I found a bit overpriced.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 3, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> Fair enough.
> To be honest, "where do I put the crud" is also an issue. Buy a lens every two years. . . . . .for 20 years. . . plus a body here and there. . . .flash units. . . P&S's. . . .
> 
> When I was looking at the RP; I found the EVF of both the "R" and "RP" a bit laggy.
> ...


I think the 100-400 II is a worthwhile buy unless you are planning to wait for the 100-500 RF. The 100-400 II is much sharper than the first version, particularly away from the center. It is also very fast to focus. I have used mine on a 5D II, a 70D, an SL1, an SL2, a 5DSR, a 90D, a M3, and an M5 and the only one that hesitates even a moment is the M3, but that is CDAF, so no surprise there. The 100-440 is still quite good with a 1.4 extender if you are using a body with DPAF or f/8 focus points. Best of all, the price has been pretty aggressive for the last few months. I suspect the RF 100-500 will be at least as nice a lens and I suspect the big difference will be more stops of IS thanks to IBIS in the R5, but it will be limited to R bodies and the EF lenses so flexible and really won't become obsolete any time soon. Actually, EF to R is a much gentler transition on the wallet than FD to EF was (other than inflation, of course).


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> On a "M" body; not so sure. I figure that with a "M" body; I should have smaller "M" lenses for day-to day use. Things like the 100-400 would only be for special occasions.
> 
> I hear you regarding the RF lenses. I saw the 28-70/2. Yikers. I was also hoping the other RF lenses would be smaller; but I guess with a full frame sensor; one would not expect the diameters or weight to really drop. I wasn't a fan of the the other RF lenses either. . . . at the time, they were focused on the 2.8 trinity. . . which I found a bit overpriced.


Which M bodies, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes? An M5 couples with larger lenses much better than M, M10, 100 or even M6 1/ll


----------



## brad-man (Mar 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy .


We don't _all_ rely on credit...


----------



## Dragon (Mar 3, 2020)

slclick said:


> Which M bodies, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes? An M5 couples with larger lenses much better than M, M10, 100 or even M6 1/ll


The M5 handles bigger lenses better than the smaller bodies, but it still is a pain manage with something the size of a 100-400 or 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4 is about the upper limit for any kind of regular use. OTOH, if you are using a really big lens like the 800L on a gimbal, then the camera body size is essentially irrelevant, but a tilty/flippy screen is very handy in that situation so I prefer the SL2 and the 90D. The biggest issue with really big lenses and any of the tiny bodies is battery life because those big AF and IS motors chew up quite a bit of power. Even the 100-400 sucks an LP-E17 down pretty fast if you are doing anything very dynamic. That is a hit against the RP as well for such service since it uses the same battery.


----------



## slclick (Mar 3, 2020)

imho, the 100-400 Mkll is still relevant and a worthy purchase. (not to mention head and shoulders over Mk l)


----------



## victorshikhman (Mar 3, 2020)

IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 3, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.


 
It's the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, killing it off would be a very strange thing to do for Canon.


----------



## BillB (Mar 3, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.


What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 3, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That's what happens when you give engineers blank pieces of paper
> 
> As I understood it all the Canon engineers needed to do was make the best new mount they could within the R design parameters, registration distance etc, whilst retaining EF compatibility, I think universal opinion is they did a superb job.
> 
> Personally I appreciate the fact they didn't try to make it do lots of other stuff and subsequently compromise current or future designs, ultimately I have no desire to use big $2-3,000 lenses on a tiny cropped $400 body.



Do not get me wrong, I think the RF mount is absolutely brilliant. Also it is the only manufacturer to seamlessly change from Mirror to mirrorless with all previous EF/EFs lenses 100% operational, no one else has come close. I know the M was likely not but was hoping.


----------



## melgross (Mar 3, 2020)

Dragon said:


> A fixed display is more reliable than a tilty/flippy, but a flip-up/flip-down display is not, and that is really the other alternative in the discussion.


Any time the display moves, it’s at a higher risk of getting caught, or knocked by something, and damaged, or even broken off. I’ve seen it happen once.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 3, 2020)

melgross said:


> Any time the display moves, it’s at a higher risk of getting caught, or knocked by something, and damaged, or even broken off. I’ve seen it happen once.


OTOH, when you fold the display toward the camera, it is protected.

For some kinds of shooting a fixed screen is best, for reasons you mentioned. For others, a flippy screen as on my G cameras are handiest (inside domes and towers or ornate ceilings are common shots for me in my travels). For others, like a solar eclipse or taking macro shots of small flowers near the ground (to cite a couple of my experiences), tilty-swingy works best.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 3, 2020)

BillB said:


> What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.



I am not the person you asked, but my answer is: I miss a walkaround mid-quality zoom (not superzoom), something that would come close to my existing 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (maybe 15-80 4-5.6 non-IS if m5II will have IBIS, but still USM) which would be native and smaller/lighter than the mentioned one with adapted to M.
And then I miss the completion of the basic range of "cupcake sized" set of fixed lenses with "very good" IQ (not necessarily "excellent") : 85 f/2, 105 f/2, 15 f/2 (the sigma 16 f/1.4 is too big) all non-IS and preferably USM. I see no need for the rumored 52 f/2 because I do not think it will be much cheaper or optically better than the sigma 56 f/1.4, which seems to be small and good enough.


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I am not the person you asked, but my answer is: I miss a walkaround mid-quality zoom (not superzoom), something that would come close to my existing 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (maybe 15-80 4-5.6 non-IS if m5II will have IBIS, but still USM) which would be native and smaller/lighter than the mentioned one with adapted to M.
> And then I miss the completion of the basic range of "cupcake sized" set of fixed lenses with "very good" IQ (not necessarily "excellent") : 85 f/2, 105 f/2, 15 f/2 (the sigma 16 f/1.4 is too big) all non-IS and preferably USM. I see no need for the rumored 52 f/2 because I do not think it will be much cheaper or optically better than the sigma 56 f/1.4, which seems to be small and good enough.


I would not rule out you getting something like that in the near future, the M line is a huge money maker for Canon and is going to be here for a while, no matter what RF does.


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> imho, the 100-400 Mkll is still relevant and a worthy purchase. (not to mention head and shoulders over Mk l)



Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas? 

Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits 



BillB said:


> What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.



For *me*, I would look towards the "M" series as a "baby" ILC system. Also, and intro to mirrorless that doesn't break the bank buying RF lenses. I would definately target the M6-II because I like the fact it shares the "guts" of a 90D. I don't need built in EVF. Would I get the EVF? Sure. Also would use a flash on occassion.

But to me the point of "M" is a light weight travel system. For that purpose, based on experience, I would *need* lenses in the 10-100 range. Faster the better; but honestly I have found F4 good enough. I might tolerate F5.6 lenses; but F6.3 is a non-starter for me. 

I could see buying the 11-22/F4-F5.6. . . . the price is reasonable. . . . . but the 15-45, 55-200 and 18-150 are all too slow for my tastes. Put a 22-70/F4 or a 22-100/F4 out there for $500-$700. . . .and I am there for that AND the 11-22 like. . .tomorrow.

I hear the talk of primes. . . .but for a "travel kit"; not sure I want to deal with a sack of primes.
I have a sack of EF primes. . . and I find I use them less often than I would prefer. (the zooms are good; and just more convenient in general)


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas?
> 
> Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits
> 
> ...


I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.


----------



## melgross (Mar 4, 2020)

stevelee said:


> OTOH, when you fold the display toward the camera, it is protected.
> 
> For some kinds of shooting a fixed screen is best, for reasons you mentioned. For others, a flippy screen as on my G cameras are handiest (inside domes and towers or ornate ceilings are common shots for me in my travels). For others, like a solar eclipse or taking macro shots of small flowers near the ground (to cite a couple of my experiences), tilty-swingy works best.


Sure. But the point of those displays is to unfold them and use them. If you keep them folded all the time, what’s the point to them? It’s when you’re using them that the problem occurs.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.


By 100L, you mean the f/2.8 macro?. The plain old 100 f/2 works pretty well too, but no IS.


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.



I think I had heard this opinion on the EF-M glass before. For my money, I need the 22-70 (or 100) range too much. Not sure I want to put an EF-24-105/4L (with adapter) onto a M6 II body. I suspect at that point, I may as well have a 90D body 

I have heard good things about the 100L. I was on a nice sale a few months ago. But considering how much I actually use my other primes. . .I decided against it because of my lens-clutter problem. (It's a lot cheaper than a 100-400/II; but I would get lots more use out of another "air show lens" that a short telephoto prime)


----------



## slclick (Mar 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> By 100L, you mean the f/2.8 macro?. The plain old 100 f/2 works pretty well too, but no IS.


Yeah it's no slouch but that extra smidgen of better IQ means the world in a macro shot. I liked using it with MF and focus peaking which my 5D3 body doesn't have.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 4, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas?
> 
> Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits
> 
> ...


I have found that the Viltrox focal reducer (i.e. speed booster) works quite well on lenses 50mm or over. It actually picks up the center resolution a fair bit on most lenses. I have found the 70-200L with the Viltrox makes a nice combo with the M5 if you are looking for speed. That results in a 50-140 f/2.8 that is razor sharp. I suspect the newer Metabones would work at least as well and maybe better, but it is pricey and I have seen no compatibility problems with the Viltrox. Just something to keep in mind given that you have a collection of EF lenses. The Viltrox is not expensive and it opens new vistas. For example, a nifty 50 becomes a 35mm f/1.2 and the lens plus the Viltrox is less than either the Sigma 35 or the Canon 32. AF seems to work normally, and aperture is reported correctly to the camera for EXIF and exposure.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.


I would include the 32 f/1.4 along with the 11-22 and pancake. It is a superlative lens for the system. If Canon adds IBIS to the M5ll, it would be dandy for low light video as well.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 4, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sure. But the point of those displays is to unfold them and use them. If you keep them folded all the time, what’s the point to them? It’s when you’re using them that the problem occurs.


I use the OVF more than live view, so it stays folded in or out most of the time. Out when shooting and in when in transport usually. Solar eclipses don’t come that often, but it is nice to have the option of shooting them, as well as more common events.


----------



## Tanguy (Mar 4, 2020)

I am looking forward to see more information about the M series and mostly the upgrade of the M5 because I like to have both the EVF and small flash incorporated in the body. Don't want to have a portable flash like needed on the R series


----------



## melgross (Mar 4, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I use the OVF more than live view, so it stays folded in or out most of the time. Out when shooting and in when in transport usually. Solar eclipses don’t come that often, but it is nice to have the option of shooting them, as well as more common events.


I’m not denying the usefulness. It’s just that those concerned with breakage have a good point too.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 4, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’m not denying the usefulness. It’s just that those concerned with breakage have a good point too.


Nor do I deny that a folded out screen is more vulnerable. Since we basically agree on things, I’m wondering why we are having a string of messages that seem to be debating something.

I am probably more careful with the camera when shooting than when I am not paying any attention to it. That would suggest why I have my perspective on this.


----------



## melgross (Mar 5, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Nor do I deny that a folded out screen is more vulnerable. Since we basically agree on things, I’m wondering why we are having a string of messages that seem to be debating something.
> 
> I am probably more careful with the camera when shooting than when I am not paying any attention to it. That would suggest why I have my perspective on this.


Too much time on our hands (or fingertips)?


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 6, 2020)

Apparently the M series is selling quite well in Asia, enough to maintain its economic viability. The smaller form factor is obviously a huge part of the appeal as it is for me. I have already switched over from my EF bodies over to RF and I don’t mind a 2 mount system especially given the size difference in the lenses. The M series lenses are relatively inexpensive so it’s not a huge financial burden to maintaining 2 systems and I’ve kept some EF glass that I can use on both.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2020)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Apparently the M series is selling quite well in Asia, enough to maintain its economic viability. The smaller form factor is obviously a huge part of the appeal as it is for me. I have already switched over from my EF bodies over to RF and I don’t mind a 2 mount system especially given the size difference in the lenses. The M series lenses are relatively inexpensive so it’s not a huge financial burden to maintaining 2 systems and I’ve kept some EF glass that I can use on both.



EF glass is part of my strategy. I expect to have very little RF glass for the first few years.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> EF glass is part of my strategy. I expect to have very little RF glass for the first few years.



RF glass is in the "What to do when I win a million in the lottery" column for me at this time  Renting RF lenses when I need them is still a lot cheaper.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> RF glass is in the "What to do when I win a million in the lottery" column for me at this time  Renting RF lenses when I need them is still a lot cheaper.



I expect I'll get the kit with the RF 24-105 L, but I may spring for the wide EF L zoom (17-??mm if memory serves) to use on both M and R series. I've already got 100+ mm covered with my EF 100-400 II L.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I expect I'll get the kit with the RF 24-105 L, but I may spring for the wide EF L zoom (17-??mm if memory serves) to use on both M and R series. I've already got 100+ mm covered with my EF 100-400 II L.


You are undoubtedly referring to the EF 16-35 f/4L IS. One of Canon's _must haves_...


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2020)

brad-man said:


> You are undoubtedly referring to the EF 16-35 f/4L IS. One of Canon's _must haves_...



Yeah, that's the one. (Unless you've just gotta have it in f/2.8). There seem to be a variety of Canon lenses that start at 16 or 17mm, for some reason, and I get them confused a lot! (Most of them are discontinued, but apparently there's still a 17-40mm f/4L out there, that I *infer* is older and not as high a quality optically.)


----------



## OneSnark (Mar 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, that's the one. (Unless you've just gotta have it in f/2.8). There seem to be a variety of Canon lenses that start at 16 or 17mm, for some reason, and I get them confused a lot! (Most of them are discontinued, but apparently there's still a 17-40mm f/4L out there, that I *infer* is older and not as high a quality optically.)



I have the 17-40/4L. I shot with for a few years, but I found it was particularly soft wide open. Paired it with a 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.

Now, I primarily use a 10-22/EF-S and a 24-105/4L and am pretty happy with them. Along the line I bought the 16-35/2.8L-I (on sale. . .as it was going out of production) and have been quite content. ESPECIALLY when I shoot it at F4. I use this lens primarily for low light situations with ISO 3200+ shots.

If I was building a kit today, I would definitely get a 16-35/4L for a FF camera. On APS-C; I really like the wide end of the 10-22; which pairs nice with the Canon 24-xx options.

- - - - - - 

So I have a X0D with a flippy screen, and a G7x-II with a simple flip up screen. Honestly. . . I am happy with both. If I have my "big" camera out and about, I am probably taking some care with my shots. . . . and quite often I use the screen at an odd angle so I can setup a shot without being a contortionist. This mode is very useful for selphs; flower shots; and for eclipses of various sorts. It's a nice option. And a strong selling point in my mind. 

The G7X is more of the camera used for casual shooting; the simple flip screen suffices. NOTE: The flip screen is critical for selphie mode. Would not buy a camera without that capability at this point.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I wonder what the plans for the M?00 line is. I've very happy with my M6II, but I miss the smallness of the M1. So an M200 sized camera, with the M6II sensor, IBIS and digic X be ideal. Or an M6III identical to the M6II, but with a proper tilty-flippy screen


That will be an M300, the point of the Mxxx is the price point so that camera will arrive once economies of scale has materialised.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Good. I was just playing with my M6 II last night. It is a heckuva camera. In my opinion, Canon has the opposite issue that they are known for here, they now have a great camera but only ok lenses (not bad, but when you are used to "L" glass, there is room for improvement).
> 
> So, please, bring on the very good (ex...EFs 17-55 or EFs 15-85 equivalents) zoom lenses. I could easily see a 100-300. The M6 II actually pairs very nicely with my 70-300 L. But a smaller version would be great (300/5.6 = 54 mm, so maybe 55 or 58 mm front threads).


Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> If this M5ii rumor is true I don't see the need for an M50ii unless is goes down market and they consolidate the mxxx line.


There will still be a need... M50 Mk2 will have inferior build quality to the M5, and it will also have the tilting screen. I don't think it is getting IBIS however.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

Daner said:


> I would like to see an M-mount body with the sensor from the M6II, the DIGIC X processor, IBIS, a really good EVF, tilty-flippy screen, a single CFExpress card slot, and using the LP-E6N battery. Combine that with the upcoming EF-M 100-400 (which is really a 120-360), or use an adapter to use it with any EF-S or EF glass.


Lets wait a few years. I'm also waiting in line for this. Already have the EF-M 18-55, 22mm, and 32mm.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.


That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2020)

koketso said:


> Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.


They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.

But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.


----------



## BillB (Mar 7, 2020)

koketso said:


> That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.


The EF-M 18-55 is still available.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 7, 2020)

docsmith said:


> They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.
> 
> But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.



He wasn't talking of the thread diameter but rather the outside, physical diameter of the lens. For the M series, that's always the same.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> He wasn't talking of the thread diameter but rather the outside, physical diameter of the lens. For the M series, that's always the same.


That would be 2.4"


----------



## SteveC (Mar 7, 2020)

koketso said:


> Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.



I can't find any reference to an EF-M 52 mm.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 7, 2020)

BillB said:


> The EF-M 18-55 is still available.



For whatever reason B&H doesn't seem to carry it. But it does sound like a worthwhile lens.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

docsmith said:


> They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.
> 
> But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.


Sorry, meant to say the physical diameter of the lens - as in physical measurement - not the front element filter thread. That EF-M 52mm f/2.0 is rumored but pretty much a confirmed lens for 2020.

All current Canon EF-M lenses have the same diameter in physical proportions.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

docsmith said:


> They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.
> 
> But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.


Meant to say the physical diameter, not the filter threads. The lenses take up the same area on a flat surface if you stand them next to each other.


----------



## koketso (Mar 7, 2020)

BillB said:


> The EF-M 18-55 is still available.


Ah, I was told it is discontinued at a shop. Good to know its still available.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2020)

koketso said:


> Sorry, meant to say the physical diameter of the lens - as in physical measurement - not the front element filter thread. That EF-M 52mm f/2.0 is rumored but pretty much a confirmed lens for 2020.
> 
> All current Canon EF-M lenses have the same diameter in physical proportions.


Sorry, read your post to quickly. 
I’ve wondered about this too. Seems like one of those things where it is consistent until it isn’t. 
They do need to keep it around that diameter (60.9 mm) near the mount to protect the grip. But eventually I hope to see it taper to a larger diameter.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 8, 2020)

koketso said:


> That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.


It depends on what you are shooting. The 15-45 is smaller, much lighter (hence a better fit for the M100/200), and also wider and sharper at the wide end. The 18-55 is bigger, heavier, longer and sharper at the long end. 15-55, or better yet, 15-85 would be nice, but in both cases, we are talking a considerably bigger lens. The EF-S 15-85 is a lovely lens, but by M standards, it is huge. Other than the 22mm pancake, the 15-45 is the most portable of all. In any case, keep watching. The EF-S 18-55 has more versions than Carter has little liver pills (if you are young, look it up), so yet another M kit lens is highly likely, if not inevitable.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 10, 2020)

koketso said:


> That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.



Last time Tamron produced an EF-M lens it was a disaster so I'm not holding any hope out that Tamron will produce anything useful.

The EF-M 18-55 is still the best general purpose zoom for the M series.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 10, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Last time Tamron produced an EF-M lens it was a disaster so I'm not holding any hope out that Tamron will produce anything useful.
> 
> The EF-M 18-55 is still the best general purpose zoom for the M series.



If you're referring to the 18-200, I've had no trouble with mine. It even had no troubles moving from the m-50 to the M6 mkII

I'd take it any day of the week over that 24-240 with that horrific barrel distortion (though to be fair that has to project a larger image being a full frame lens).


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If you're referring to the 18-200, I've had no trouble with mine. It even had no troubles moving from the m-50 to the M6 mkII
> 
> I'd take it any day of the week over that 24-240 with that horrific barrel distortion (though to be fair that has to project a larger image being a full frame lens).



I am, it took a lot of firmware updates and some long delays before people got an 18-200 that actually worked properly on the M3 upwards.

The EF-M 18-150 may not be as versatile but I'd take it any day over the Tamron.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 11, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I am, it took a lot of firmware updates and some long delays before people got an 18-200 that actually worked properly on the M3 upwards.
> 
> The EF-M 18-150 may not be as versatile but I'd take it any day over the Tamron.



I can see where that would leave a really bad taste in one's mouth. I guess I benefited from being a newbie, and missed all of that.

I'd be interested to see comparisons between the two, given a working 18-200 of course, and of course only over the 18-150 range.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 13, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I can't find any reference to an EF-M 52 mm.


The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 14, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.



Agreed on all counts.

I complained, a long time ago about that 61mm rule and someone jumped down my throat, it was mandated by marketing and apparently to him that made it as solid as a law of physics.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 14, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.


I've had my eye on that Sigma 16, but it's pretty large and I prefer to stick with native lenses. I remain hopeful that Canon will eventually cater to the M enthusiast crowd and release a smaller one. Not sure if that makes me patient or dumb...


----------



## Joules (Mar 14, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I remain hopeful that Canon will eventually cater to the M enthusiast crowd and release a smaller one. Not sure if that makes me patient or dumb...


It probably makes you optimistic.

But if we get more info on the point of EF-M this year, keeping faith might turn out the right way.

I always felt like the M series is for people who are enthusiastic about size. If you're enthusiastic about pure quality, there's RF now. But I don't think offering only these extremes is sufficient to capture the entire market. With the EF-M 32 mm 1.4 pushing M up a bit and 24-105mm 4.0-7.1 pushing RF down a bit, they might be on a way to give each type of enthusiast a bit more choice.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 14, 2020)

Joules said:


> It probably makes you optimistic.
> 
> But if we get more info on the point of EF-M this year, keeping faith might turn out the right way.
> 
> I always felt like the M series is for people who are enthusiastic about size. If you're enthusiastic about pure quality, there's RF now. But I don't think offering only these extremes is sufficient to capture the entire market. With the EF-M 32 mm 1.4 pushing M up a bit and 24-105mm 4.0-7.1 pushing RF down a bit, they might be on a way to give each type of enthusiast a bit more choice.


Certainly the M started out as a small minimalist camera. I still have 2 original Ms (M1?). One of those with the 22 on it can drop into a jacket pocket and takes wonderful photos. But when Canon released the M5 and subsequently the M6-II, that put the M system into enthusiast territory. I have an M5 with the 11-22, 22 and 32 along with the "consumer" lenses 18-55, 18-150 and 55-250. With the addition of a wide fast prime and a tele fast prime coupled with an f/4 standard zoom and I'd be in heaven. Oh, and I do have an R + RF 24-105 and a 5DIV with a full compliment of Ls. I therefore have _small_, _medium_ and _large_. I like choices...


----------



## BillB (Mar 14, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Agreed on all counts.
> 
> I complained, a long time ago about that 61mm rule and someone jumped down my throat, it was mandated by marketing and apparently to him that made it as solid as a law of physics.


Is mandated by marketing the same thing as making what you can sell enough of to make some money?


----------



## koch1948 (Jun 12, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Is there any further information about the upcoming EOS M5 Mark II?


----------



## 19COLIN52 (Jun 12, 2020)

EOS-M5 MK II sounds great! And I was about to add the 6MK II to my M50.... think I’ll hang on a bit. As for a 52mm f/ 2.0; I’ve already bought the Sigma 56mm f/1.4!
I love the small size and light-weight so much that I have quite a few EFS lenses and two aps-c bodies not being used!!


----------



## 19COLIN52 (Jun 12, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.


15-45mm?


----------



## SteveC (Jun 12, 2020)

19COLIN52 said:


> 15-45mm?



At least some reviewers (who have access to both this and the older 18-55) claim that was a significant step down.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 12, 2020)

19COLIN52 said:


> 15-45mm?


No, the 18-55 is a better lens optically - I own both lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 12, 2020)

I own two 18-55 and the 15-45. Optically, they are about the same. However, the 18-55 is mostly metal on the outside, including the lens mount. The 15-45 is all plastic outside, including the lens mount. Definitely the 15-45 is a step down from 18-55 in construction. If you are shooting city scape and land scape, the 15-45 is more suitable than the 18-55.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jun 15, 2020)

i also own the 15-45 and the 18-55...what i don't like most about the 15-45 is the collapsible design. i feel i'm missing moments having to extend the lens and i don't trust it (and me) to leave it open all the time. what i don't like about the 18-55 is that it starts at 18 )
i have the ef-s 15-85 as well which solves both complaints but it is a beast on the M5 with the adapter
i also dipped my toes into the fuji system and their 16-50 kit lens is really good...and they have the mirrorless equivalent of the ef-s 15-85 i've been asking for from canon: 16-80 f4, which i'm more and more tempted to buy...


----------



## Rocky (Jun 16, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> i also own the 15-45 and the 18-55...what i don't like most about the 15-45 is the collapsible design. i feel i'm missing moments having to extend the lens and i don't trust it (and me) to leave it open all the time. what i don't like about the 18-55 is that it starts at 18 )
> i have the ef-s 15-85 as well which solves both complaints but it is a beast on the M5 with the adapter
> i also dipped my toes into the fuji system and their 16-50 kit lens is really good...and they have the mirrorless equivalent of the ef-s 15-85 i've been asking for from canon: 16-80 f4, which i'm more and more tempted to buy...


I have been using the 15-45 ( along with other lenses) on my M5 for over 2 years and do a lot of "shoot and run". The only time I collapse the lens is when I need to put it back in the the camera case. So far so good. Even regular zoom lenses changes length when you zoom. No body that I know is concerned about it.


----------

