# At least two new EOS M cameras coming in 2019 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 4, 2018)

> With the recent announcement of the Canon EOS R, there has been a lot of people wondering what will become of the EOS M system. As we know, the biggest drawback to the system now appears to be the mount, as there’s no upgrade path for EF-M lenses to work on the new EOS R system.
> We believe that EOS M will be discontinued someday in the distant future, so don’t worry about the system going away any time soon. The EOS M system is not like Nikon’s V system, as we believe sales of the EOS M50, EOS M6 and EOS M5 have been very good for Canon. So good in fact that they’ve powered Canon to the top of mirrorless sales categories in some countries.
> We’re told that at least two new EOS M cameras will hit the market in the first half of 2019. One of them will be a replacement for the EOS M5 and include 4K with DPAF. We’re also told that there will be “minimal” crop for 4K video on the new image sensor inside the EOS M5. So look for the EOS M5 Mark II to improve on some perceived weaknesses in...



Continue reading...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 4, 2018)

But..but...but... the mount ?!

Given that the CR community in general don't represent the average camera consumer, and I guess are much more likely to want to adapt EF lenses to the M than your average Joe, I don't see that many people on here wanting to do it; I guess in the market as a whole it's pretty minuscule. Certainly the novelty of doing so has worn off with me on the M5, and now I just use that camera as it was intended; small, light and inconspicuous. So I'm quite happy with EF-M lenses only, mixing and matching the mount doesn't interest me anymore. M-only lenses will do fine.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

"the mount"? EF-M of course. What else. Totally absurd to even speculate about that.

And of course M5 II and M6 II and "M100 II" are due, and the sooner in 2019 the better.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 4, 2018)

EOS M cameras will keep the EF-M mount. No question about this.

The new cameras will surely be replacements for the M5 and M6 as previously discussed.


----------



## SimonW (Oct 4, 2018)

Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.

I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 4, 2018)

Hopefully that "minimal crop" will be 1.04 (3:2 sampling from the presumably 6000x4000 sensor). I wonder if the EOS R will be the last Canon body with a large crop factor 4K.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 4, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> ... use that camera as it was intended; small, light and inconspicuous. So I'm quite happy with EF-M lenses only, mixing and matching the mount doesn't interest me anymore. M-only lenses will do fine.


I think that takes it to the point, Sporgon.
The convenience of that system gives it the power to stand side by side to the "old" EOS/EF and the "new" EOS R/RF systems.
A lot of consumers are just fine with what Canon offers here. And once again this shows that Canon understands the market better than some gearheads


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



Yes, the fact that they are TINY and they're selling really well. The RF mount is large, and the lenses are huge and expensive and super wasteful on a crop sensor. It's not like Canon wants to launch yet another separate line of lenses (crop RF)! The vast majority of M purchasers doesn't care that much about upgrade paths either.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



Yes. EOS M is here to stay (at least for longer than APS-C mirrorslappers). It is NOT a miniature-sensored, underpowered Nikon 1 system. 

Buying an EOS M camera or an EF-M lens also does not qualify as "investment". It means spending a little money for a decent camera and a few decent lenses for a setup that is a lot more compact than any R-mount gear can possibly ever be.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



I think the M system is like the powershot line of yesteryear. If Canon developes R APS-C cameras, then you'll have a R APS-C/RF that is better than the existing EF-S/EF setup. For those that want even more portability, there is the M.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> So I'm quite happy with EF-M lenses only, mixing and matching the mount doesn't interest me anymore. M-only lenses will do fine.



yes, for most users. Although I still occasionally like to adapt one of my smaller EF lenses on EOS M when there is no adequate equivalent (yet): specifically the excellent EF-S 60 Macro as "small stuff and portrait lens", the EF 40/2.8 STM as "better IQ, faster walkaround lens" than EF-M zooms and EF 50/1.8 STM for "available light and portraits".


----------



## LDS (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R



IMHO a budget R would require budget RF lenses as well - not exactly what has been released in the first wave. Can't see buyers of a budget R needing to use the adapter and EF-S lenses on it - would look a bad way to sell it.

Anyway, I can't see the lack of an "upgrade path" a big issue - if you buy a different camera system, say fuji or one of the m43 cameras because you like something small (including lenses) and simple, you're in the same situation - or even worse one as at least something like flash and a few other accessories can be used on M, EF and RF cameras.

Moreover, some people are not interested in an upgrade path at all.


----------



## Stichus III (Oct 4, 2018)

> As we know, the biggest drawback to the system now appears to be the mount, as there’s no upgrade path for EF-M lenses to work on the new EOS R system.



I don't understand what the fuss is all about. EF-S lenses also never worked on the EF mount.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously).



The M will always have the potential to be smaller than the R, simply due to the mount size. The M has always been sub $1,000. I do not expect to see an R anytime soon for less than $1,000.

So, M...smaller, living in the $500-$1,000 market. This is a large and distinctive market.

R, larger, living in the greater than $1,000 world. 

Could we some day see a "R-s"...with a crop sensor. Sure, then then it would need lenses to match, like a 15-85, 18-55, 10-22, etc. I see Canon focusing on populating the FF RF lenses for 5-10 years before they worry about this. Especially with the M already populated.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 4, 2018)

Thanks for the update, I'm relieved to hear it. I still really like the compact M system, even if I plan on getting an R-mount camera eventually.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

Stichus III said:


> I don't understand what the fuss is all about. EF-S lenses also never worked on the EF mount.



a few forum users and some writers on dpreview, petapixel, Thom Hogan etc. are "panicking in advance" because RF lenses cannot be used on EOS M bodies/EF-M mount. They believe an "upgrade" path from crop to FF system is important, like in the old days, when rebel and XXD/7D users purchased EF lenses "in anticipation of going FF someday ... eventually." 

For overwhelming majority of EOS M buyers and users it is no real issue. Same as for Sony A5### and A6### users who normally also do not run out and purchase big fat expensive GrandMaster FE lenses for their small crop bodies, just because some day in the future they might buy an A7.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



While I don't completely agree, I do know where you're coming from. After having some time to process my needs/wants after the R announcement, I've decided that the M is still a worthy system all on its own, because regardless of upgrade path, the images I get from it are great. While the M system may not be able to utilize R lenses, and the R system is unable to adapt M lenses, so long as I have my EF lenses, I'll have upgrade paths regardless of which system I use. Were I not already invested in the M system though, I'm not sure how I would feel. But having used it for a few years now and really loving it, I'm convinced it does have a place.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



Yes, and that is many people simply don't NEED an upgrade path to full frame anymore . Today's APS-C sensors are vastly superior to full frame sensors from around 5 years ago in terms of ISO performance and AF. One can easily take great, high quality photos with a camera like an M6 or M5. And because the cameras and lenses for them are smaller and lighter, those people are more likely to have the camera on them instead of using their cell phone. I'm not saying full frame is pointless, I'm just saying it isn't a necessity for many people. 

Yes, at some point Canon will release an APS-C based EOS R that will either sit next to the EOS M system as the next step up or replace the EOS M system altogether. But I can't see that camera being as small and light as an M5.


----------



## Woody (Oct 4, 2018)

We already knew this from:
https://www.canonrumors.com/breaking-down-the-latest-canon-gear-to-appear-for-certification/


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Oct 4, 2018)

This is great to hear ^_^. I'll be keeping my eye on that M5 Mark II .


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 4, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Hopefully that "minimal crop" will be 1.04 (3:2 sampling from the presumably 6000x4000 sensor). I wonder if the EOS R will be the last Canon body with a large crop factor 4K.



We can only hope. We’ll see if the rumored “EOS-R flagship” perhaps due in February solves this issue.


----------



## Bentley Boy (Oct 4, 2018)

The concern about the "lack of an upgrade path" lacks any merit. First, who in their right mind would want to use an "M" lens on an "R" camera? Second, who, still in their right mind, would want to use one of the behemoth "R" lenses attached to an "M" body? As the owner of an M50, I laugh when I think of attaching that 50 1.2. Now to my 5D would be another story altogether.


----------



## Bambel (Oct 4, 2018)

"We believe that EOS M will be discontinued someday in the distant future, so don’t worry about the system going away any time soon."

Is there a "don't" missing or what?

I think that the way Canon positioned the EOS R system is very good for the EOS M system. While EOS R sets focus on IQ and ambitious lenses, it's compromise is bulk, weight and price. EOS M on the other hand is all about being small, light and cheap and the compromise is less ambitious lenses (esp. slow zooms). But the recent 32/1.4 shows that Canon now sees the EOS M system mature enough to offer such a fast prime (and thus more specialised lens). So all in all i think Canons marketing came to the conclusion that EOS M users don't have much need for an upgrade path but are more interessted in better M gear.

Personally, i would like to buy a M5II, but i need it in march 2019 and i guess it won't arrive before that. So i will buy a M50 to replace my old 400D as my secondary body. 

B.


----------



## DaveGrice (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline.
> ...
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



Same here Simon. The M looked cute and interesting, but not necessarily compelling, or moving strongly in that direction. 

With the R, if finally looks like we're heading in a compelling direction, if not yet fully there. I'm failing to see a strong audience for the M. 

Of course I've been wrong already today, so there's that...


----------



## originalsk (Oct 4, 2018)

Personally I am not a professional photographer, just an enthusiast who went from IXUS to Powershot G12 and finally 700D. I travel a lot and most of my pictures come from visiting foreign countries and sightseeing, therefore I value compromise between weight and image quality which APS-C 700D bring to me. However if I had to upgrade today I don't know which Canon model would I choose.

I understand that EOS M is the lineup designed for me, but when I compare M5 to for example Fujifilm X-T3 or X-H1 it feels very poor.

- very few lenses to choose (I have not found 18-135mm equivalent or some decent travel zoom lens?)
- no weather sealing (last time in Washington I got caught up by rain and even in Europe it generally rains a lot)
- no dual card slot (I always fear that I lose pictures after investing money and time all-day travelling to visit foreign country and culture)

7D Mark II has such features but it weights +1kg and does not have EVF. I don't care about IBIS or any video features, but I really hope that somewhere there is a EOS M "Pro" model in the development which has dual card slot and some sort of weather sealing to match those Fujifilm cameras. If they can do it, why not Canon? I would gladly pay for it 1500+ € but going 3000+ € for fullframe EOS R is a no-go for me.

EDIT: Well, apparently the is a 18-150mm for EOS M so that's my bad, sorry Canon


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 4, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Same here Simon. The M looked cute and interesting, but not necessarily compelling, or moving strongly in that direction.
> 
> With the R, if finally looks like we're heading in a compelling direction, if not yet fully there. I'm failing to see a strong audience for the M.
> 
> Of course I've been wrong already today, so there's that...



The M *already* has a strong audience as has been said repeatedly! It has brought Canon from zero to number one or two in mirrorless sales. You simply don’t seem to grasp that the majority of camera purchasers are not like you, or most on this forum. But they do pay for the development of our fancy enthusiast/prosumer gear that’s sold in much smaller numbers than the cute tiny consumer stuff.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Oct 4, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



The target market for the M system is most likely not interested in an upgrade path to the R or even EF ecosystem. They are two separate lines that will co-exist together.

The target market for the M system is a consumer+ who is upgrading from the powershot line. They might want a slightly more adaptable system where they can interchange lenses but I would bet 90% of the consumers won't take off the kit lens with a few possibly having a two lens lineup. The M cameras are light and small. I would bet Canon would take a page out of Sony's book and keep the chassis the same for the R line even with the APSC-R (maybe some minor changes like adding a joystick)


----------



## photonius (Oct 4, 2018)

Stichus III said:


> I don't understand what the fuss is all about. EF-S lenses also never worked on the EF mount.


That's not the way it's working. On FF you have tons of EF lenses to choose from to cover all needs. On the Rebels/Crop cameras, you have only a limited selection of EF-S lenses. I choose deliberately only crop cameras due to weight/size. I am happy with the EF-S lenses. But I also do have a few EF lenses that do not exist in EF-S. To me, the EOS-M system is too limited in its lens choice. But I have no interest at all to buy a FF (e.g. RF) line (this refers to some point in the future, when EF and EF-S is gone, and purchasing that is no option). At present I am happy with my EF-S/EF mix of lenses and crop body. EOS-M can't do that.


----------



## KristinnKr (Oct 4, 2018)

There is one thing that I feel is going to be the biggest factor in how a M5 II stacks up, and that's the viewfinder.

I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how *incredibly tiny* the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays have a FF-equivalent magnification of 0.7-0.8x. The Fuji X-T20 is often complained about for having a small viewfinder at 0.62x. I did a direct comparison between the M5 and the Fuji, back and forth multiple times, and I doubt the Canon has more than 0.5x magnification, 0.55x at the very most. That's like an old Rebel DSLR!

I really like the idea of Canon M. Compact cameras with mostly good performance, and some lens gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm f2 and 32mm f1.4 that offer very good performance for their size and weight. But viewfinder size impacts the enjoyment of taking pictures so much that I can't be interested in a system where the largest viewfinder is 0.5 or 0.55x.


----------



## Bekippe (Oct 4, 2018)

As it should be. The M line has been, from day one, primarily focused on size. The R line, in contrast, will be focused on quality/performance. I think it is a smart move to keep that split, and if an M6 mk II has the fully articulated screen of the M50, i will seriously consider getting one with the EF-m 22mm as a travel/general going around setup.


----------



## Talys (Oct 4, 2018)

KristinnKr said:


> There is one thing that I feel is going to be the biggest factor in how a M5 II stacks up, and that's the viewfinder.
> 
> I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how *incredibly tiny* the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays have a FF-equivalent magnification of 0.7-0.8x. The Fuji X-T20 is often complained about for having a small viewfinder at 0.62x. I did a direct comparison between the M5 and the Fuji, back and forth multiple times, and I doubt the Canon has more than 0.5x magnification, 0.55x at the very most. That's like an old Rebel DSLR!
> 
> I really like the idea of Canon M. Compact cameras with mostly good performance, and some lens gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm f2 and 32mm f1.4 that offer very good performance for their size and weight. But viewfinder size impacts the enjoyment of taking pictures so much that I can't be interested in a system where the largest viewfinder is 0.5 or 0.55x.


The main thing I'm not happy about the M5/M50 is the size of the green AF square, in that I can't make it small enough to make autofocus as precisely as I want. Generally speaking, I just prefer the rebel/xxD interface to the EOS M. Otherwise, I would have bought one quite a while ago (despite this, I have almost purchased an M5 many times)


----------



## GaryUK (Oct 4, 2018)

OK, first up I'm just a hobbyist. I bought a M5 last year, partly I wanted something smaller/less attention for days out, e.g. trips into London. When I progressed through 20D & 7D to a 6D, the difference in IQ was amazing. But sensor tech has moved on; as such I was very pleasantly surprised by the M5.

I feel overall that we are at a cross roads, with the new R mount and so on. I too expect the current low end DSLRs to become mirrorless, so do expect an R Crop at some point.

A health gremlin also focussed my mind on lighter gear, so I've let GAS get the better of me. I've bought an XT-3 + Kit lens to play with (£200 trade in bonus for ye olde 20D!); my wife has happily taken the M5 off me (likes the EVF, as she'd be using a Sony RX100 Mk1).

So no, I'm not ‘dumping Canon'.. at least not yet. I may well swap my 6D for an R at some point, as I have a nice EF collection. But I'll give the Fuji a go first. As sensor tech improves further, I do feel that for many of us non-pros, full-frame (though lovely) is now overkill; especially when there are pros using Fuji and M43.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 4, 2018)

photonius said:


> .... To me, the EOS-M system is too limited in its lens choice. But I have no interest at all to buy a FF (e.g. RF) line (this refers to some point in the future, when EF and EF-S is gone, and purchasing that is no option). At present I am happy with my EF-S/EF mix of lenses and crop body. EOS-M can't do that.


Just curious what is the use-case that M lenses do not cover the need? If I'm correct, the existing M lenses cover the range of 11 to 200mm (17-320mm equivalent) that is quite useful for everyday use from wide to telephoto. There are a few primes (22, 28 and 32mm) and macro (28mm). I know there is no tilt-shift or longer telephoto lenses, but those are generally reserved for more pro use-cases which are covered by EF/RF series anyway. What is the limiting factor here?


----------



## docsmith (Oct 4, 2018)

originalsk said:


> when I compare M5 to for example Fujifilm X-T3 or X-H1 it feels very poor.
> 
> - very few lenses to choose (I have not found 18-135mm equivalent or some decent travel zoom lens?)
> - no weather sealing (last time in Washington I got caught up by rain and even in Europe it generally rains a lot)
> - no dual card slot (I always fear that I lose pictures after investing money and time all-day travelling to visit foreign country and culture)


and....
- Fuji X-T3: $1,499
- M5: $829

Then start comparing the price differences in some of the lenses (2-3x more). 

I like the direction you are thinking. I actually really hope that Canon releases an M-"Pro" that is more of a direct competitor to Fuji. But, until Canon releases more lenses like the EFm 32 f/1.4, I have to think these systems are aimed at different photographers.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 4, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Yes, the fact that they are TINY and they're selling really well. The RF mount is large, and the lenses are huge and expensive and super wasteful on a crop sensor. It's not like Canon wants to launch yet another separate line of lenses (crop RF)! The vast majority of M purchasers doesn't care that much about upgrade paths either.


I agree with this. 
In fact as an EF and future R mount owner I still think I will get an M5 MII as a handy carry camera where the larger systems would be cumbersome. Think like family gatherings, weddings, kids/grandkids in the backyard and whatever you think of. With the 18-150 it is a sweet and light fun camera to use with far more versatility than the G1 series as it will still mount any of the EF lenses ever made that will be around for decades at a minimum used.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 4, 2018)

This indicates Canon will stratify its market by crop versus full frame, as it originally did with EF and EF-S. This explains why they've been in no hurry to push out great glass on M. Yes, there are some good lenses, but you haven't seen a 35 f/1.4 L II sort of affair on M ever. 

It's a bit arbitrary, as any 7D2 user will tell you, to push crop down as a lower tier. It has its uses and can be the best tool for a job. But, there you have it. One interesting implication for this is that the 7D3 equivalent could theoretically come out on M. This is unlikely, of course, but having adapted EF long lenses to an M5, it's surprisingly useful. 

I'll say this much. If the M5 II has 10 fps with full autofocus with focus priority set, then I'd shoot it over the R. If the readout blockage doesn't get fixed to present decent FPS for the upper end R cameras, I think my next Canon mirrorless will be an M.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Just curious what is the use-case that M lenses do not cover the need? If I'm correct, the existing M lenses cover the range of 11 to 200mm (17-320mm equivalent) that is quite useful for everyday use from wide to telephoto. There are a few primes (22, 28 and 32mm) and macro (28mm). I know there is no tilt-shift or longer telephoto lenses, but those are generally reserved for more pro use-cases which are covered by EF/RF series anyway. What is the limiting factor here?



Exactly. There are only a few here in forum and elsewhere - especially DPReview staff - who constantly cry about the "oh so limited, oh no fast primes, oh no big expensive lenses, oh no Tilt-Shift EF-M lens lineup." 

If you push back and ask the whiners, what exactly they would like to have in additional EF-M lenses and what size and price they'd be willing to accept, the whining dies down pretty quickly. 

Personally, I'd buy 1 more EF-M lens: an "as compact as possible", moderately fast, short tele prime. Something like an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM which I'd use as a 135mm FF equivalent "headshot and concert lens".


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> This indicates Canon will stratify its market by crop versus full frame, as it originally did with EF and EF-S.



exactly. Only a few folks fail to see and understand this. It was and is clear all along. 2 mirrorfree mounts, optimally chosen for APS-C [EF-M] and FF [R] and 2 lineups. One full-fledged EOS R / RF program, 1 EOS-M / EF-M lineup, limited to those lenses that can be made more compact for crop image circle. As in the DSLR era.


----------



## mirage (Oct 4, 2018)

KristinnKr said:


> I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how *incredibly tiny* the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays have a FF-equivalent magnification of 0.7-0.8x. The Fuji X-T20 is often complained about for having a small viewfinder at 0.62x. I did a direct comparison between the M5 and the Fuji, back and forth multiple times, and I doubt the Canon has more than 0.5x magnification, 0.55x at the very most.



Cannot find it in Canon official specs, but according to Digitalrev EOS M5 EVF magnification is 0.62x. 



> The two appear evenly matched with their viewfinders, both being 0.39in-type EVFs with a panel containing 2.36million dots. The magnification on the a6500’s viewfinder, however, is a more generous 0.70x (in 35mm terms), next to the *0.62x magnification offered by the EOS M5’s finder*.


https://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-eos-m5-vs-sony-a6500-how-do-they-compare


----------



## docsmith (Oct 4, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> One interesting implication for this is that the 7D3 equivalent could theoretically come out on M. This is unlikely, of course, but having adapted EF long lenses to an M5, it's surprisingly useful.


True, but I would wonder about the battery. I am in the camp hoping the 7DIII has a more powerful battery, which would influence the size. 

Then, of course, there is AF speed for sports/wildlife photography.

So, I agree, unlikely.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Oct 4, 2018)

> as there’s no upgrade path for EF-M lenses to work on the new EOS R system


If that's the issue than its not an issue. Who would want to use an M lens on a R camera? Also you cannot put and EF-S lens on a FF camera for pure optical reasons. 

I thought the issue is that you cannot use R lenses on an M Camera.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 4, 2018)

EOS-M is a nice little system. If they make the M5 II with the fully articulated LCD of the M50 I'll buy one. Big bonus if it includes IBIS!
All they need is to add a compact 15mm f/2 to the lens line up. I could be happy with the M5 II, 11-22 IS, 15mm f/2, 22mm f/2, and 32 mm f/1.4 for travel. Maybe also the 55-200 IS


----------



## DaveGrice (Oct 4, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> The M *already* has a strong audience as has been said repeatedly! It has brought Canon from zero to number one or two in mirrorless sales. You simply don’t seem to grasp that the majority of camera purchasers are not like you, or most on this forum. But they do pay for the development of our fancy enthusiast/prosumer gear that’s sold in much smaller numbers than the cute tiny consumer stuff.



Feel free to win me over to the M, I'm open to being educated. Canon has failed to accomplish this so far, especially so now that it's clear the strategy has splintered. Maybe you'll have more luck.


----------



## windsorc (Oct 4, 2018)

So the M system is really for people who don't want to move up to the R system, which sounds reasonable. Most M users never will. It almost makes sense, make enthusiasts shell out for the FF, leave the M as a small APS camera.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 4, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Feel free to win me over to the M, I'm open to being educated. Canon has failed to accomplish this so far, especially so now that it's clear the strategy has splintered. Maybe you'll have more luck.



You're still missing the whole point. Canon doesn't have to win _you_ over, and neither do I.


----------



## DaveGrice (Oct 4, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> You're still missing the whole point. Canon doesn't have to win _you_ over, and neither do I.



Then I'm sure you'll be happy to allow me to have my own opinion. Thanks.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 4, 2018)

Yawn.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 5, 2018)

Since 2005 I have owned a bunch of Canon DSLRs and have several EF and EF-S lenses, including some L glass.
Earlier this year I bought my first Canon mirrorless early this year - and now have 5 EF-M lenses. (Most bought 2nd hand)
They complement each other.

1) My DSLRs are used when I require fast, responsive photography, and/or with an ergonomically satisfying experience. My passion is nature photography (landscape, macro and wildlife) - and when I am out photographing these, my 80D and 7D do the job. I also photograph events (camps, birthday celebrations, special occasions, etc) using my DSLRs and EF / EF-S lenses.
2) I use my EOS M5 when I require a more compact, yet still capable photography system (e.g. casual hiking - to keep the size and weight down, or when out with my young daughter and already have a day bag quite full with food, clothing, etc). 

The M5 in particular does a great job with its DPAF. It's relatively snappy (turning off post photo review gives a much speedier experience). The Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 as an UWA and Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 work well as fast primes. Depending what I'm photographing, I will pull out my 15-45mm (sharp and wide end suitable for landscapes) - or the 18-150mm as an all round / travel lens (great IQ and very useful range). My M10 matched with the 22mm f/2 is particularly small yet still provides decent images and useful video.

Depending on the range, features and price that Canon is going to bring to the table with future R mount FF mirrorless cameras and lenses, I may be tempted to buy into that. I had not felt the need to buy FF DSLR till this point (because the size / weight of a decent FF DSLR with EF lenses offset what I could get from APS-C DSLRs, particularly with my EF-S lenses). If you can't get a great landscape photo with a APS-C DSLR and say the 10-18mm IS lens, or capture action with a telezoom like my 70-300mm (which provides fantastic reach on a APS-C) - then upgrading to a FF will likely not be your best next move.

If you can get good images from Canon's current APS-C DSLR, then you will most likely also be able to get close to matching that with the EOS M range of bodies and languages (in a smaller, lighter package, all bought with a decent price range). 

So for the above reasons, I am keeping a ball in each court: DSLR, EOS M and EOS R. They definitely do complement each other. Horses for courses!

PJ


----------



## JBSF (Oct 5, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Feel free to win me over to the M, I'm open to being educated. Canon has failed to accomplish this so far, especially so now that it's clear the strategy has splintered. Maybe you'll have more luck.



Funny thing, but I thought Larsskv's thread on his new EF-M 32 f1.4 was a pretty compelling argument for considering the M system.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Oct 5, 2018)

The M-naysayers...I'm afraid will never be convinced. Even the CR staff(!):

"*We believe that EOS M will be discontinued someday in the distant future*, so don’t worry about the system going away any time soon."

What the heck does 'someday in the distant future' mean?

Could it also be said (correctly) that the EOS R will be discontinued someday in the distant future?!

Many (but not all) of the same people that drone on and on about the shortcomings of the M and its lenses also convinced themselves that Canon's FF mirrorless offering would feature (drum roll...) the EF-mount!

How'd that work out?! It seems to me that those folks were predicting with their hearts...and not their brains.

=====

The EOS M system is NOT designed for professional photographers.

But in the hands of a well-qualified amateur, any of the M's...when paired with most any of the EF-M native lenses...are very useful tools indeed--and in addition to being very vacation friendly size-and-weight wise, the bodies and lenses are offered at a very fair price.

Canon has a winner on their hands with the M. Here in the USA, it took awhile...but I predict strong M sales for the next couple of years (at least). Beyond that? I've a snarky answer to that one that I'll keep to myself...


----------



## dcm (Oct 5, 2018)

M is great for everyday carry and travel, 1DX2 for serious photography. The M gets more images annually since I picked up the M5. The M5 - 32mm f/1.4 combo may widen the gap.

Bought the original M in 6/13, M3 in 4/15, M5 in 12/16. M5 gets most use, M3 is backup. Carry both when hiking to eliminate lens changes - M5/tele and M3/wide. Original M resides at the office with the 18-55 and still get's some use. 

I generally keep a pair of bodies and leapfrog the upgrades. Seems like good timing for an M3 upgrade and I'll have multiple choices. The M6 and M50 didn't tempt me.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> The main thing I'm not happy about the M5/M50 is the size of the green AF square, in that I can't make it small enough to make autofocus as precisely as I want.



yes. Although it has been markedly improved in EOS M50 compared to M5. Addition of Eye-AF in M50 has also mutigated the issue when capturing human subjects. For AF M50 has a clear lead over M5/M6. 

Here is hoping that M5/M6 Mk. II will get a further improved DP-AF system, similar to the one in EOS R - with a lot more, smaller AF points and marking boxes precisely matching actual AF field.

5000+ AF points on FF would mean about 2000 on APS-C. That should allow for really "pinpoint accuracy green-frame" AF field markings across entire frame. 

It woild also befit an even higher end "EOS M7" with a slightly bigger body than M5 (but still smaller than EOS R), with better battery, wheathersealing, and a DIGIC good for 10fps with full-bore tracking AF and AE = "mirrorfree 7D III". For tele lenses EF lineup is there, for small and light "non tele" focal lengths, EF-M and EF glass is available. Would be launched tomorrow if i were Canon CEO.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 5, 2018)

I use my 5d3 for product photography and for events etc., but when I go for a walk with my wife each evening, I take my M5 with me to shoot birds and flowers etc.
I often use the EF-s 60mm macro, except for video where the continual focussing is very noisy and even an EF-s18-135 that usually resides on my 70D.
I'm really happy that I can use my old EF-s lenses as well as any of my L lenses on it, but I generally use any of my 4 M lenses as well as a Chinese fish-eye zoom.
I wouldn't want to use any of my M lenses on my 5d3, even if it were possible.

In fact, I'm really surprised that more 3rd party manufacturers don't make more lenses for M's. After all, they are the best selling small mirrorless out there, but I bet Canon has done something that Sigma et al. can't sypher yet in the lens communications side, but I hope they get it sorted soon.

If the M5 Mk2 has good specs, I'll buy one and give my M5 to my brother-in-law. He can buy his own lenses though. They're really very cheap for what they offer.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

josephandrews222 said:


> But in the hands of a well-qualified amateur, any of the M's...when paired with most any of the EF-M native lenses...are very useful tools indeed--and in addition to being very vacation friendly size-and-weight wise, the bodies and lenses are offered at a very fair price.




that's it, in a nutshell!

exactly opposed to the naysayers' opinion Canon EF- M lens lineup is an asset for Canon, not a weakness. All EF-M lenses (except 15-45 for which improved update seems imminent) offer "best-in-class" IQ/size/weight/value ratio. 

Sony E lens universe is a "mixed bag" for IQ at best. Fuji X means "pay FF prices for crop lenses". Despite more lenses, including fancy, fat and expensive f/1.2 clunkers and all sorts of manual focus third party chaff they are overall far less attractive to "normal-income-earning amateurs" as well as to hard-working pros looking for a small, light, inconspicuous second setup that serves as backup in a pinch.

Canon EF-M lineup " is 100% right on the money". Only Canon EOS M bodies were behind competetion for a long time. But Canon has been able to pretty much catch up with M5/M6 and is fully competitive with M50 - it clearly beats the competing Fuji x100t and matches Sony A6500 for stills - at less than half of the price. 

When Canon brings further enhanced M5/M6 bodies, it will easily be the "overall best" mirrorfree system and a well deserved market share leader. 

maybe without high-end 4k video specs. but, who cares? just get a dedicated video cam if you really need fully-blown hi-spec video capabilities!


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

docsmith said:


> True, but I would wonder about the battery. I am in the camp hoping the 7DIII has a more powerful battery, which would influence the size.



yes. I could imagine an EOS "M7" with body size "halfway between" EOS M5 and EOS R as well as a new "LP-E7" battery with size and charge "halfway between" LP-E6N and LP-E17 ... say 10Whrs ... 7.2V x 1400mAh.


----------



## Talys (Oct 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes. I could imagine an EOS "M7" with body size "halfway between" EOS M5 and EOS R as well as a new "LP-E7" battery with size and charge "halfway between" LP-E6N and LP-E17 ... say 10Whrs ... 7.2V x 1400mAh.



There could certainly be a body size between M5 and R, but I think next year is too soon. However, should that happen, it would be a lower numbered M... like an M3, since Canon is keeping to its D convention with the M series of smaller numbers being bigger/more powerful cameras. M1 would be the biggest and baddest M


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> There could certainly be a body size between M5 and R, but I think next year is too soon. However, should that happen, it would be a lower numbered M... like an M3, since Canon is keeping to its D convention with the M series of smaller numbers being bigger/more powerful cameras. M1 would be the biggest and baddest M



EOS M numbering is off. It has been more or less "chronological" for the single digit models. We had M, M2, M3, M5/M6 as "best specced models" in that sequence. Lower specced models were 2 digit or 3 digit for "entry level". 

I would find "EOS M7" a very suitable moniker for a "mirrorfree 7D III"


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> EOS M numbering is off. It has been more or less "chronological" for the single digit models. We had M, M2, M3, M5/M6 as "best specced models" in that sequence. Lower specced models were 2 digit or 3 digit for "entry level".
> 
> I would find "EOS M7" a very suitable moniker for a "mirrorfree 7D III"



The M50 launch was a typical Canon launch: Take an existing "higher end" model, make it cheaper by replacing metal body part with plastic, but add really neat features like tilty-flippy screen and DPAF. And launch in right in the middle of the other models cycle. Like 7D vs 70D.
For me this works out fine, Canon does a release right around I get GAS, which makes me uncertain enough to wait a bit longer and the cycle repeats  And the move from EOS to powershot firmware with the M3 also played a part, but it seems like the M50 either uses EOS firmware again or dropped the powershot GUI.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

EOS M50 is a clear home run. Fully competitive. Max bang for the buck. Max bang for the size. 

If Canon brings an M5 (+ M6) Mk. II offering everything in M50 plus whatever is needed in higher specs to create a significant difference again, then we are not far from a "mirrorfree 7D III".


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 5, 2018)

Most EOS M purchasers are new to Canon and most get no further than the bundled standard zoom lens. They are normally looking for something better than their cell phone but still only view the images either on cell phones or tablets. EOS R purchasers are more likely to be either existing Canon users or people whos main hobby is photography. 
While Canon makes money out of the M line its here to stay. More likely over time the EF / EF-S line will disappear replaced by the RF and maybe an RF-S line of lenses and everything from budget to pro EOS R bodies. DSLRs will go the way of SLRs, the success of Sony R series cameras and the A9 have sealed that fate long term.


----------



## photonius (Oct 5, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Just curious what is the use-case that M lenses do not cover the need? If I'm correct, the existing M lenses cover the range of 11 to 200mm (17-320mm equivalent) that is quite useful for everyday use from wide to telephoto. There are a few primes (22, 28 and 32mm) and macro (28mm). I know there is no tilt-shift or longer telephoto lenses, but those are generally reserved for more pro use-cases which are covered by EF/RF series anyway. What is the limiting factor here?



Exactly, who says that someone who wants a small light system does not want some more "advanced" lenses? After all, if you look at m4/3, they have a much larger lens line-up than EOS-M, and I presume people buy all these lenses. Or maybe Canon wants me to switch to m4/3 or Fuji?

Anyway, specifically - at present with EF-S, I have 10-250 covered with kit lenses, so a bit more reach, and more then 5 degrees wider angle of view at the UWA end. Yes, maybe Canon will update the lenses at some point to increase that, but I don't count on it. 
The macro, EF-S is a 60mm lens, giving a good working distance of 9cm. If I need more working distance, I could get an EF 100mm macro. The EOS-M 28mm macro gives me only a ridiculous 18mm working distance at 1:1. Ok, it's a fun little lens, but I'd put it in the gadget category, when one wants to make "wide angle" macros. Well, maybe Canon will release a longer macro for EOS-M in the future, but I don't count on it.
Low and behold, I do have an EF 100-400. That will never happen on EOS-M. In fact, many people use a Canon 80D or 7D with tele lenses. Ok, a FF Canon 5DS would give you similar cropping power (comparable pixel density as e.g. an 80D), but why should I pay 3 times just for that?
And then the EF 50mm f1.8, (equivalent to an FF 85 portrait lens) for the occasional portrait. - Nothing in EOS-M. Ok, Canon just came out with the 32, but that is equivalent to a 50mm lens on FF. Maybe Canon comes out with a 50mm at some point. I doubt it. Canon will assume that Pro photographers use FF for portrait. But who knows, maybe one does not need a portrait lens in the future anymore, all the hokeh is done by software....

So, while indeed most people never go beyond kit, if one does start to go beyond kit, the M - line is rather limiting, too limiting I think, since it has to compete with m4/3 etc.


----------



## SteveCheetham (Oct 5, 2018)

I don't understand the apparent obsession that the M series is dead, and the R is a replacement for it. They are aimed at completely different markets and different price points. The M series is small and relatively inexpensive. The R we see now and the potential future models are aimed at quality output without too much concern about size or price.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> *The main thing I'm not happy about the M5/M50 is the size of the green AF square*, in that I can't make it small enough to make autofocus as precisely as I want. Generally speaking, I just prefer the rebel/xxD interface to the EOS M. Otherwise, I would have bought one quite a while ago (despite this, I have almost purchased an M5 many times)



With the M50 (do not have M5) you can choose a smaller AF region for single shot AF which has helped a lot if I needed a special "point" in focus.
Menu: Shooting (red) -> Sub-Tab 6 -> AF frame size -> Small
But maybe you have found it and you need "Extra small" 

This does not work with SERVO AF and is critical if you have low contrast in the part of the image which should be in focus but this is a natural limitation.
It works much better than the PD-AF of SLRs where the AF sensor "points" are substantially larger than the AF indicators in the viewfinder.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Oct 5, 2018)

SteveCheetham said:


> I don't understand the apparent obsession that the M series is dead, and the R is a replacement for it. They are aimed at completely different markets and different price points. The M series is small and relatively inexpensive. The R we see now and the potential future models are aimed at quality output without too much concern about size or price.



Exactly. I haven't heard too many photographers lament the shortcomings of EF-S lenses and the Rebel DSLR cameras for not holding up to the quality of the EF lenses and 5D/1D DSLR cameras - why should EOS M and EOS R be any different? One market is consumer, one market is prosumer. Canon is likely keen to replace the Rebel DSLR line with the EOS M models due to fewer mechanical parts required in the assembly of mirrorless cameras (significant manufacturing and warranty service cost savings). I have a feeling EOS M is here to stay as it always was intended to appeal to mass market consumers. And until smartphones have telephoto lenses capable of reaching around 200-300mm FoV, EOS M cameras and their modest aperture kit lenses will continue to fly off the shelves.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Most EOS M purchasers are new to Canon and most get no further than the bundled standard zoom lens.



I think this is only a part of EOS M / EF-M buyers. A significant proportion of EOS M series cameras and even more so EF-M lenses were and are being bought by existing Canon [DSLR] customers, often as a relatively inexpensive, smaller/lighter, second kit or as outright replacement to downsize, especially aging folks with back/health issues and frequent travellers. 

My EOS 5D 3 has collected 5k shutter actuations, whereas my EOS M (1st gen) has 50k. It has accompanied me on numerous city trips, vacations, weekend excursions, climbed many mountains with me and was along on many ski slopes and backcountry randonnee tours in winter. With 18-55 kit zoom it fits into a small LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch mounted on left backpack chest strap with immediate access. Or it comes in a small bag with any combination of 18-55, 22/2.0, 11-22, 55-200. Size is king. Best camera is the one you carry along. And it is very inconspicuous. Could take it to so many concerts and other venues where DSLRs would not have been allowed. 

There simply is no equally compact camera/lens combo with better (stills) functionality and IQ available today than a Canon EOS M50 with EF-M 22/2.0. Not even to mention more affordable. "Fully competitive".


----------



## Stichus III (Oct 5, 2018)

photonius said:


> That's not the way it's working. On FF you have tons of EF lenses to choose from to cover all needs. On the Rebels/Crop cameras, you have only a limited selection of EF-S lenses. I choose deliberately only crop cameras due to weight/size. I am happy with the EF-S lenses. But I also do have a few EF lenses that do not exist in EF-S. To me, the EOS-M system is too limited in its lens choice. But I have no interest at all to buy a FF (e.g. RF) line (this refers to some point in the future, when EF and EF-S is gone, and purchasing that is no option). At present I am happy with my EF-S/EF mix of lenses and crop body. EOS-M can't do that.



The argument that the EOS M system has no future as it is too limited in its lens choice, does not make any sense. This as Canon can and will release new lenses in the future. In other words, just because the EOS M lenses are limited now, does mean it will remain this way in the future. 

And to emphasize my point, if we follow your (faulty) logic, the RF mount also has no future as there are even less RF lenses available. 

Anyway, just like EF lenses can be adapted to work on the RF mount (which at the moment will be a must for EOS R users), both EF and EF-S lenses can be adapted to work on the EOS M mount.

Let's hope that Canon will release many RF and EOS M lenses in the near future, so that there will be less of a need to use adapted lenses.

In any event, the future of the EOS M line will depend on its sales figures, which at the moment seem pretty good for the limited attention Canon has given this line of cameras.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

photonius said:


> So, while indeed most people never go beyond kit, if one does start to go beyond kit, the M - line is rather limiting, too limiting I think, since it has to compete with m4/3 etc.



I fail to see that. Yes there are many mFT. More than half of them have no AF, so to me of no interest at all. And all mFT lenses come with 1 stop disadvantage vs. EF-M. Equivalent (1 stop faster) mFT lenses are typically larger and far more expensive than EF-M.

Just some examples: 
EF-M 22/2.0 is equivalent to mFt 17/1.4, which is not available. Even the Oly 17/1.8 is twice as expensive as the EF-M 22/2.0. Not even to mention the Oly 17/1.2 which is a mind-boggling 1400 € for a quarter-sensor crop lens 
EF-M 28/3.5 IS STM Macro -> mFT Pana Leica 45/2.8 Macro at € 600+ 
EF-M 32/1.4 -> mFT Oly 25/1.2 costs way north of a grand ... plus mind-boggling size/weight for a quarter-sensor crop lens

I really fail to see I see why anybody starting out today would chose mFT over Canon EOS M/ EF-M system.


----------



## mensaf (Oct 5, 2018)

I'll be grabbing the M5 MKII and passing on everything else. The only gripe I have with the M50 is the lack of weathersealing, otherwise it has been my main workhorse. Considering the price of both bodies and lenses, I bet Canon would be more concerned with that line cannibalizing their full frame mirrorless sales.


----------



## edbahkpark (Oct 5, 2018)

I'm late to the thread so sorry if I haven't read everything. But if I were to guess I would think that the M mount will be Canon's apsc line moving forward, and I bet sometime in the future there will be a way to adapt M to R and vice versa. It only makes sense to me since DSLR's really are going the way of the dinasaur....which is sad to me because I love DSLRs.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 5, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R (in same way we've have the 1XXXD's sitting alongside 5Ds etc previously). Why would anyone invest in an M system where there's no sideways movement either across to the EF mount SLRs or upwards to the RF family moving forward? The M line up is pretty modest so assumed they'd just release a budget R and quietly retire the M completely.
> 
> I'd always just assumed the M was a little experiment into the mirrorless world and they'd taken what they'd learned and put that into the R. Am I missing something?



I see a life, for a while at least, for the M series. It could actually replace the G1 series cameras. More versatile. Right now there is a $100 difference. I would go M over G any day of the week for versatility. I can if desired use the EF/EFs lenses on it if I want to get more creative over the 18-150 lens which is more range than the G camera.


----------



## maniacalrobot (Oct 5, 2018)

Seems obvious to me, EOS-M is for hobby/prosumer and APS-C, EOS-R is for Professional and full frame. These two lines will run side-by-side for a long time, and I expect these will be here for a long time after canon stops making DSLRs, there might be a 90D, but why make this if the M5/6 is basically the same camera? 

XXXXD, XXXD, and XD will be replaced by future EOS-M cameras. XD will be replaced by EOS-R.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 5, 2018)

photonius said:


> Exactly, who says that someone who wants a small light system does not want some more "advanced" lenses? After all, if you look at m4/3, they have a much larger lens line-up than EOS-M, and I presume people buy all these lenses. Or maybe Canon wants me to switch to m4/3 or Fuji?
> 
> Anyway, specifically - at present with EF-S, I have 10-250 covered with kit lenses, so a bit more reach, and more then 5 degrees wider angle of view at the UWA end. Yes, maybe Canon will update the lenses at some point to increase that, but I don't count on it.
> The macro, EF-S is a 60mm lens, giving a good working distance of 9cm. If I need more working distance, I could get an EF 100mm macro. The EOS-M 28mm macro gives me only a ridiculous 18mm working distance at 1:1. Ok, it's a fun little lens, but I'd put it in the gadget category, when one wants to make "wide angle" macros. Well, maybe Canon will release a longer macro for EOS-M in the future, but I don't count on it.
> ...



Thanks for your detailed explanation of your needs, that can be summarized to wide, macro and tele use-cases. And you believe that the "native" M lenses are too limited for those scenarios.
Why in your argument you are limiting your lens selection to native M lenses only? Have you found any disadvantage of using Canon lenses via Canon's EF/EF-S to M adapter in terms of picture quality or AF speed? OK, adapters make it a bit bulky, but Canon's adapter is only 150g and less than an inch thick. 
M does not need to compete with mFT or any other system, per se, from lens availability perspective. It has its own eco system. It has enough native and adapted lenses at attractive price point to choose from. That is the reason for it's ever growing user pool and popularity.


----------



## maniacalrobot (Oct 5, 2018)

might also be worth pointing out that i've started to see some shops running out/low on EOS-M6 bodies, so I'd expect this to be in the running for a mkII soon. And if you're doing the M6, might as well update the M5 at the same time.


----------



## Talys (Oct 5, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> With the M50 (do not have M5) you can choose a smaller AF region for single shot AF which has helped a lot if I needed a special "point" in focus.
> Menu: Shooting (red) -> Sub-Tab 6 -> AF frame size -> Small
> But maybe you have found it and you need "Extra small"
> 
> ...


Thanks -- I wonder why it wouldn't be in be in continuous autofocus  I would never have found it, because I am rarely in one-shot (and I don't own a M50, though I do use a friend's here and there).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> I think this is only a part of EOS M / EF-M buyers. A significant proportion of EOS M series cameras and even more so EF-M lenses were and are being bought by existing Canon [DSLR] customers, often as a relatively inexpensive, smaller/lighter, second kit or as outright replacement to downsize, especially aging folks with back/health issues and frequent travellers.


As usual, the assumption that you represent ‘a significant proportion’ of any market segment is one of the common threads that unites your multiple accounts (AvTvM/fullstop/mirage). Unlike you or me, Canon has actual data on this.


----------



## RGF (Oct 5, 2018)

Don't understand the reason for having both the M and R mirrrorless cameras - unless the M is the crop version. Maintaining two lines will dilute resources - Rather see canon update the current line of EOS cameras sooner - both the 7D M2 and 5D M4 are long in the tooth. Rumors are that Nikon will introduce a D6 this winter - will can match them?


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

and the usual Neuro ad hominem attacks with no contribution to topic.

Reported.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> and the usual Neuro ad hominem attacks with no contribution to topic.
> 
> Reported.


An ‘attack’? Overreact much?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 5, 2018)

SimonW said:


> Surprised to hear rumours of new M cameras in the pipeline. Struggling to understand why they wouldn't just release a budget R...



They just released the budget R.


----------



## photonius (Oct 5, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Thanks for your detailed explanation of your needs, that can be summarized to wide, macro and tele use-cases. And you believe that the "native" M lenses are too limited for those scenarios.
> Why in your argument you are limiting your lens selection to native M lenses only? Have you found any disadvantage of using Canon lenses via Canon's EF/EF-S to M adapter in terms of picture quality or AF speed? OK, adapters make it a bit bulky, but Canon's adapter is only 150g and less than an inch thick.
> M does not need to compete with mFT or any other system, per se, from lens availability perspective. It has its own eco system. It has enough native and adapted lenses at attractive price point to choose from. That is the reason for it's ever growing user pool and popularity.



As I specifically mentioned previously, I'm talking about the future, when all is mirror-less. Now I'm indeed fine with EF-S/EF on dSLR.


----------



## photonius (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> I fail to see that. Yes there are many mFT. More than half of them have no AF, so to me of no interest at all. And all mFT lenses come with 1 stop disadvantage vs. EF-M. Equivalent (1 stop faster) mFT lenses are typically larger and far more expensive than EF-M.
> 
> Just some examples:
> EF-M 22/2.0 is equivalent to mFt 17/1.4, which is not available. Even the Oly 17/1.8 is twice as expensive as the EF-M 22/2.0. Not even to mention the Oly 17/1.2 which is a mind-boggling 1400 € for a quarter-sensor crop lens
> ...



I agree that Olympus is expensive, and that's why Canon EF-S is attractive. 
But the discussion is about the future, long term viability of the two mounts, when all is mirror-less, and dSLRs are gone.
I think we all agree that in the future all EF lenses will eventually be RF lenses. 
But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility. At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.). Nowadays you still can adapt EF/EF-S lenses, so you still have a wide lens choice. But in the future EF/EF-S will be obsolete. 
So, what is Canon to do? 
Yes, they can increase the EOS-M lens line-up. But to maintain two complete lens line-ups (RF and M) does not make sense. With EF and EF-S Canon can make a choice only to produce EF-S lenses specially suitable for crop bodies, the rest is covered with EF lenses, so crop body owners have an even larger lens selection than FF owners.
With EOS-M expanding your system with RF is not possible. So, to compete with full fledged systems a la m4/3,Canon would have to offer a lot more EOS-M lenses (I am not considering manual focus lenses), for example, an EOS-M 100-400 to compete with an Olympus 100-400. (Here we ignore the price issue, but I think Panasonic would be a cheaper m4/3 competition - all the arcane f-stop discussion, most customers don't care about that, as long as you get the right focal lengths for the right price/size/weight. And if you want portrait, you buy your f1.4 or whatever lens, and don't care if system zy has 1 stop better DOF than system xzy because of sensor differences, if you care for such things you most likely buy a FF system anyway). When buying a new system people do consider the possibilities and options they have for expansion even though they might never buy an extra lens. But as mentioned, expanding the EOS-M lens line-up means producing two different lens line-ups, for RF and M, the size of the M-lens line-up determining its competitiveness. 
So, should Canon struggle to maintain two lens line-ups, or ditch M and make compact RF crop bodies?
The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old. 
Thus, it is not an unlikely scenario that at some distant future point, M will be retired, and all with the RF/RF-S. 

If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts,
and Canon would loose me as customer. But as mentioned, at present I am still very happy with my Canon crop body and EF-S and EF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2018)

photonius said:


> The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old.
> 
> If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts, and Canon would loose me as customer.



The M is new compared to EF. Standard EF lenses have 7 contacts on the mount (there are 3 more for TCs). EF-M lenses have 9 contacts on the mount. That certainly implies expanded communication capabilities relative to EF (although less than the RF lenses' 12 contacts). 

As has been explained ad infinitum, Canon doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. Like you, I thought Canon would make new FF MILC lenses compatible with EOS M bodies to facilitate an upgrade path similar to DSLRs. But Canon has hard data on the proportion of APS-C to FF DSLR upgraders who owned EF lenses prior to getting a FF body (and which lenses they owned), and presumably that proportion was not significant enough to drive the RF design decisions.


----------



## KristinnKr (Oct 6, 2018)

photonius said:


> But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility. At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.).



Now you are addressing an argument that the earlier poster didn't make, by saying that Canon M doesn't have an upgrade path and therefore isn't viable. But Canon M in this regard is equivalent to m43 and Fuji X. Your second argument is that m43 and Fuji X give you more options than Canon M. This is true, but to the majority of customers this is irrelevant. Right out of bat the majority of people that buy a m43/Fuji X/Canon M (60%? 70%? 80%?) are typical Rebel buyers, they buy the camera in the believe that the product they are buying (camera + kit lens) is complete is a sense, and will in that form allow them to take superior photos compared to phone cameras. The fact that the lens is detachable is almost irrelevant, and their appetite for extra lenses will never test the limit of Canon M. As such the large lens portfolio of m43 and Fuji X nets them no advantage in the eyes of these customers.

The second largest consumer base is going to be people that are serious or moderately serious about photography, and buy into the m43/Fuji X/Canon M system as a small and light second system. As such neither this second group will need a very great variety of lenses, the current offerings of 11-22mm, 22mm f2, 32mm f1.4, macro lens, 55-200mm telezoom as well as the small and light kit lens will satisfy the vast majority of these second-system buyers. Possibly they could desire a lens such as the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4 that is ~1 stop faster than a kit lens without being large and heavy.

So in summary, while Canon M might not be suitable as a primary system of an enthusiast or professional, it's perfectly adequate for either casual photographers and second-system buyers, that together make up the vast majority of the small-and-light buyers. Meanwhile Canon M carries much more value for money and more reasonable sizes when compared at equivalent aperture (which determines not only depth-of-field, but more importantly total light gathering) to m43 and Fuji X.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 6, 2018)

KristinnKr said:


> ....
> So in summary, while Canon M might not be suitable as a primary system of an enthusiast or professional, it's perfectly adequate for either casual photographers and second-system buyers, that together make up the vast majority of the small-and-light buyers.



You make a lot of good points, but as is usually the case on forums such as this one, you can't seem to grasp that a person can be a high-level enthusiast - and even sell photos - without having a dozen lenses or more. The M lenses cover all the bases save one - no superzooms. And due to the small size, it is unlikely that we will see one in that category as the camera will be way too lens heavy with one attached Not every enthusiast or even professional needs really fast lenses or a wide DOF (depends on what they shoot, of course). The M lenses cover all the bases - and with very good quality (I would say the best IQ for the price). The wide angle zoom (11-22mm) delivers - in my opinion - better IQ than the FF wide angle L lens. So perfectly adequate for many high-level enthusiasts


----------



## nchoh (Oct 6, 2018)

photonius said:


> I agree that Olympus is expensive, and that's why Canon EF-S is attractive.
> But the discussion is about the future, long term viability of the two mounts, when all is mirror-less, and dSLRs are gone.
> I think we all agree that in the future all EF lenses will eventually be RF lenses.


Nope. Not at all.



photonius said:


> But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility.


Not at all. Different strokes for different folks. I have a T6i with a couple of additional lenses like the Sigma 16-36, EF-S 55-250 and the EF 400 f4. If I could justify it, I would by a EOS M camera and a couple of lenses so that I would have a smaller lighter package when I hike. I don't care about the upgrade path. I care about the shooting experience that staying with Canon allows me to have.



photonius said:


> At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.). Nowadays you still can adapt EF/EF-S lenses, so you still have a wide lens choice. But in the future EF/EF-S will be obsolete.


EF/EF-S will not be obsolete as long as you have the adaptor.



photonius said:


> Yes, they can increase the EOS-M lens line-up. But to maintain two complete lens line-ups (RF and M) does not make sense.


Really? If Canon is making money selling to 2 lines, why does it not make sense? You are not making sense.



photonius said:


> With EOS-M expanding your system with RF is not possible. So, to compete with full fledged systems a la m4/3,Canon would have to offer a lot more EOS-M lenses (I am not considering manual focus lenses), for example, an EOS-M 100-400 to compete with an Olympus 100-400. (Here we ignore the price issue, but I think Panasonic would be a cheaper m4/3 competition - all the arcane f-stop discussion, most customers don't care about that, as long as you get the right focal lengths for the right price/size/weight. And if you want portrait, you buy your f1.4 or whatever lens, and don't care if system zy has 1 stop better DOF than system xzy because of sensor differences, if you care for such things you most likely buy a FF system anyway). When buying a new system people do consider the possibilities and options they have for expansion even though they might never buy an extra lens. But as mentioned, expanding the EOS-M lens line-up means producing two different lens line-ups, for RF and M, the size of the M-lens line-up determining its competitiveness.
> So, should Canon struggle to maintain two lens line-ups, or ditch M and make compact RF crop bodies?


Canon is struggling to maintain two lens line-ups? Really? You know this how?



photonius said:


> The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old.
> Thus, it is not an unlikely scenario that at some distant future point, M will be retired, and all with the RF/RF-S.


The RF mount is newer than the M mount. And your point is???



photonius said:


> If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts, and Canon would loose me as customer. But as mentioned, at present I am still very happy with my Canon crop body and EF-S and EF lenses.


Good to know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2018)

nchoh said:


> > So, should Canon struggle to maintain two lens line-ups, or ditch M and make compact RF crop bodies?
> 
> 
> Canon is struggling to maintain two lens line-ups? Really? You know this how?


It's obvious they're struggling to maintain just two lines...because they're currently maintaining 6 lens lineups.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> Personally, I'd buy 1 more EF-M lens: an "as compact as possible", moderately fast, short tele prime. Something like an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM which I'd use as a 135mm FF equivalent "headshot and concert lens".



Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?


----------



## zim (Oct 7, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?


without a manual focus ring of course, I think neuro let the cat out the bag on this one. maybe the more alternate personas you have the more influence you have with Canon. but give the guy a break he's on a crusade to save photographers from themselves we should be having a whip round for a statue.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> Thanks -- I wonder why it wouldn't be in be in continuous autofocus  I would never have found it, because I am rarely in one-shot (and I don't own a M50, though I do use a friend's here and there).



IMO it has to do with the fact that DPAF is a full sensor implementation of a Split Image Focusing Aid (if you do not know it: well described from 0:40 in the video on the following webpage: https://petapixel.com/2013/01/02/a-demo-of-split-screen-and-microprism-ring-focusing-in-old-slrs/ )

Just think about the length of the split image indicator as the size of the AF point or better region. If you have a camera with a tiny split image indicator you can do the focusing on a smaller area BUT you have less detail to compare and you loose time - but SERVO isn't about loosing time but being fast.

I would like to have much more options in the menus and maybe SERVO would work under optimum circumstances but the M50 is more or less targeted on beginners and less experienced photographers so maybe they omitted that feature because many would see it as a not really working feature under average circumstances. I would like to see Canon enabling a "hackers" mode switched on or off in the menu for whose who like to configure much more but then they were in a competition with ... ML


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 7, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?



I would prefer 50 / 1.4 IS and 85 / 2.0 IS as tele construction (pos. front group, neg. back group) to save size, weight and have enough elements to do the corrections. Because I would like to have the choice for THE single prime for walk around use. All with close focus capabilities like the EF-M 1.4 32mm

*22 - 32 - 50 - 85*
* 1.45x 1.55x 1.7x*

makes a nicely sorted row of focal lengths for (1) lens trio users and (2) those who select one lens fulfilling their need. But realistically I see the 50mm happen with 1.8 and NO IS and an EF-M 85 might have a to small customer base to be developed/produced.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2018)

LDS said:


> Moreover, some *most* people are not interested in an upgrade path at all.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> your multiple accounts (AvTvM/fullstop/mirage).



I wondered if that's who it was


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Then I'm sure you'll be happy to allow me to have my own opinion. Thanks.



Lol. Your earlier point was:



DaveGrice said:


> I'm failing to see a strong audience for the M.



To paraphrase a current adage, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. There *is* a strong audience for the M series, as they sell well. Unless the audience to which you refer has to be in your head? It doesn't appeal to you, nor to plenty of us, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I wondered if that's who it was


Yeah. His first couple of posts with that account seemed like he was trying to be sensible and logical, but that turned out to be a ... mirage.


----------



## snegri45 (Oct 7, 2018)

I lived professionally (weddings, events, portraits, portfolios) off Digital Rebels (from 6 Mp to 18 Mp) from 2003 to 2012. Then I went FF with various generations of 5D (III, IV, SR). From my film days I had a lot of L lenses; today I have ten great whites plus six other Ls and five 1.4 Sigma Arts. So I believe I can offer my customers just about the maximum image quality it is possible to extract from today's DSLRs without going to medium format.

Longer ago than I like to admit, by accident I was in the right place at the right time with two (film) Leica CLs and six lenses. Grabbing the CL with B&W film I ran through a roll. The next day my photos ran full page on the front pages of both NYC tabloids. It is my only claim to photo-journalistic fame, but I still always carry a basic kit, hoping that lightning will strike twice. That kit was a Rebel T3i (stupidly with battery grip!), three kit zooms, and the plastic fantastic nifty fifty. But as I got older the outfit seemed to get bigger and heavier, and I started to hear the siren song of the Sony NEX. A quick visit to B&H showed me that the comparable lenses were no smaller or lighter, plus a Sony kit comparable to mine would set me back about four grand. I bought a Rebel SL1 instead, since replaced by an SL2. Smaller body, but still the same lenses.

When the M series was introduced I was mildly interested, but real photographers don't hold their cameras at arms length; the lack of an EVF was a deal breaker, even when you could get one as an accessory. The M5 changed my mind; I got one (with 11-22, 18-55, 55-200, 22f/2, and an adapter, mostly for the 50/1.8) and I must say I like it a lot. I also just acquired the 32/1.4 and that is one impressive piece of glass, 14 elements in 8 groups, that is 2 more elements than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4, which is considered the best non-AF normal lens there is. It is also one more element than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which seems to be regarded as the best AF normal lens. Disclaimer: I know very well that more elements does not automatically imply higher IQ, but it does give the lens designer more options to improve quality.

Some observations:

- Two macros aside, there is only ONE EF-S prime lens, the 24mm f/2.8, which is a rather pedestrian design and seems to be largely a scaled down version of the EF 40mm f/2.8. Over 15 years of EF-S lenses, that is it!

- One macro aside, after 6 1/2 years there are already two EF-M prime lenses.

- The EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is likely the most ambitious lens Canon has ever made for their APS-C format cameras. That seems to indicate a significant commitment to the M system.

- The Sony NEX/A6x00 have been relatively successful in the marketplace. This has likely not escaped Canon's attention.

Some speculations:

- I suspect there is a market out there for a small ILC which in addition to three kit zooms can offer some high grade small and light prime lenses.

- The M range is comprehensive enough to likely appeal to both phone snappers stepping up as well as more seasoned photogs wanting/needing a small and light yet high quality system (that is guys like me.)

And finally a bit of a wish list:

- 50mm in APS-C makes an excellent portrait lens. I think it is optically feasible to make an EF-M 50mm f/1.4 fit into the current form factor. If not, I would settle for f/1.8 or f/2.0.

- And then an 85mm, which of course is equivalent to a 135mm on FF. Again, it could possibly be f/2.0 without getting overly large and heavy. As suggested in an earlier post, f/2.4 would be Plan B. Finally, there really wouldn't be anything wrong even with f/2.8. 135mm f/2.8 lenses were pretty common in FF days.

That's my position, and I am sticking to it!


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah. His first couple of posts with that account seemed like he was trying to be sensible and logical, but that turned out to be a ... mirage.



It was the 85mm f/2.4 lens that stuck out like a sore thumb, as others have mentioned above. That'll never not be odd.


----------



## snegri45 (Oct 7, 2018)

Oh, a couple of additional thoughts:

An EF-M 15mm f/2.0 or better would also be nice, but I would be willing to settle for f/2.8.

If an RF-S surfaces, which I think is a mighty big IF, existing M lenses can not be adapted. But, given the geometric similarities (primarily back focus) between the two ML mounts, there is no engineering reason why future mirrorless lenses cannot be made in both mounts. A really elegant solution would be to make only one lens with its mount (call it, say, an XF mount) some distance (say 10-15mm) forward of its theoretical current mount surface. Then the lens could be offered with either an EF-M or an RF-S adapter, or both. Such an adapter would of course only be a mechanical tube with two mounting surfaces and two sets of electrical contacts. Voila!

Now I will admit that this is hardly a revolutionary insight; as a matter of fact it is not even new. Those of us who go back to the Canon FL mount (hey, anyone else out there?) may remember the Tamron Adapt-All mounting system. One lens, using adapters that would accommodate different back focus distances as well as different native mount diameters and mechanical couplings. Admittedly things were a lot simpler in those days, but here we would only consider the Canon ecosystem which of course is fully understood by the Canon designers.

I am also going to go a little bit further out on a limb here. Sigma offers what they call mount conversion service. They don't say much about it on their website, but I have some thoughts. All my five f/1.4 Art lenses seem to have a metallic ring or tube, about 12 mm long, forward of, but separate from the mounting surface. I am not about to disassemble any of them, but I suspect that this tube detaches easily and that there is a quick disconnect electric/electronic connector as well. Then grab a different mounting tube, connect its connector and attach the new tube. You have the same lens ready for another system. This does of course require Sigma to have licensed or reverse engineered the electronic interface for the new system. But I do suspect that Sigma has some pretty darn clever engineers in their organization.


----------



## mirage (Oct 8, 2018)

snegri45 said:


> - And then an 85mm, which of course is equivalent to a 135mm on FF. Again, it could possibly be f/2.0 without getting overly large and heavy. As suggested in an earlier post, f/2.4 would be Plan B. Finally, there really wouldn't be anything wrong even with f/2.8. 135mm f/2.8 lenses were pretty common in FF days.



thanks for confirming that i am not the only one asking for a short tele prime for EOS M system.

not sure what focal length/ aperture is possible within EF-M lens size (61.6mm max. diameter) and price range - 85/2.4 IS STM is just a "guess on the modest side". But I'd just as well take an EF-M 75/1.8 or 80/2.0 or 100/2.8 IS STM or anything in that ballpark.

my desire for an EF-M 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 is not so great/urgent, since EF 50/1.8 STM is compact even with adapter, dirt cheap and AF works well and silently on EOS M bodies thanks to STM / focus by wire.

but beyond 50mm focal length there are no real alternatives. EF 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 don't have STM and are "on the large side" when adapted to a EOS M body. EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 55-200 both are only f/5.6 at 85mm focal length and out - which is very slow and also leaves only 1 stop to stop down (f/8), since f/11 is already well into "diffraction-induced IQ loss territory" on 24MP APS-C sensor.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 8, 2018)

With the EOS R announcement - the users can still buy into the Canon or Fuji system for Aps but buying the bare minimum EF-M glass and some EF glass. Once they want to upgrade can still use the EF-M bodies for APS / Crop work, e.g., telephoto and then buy an EOS R for FF assignments / work and use EF-R and EF glass (excluding EF-M)

Not a bad decision by Canon - in one way clear on Canon's Mirrorless approach compared to Nikon on why no APS Mirrorless system exist at the current time or wasn't developed instead of Nikon 1.


----------



## mirage (Oct 8, 2018)

as users migrate to Canon R and RF lenses, there will be a lot of hardly used, mint condition EF lenses available second hand for little money. Including STM lenses EF 40/2.8, EF 50/1.8 and Nano-USM 70-300 II - and they work very well on EOS-M bodies. ;-)


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 9, 2018)

Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.



definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 9, 2018)

mirage said:


> definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.



Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is *******


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is *******



So far, all EF-M lenses have 61.6 outer diameter and less than 90mm length. I hope Canon keeps it that way. EF-M lens lineup is excellent. 
People wanting "fast" glass shall buy EF or RF, since size, weight and price are obviously not their priorities. EF 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II deliver excellent IQ on any EOS M body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is *******


I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M. But I suspect the price would exceed US$500, which might be a strategic no-go for Canon. Perhaps if the M32/1.4 sells well, that will suggest to Canon a market appetite for a fast standard zoom.


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M.



to me it looks "very optimistic". Closest existing lens in the range with short FFD mount is Fuji XF 18-55/2.8*-4.0* ... 65mm diameter x 78.4mm length, 58mm filter thread. Not sure an EF-M 17/18-50/55mm f/2.8 would be possible with only a 58mm filter ... without 5 stops vignetting. 

Price? Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 retails around € 750 [Fuji e*X*pensive ], Tammy 17-50 (non-VC) is € 250, Sigma 17-50 is € 310, Tammy 17-50 VC at € 375. 

Canon EF-S 17-55 is also around € 750. I think it sold decently in the beginning with xxD and 7D buyers, before many of enthusiasts/amateurs moved to FF [5D/II, 6D and successors]. For typical Rebel and EOS M customers € 750 seems way beyond ambition and budget. And those who want EOS M as secondary, small & light set are also not very likely to buy a f/2.8 EF-M zoom.

In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2018)

mirage said:


> as users migrate to Canon R and RF lenses, there will be a lot of hardly used, mint condition EF lenses available second hand for little money.


I think one of your other personalities (fullstop?) said this exact same thing.


----------



## jschoonj (Oct 9, 2018)

If Canon does a good job on video for these new camera's (I just want a better codec with higher bitrates & sharper image in 1080, don't need 4K), and hopefully IBIS I'll definitely upgrade my M6 that I only bought in in March of this year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2018)

mirage said:


> In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.


Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?


----------



## Rocky (Oct 9, 2018)

15-45 seems to be a more versatile range than the 17 to 55. If Canon makes a 15-45 2.8 with metal mount and picture quality of 22 2.0, I will pay $500 for it. I am not too concern about the weight and size of the lens.


----------



## KristinnKr (Oct 9, 2018)

It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter. And Canon seem to be really committed to that particular design decision for the M system. Besides, Canon is very clearly positioning the M system as a small-and-light, non-premium offering, and would much rather you'd buy a Canon R with a 24-70/105mm f4 than a Canon Mx with a 17-50mm f2.8.

That being said, I think a f2.8-4 standard zoom isn't out of the question. As noted above, the Fuji lens is only ~3mm away from being thin enough, and with a deliberate design decision it could probably easily be trimmed off. Being a variable aperture lens and a stop slower on the long end it's much less of a threat to full frame sales, while still offering more than a full stop better performance than the kit lens. There have even been a few patents for lenses in this ballpark. I'd give it a 50-50 of happening.


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?



no. Never thought Canon would go f/1.4. Expected f/1.8 would be "the max." for EF-M.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 9, 2018)

EF-M 32 f/1.4
EF-M 53 f/1.8 IS
EF-M 63 f/2.8 IS Macro
*EF-M 17-50 f/4.0 IS*


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

brad-man said:


> EF-M 17-50 f/4.0 IS



motion seconded! 

but EF-M 15-85/4.0 IS STM preferred, if it were f/4.0


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 9, 2018)

mirage said:


> definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.



Does not make sense.

I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?


----------



## mirage (Oct 9, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> Does not make sense.
> I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?



yes: if size/weight/cost are lower priorities, then EOS R + RF 24-105.
no: if size/weight/price are high priority, then M50 [or M5 Mk. II] with EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 [if you can still get one somewhere; it is better than current 15-45 ]


----------



## dkangel (Oct 9, 2018)

EOS-M is not going anywhere. It has its place and it is becoming more and more popular as they progress.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2018)

KristinnKr said:


> It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter.


I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 10, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> Does not make sense.
> 
> I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?



No, I think the answer is you'll have to wait and see what future mirrorless cameras will be offered - if mirrorless is what you areooking for. If you are looking for a DSLR replacement, and you want crop, then wait to see if and when there is a 90D. We have no idea what future R cameras are coming - and if some of them might be crop.

The M system is for people looking for a compact APS-C crop camera. This may or may not quality as "for real" in your and other people's minds, but it is what it is and many others find it ideal.


----------



## mirage (Oct 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.



is short end the real limitation? should not 15-19mm at f/2.8 all be possible with a 58 filter thread, 61.6mm diameter and 18mm FFD? what about long end - 45mm vs 50 or 55 or 60? "mathematically" no issue, but in real life? without 4+ stops large corner vignetting? 

15-45/2.8 might more easily fit external EF-M size parameters than a 19-50/2.8 ? 

and then there is "usefulness". If the only choice were like this, i'd take a EF-M 15-75/85 f/4.0 any day over either a 15-45/2.8 or 19-50/2.8.

there is some choice already at wide-angle to "normal FOV" FLs in EF-M lineup. but beyond 32mm there is only f/3.5-5.6 and from 55mm onwards f/5.6-6.3 with EF-M 55-200, and 18-150. there are also no "small" EF/EF-S lenses to fill the gap via adapter beyond 50/1.8 STM and 60/2.8 Macro.

That's why i would favor "long end" in a "somewhat faster", fixed aperture f/4 EF-M zoom if f/2.8 is not feasible within size/price limits.

Not sure, how majority of potential buyers and Canon view it. Likely both will go for an 18-200/3.5-6.9 "super-zoom" - but it would "cannibalize" 18-150 sales.


----------



## mirage (Oct 10, 2018)

i am also a bit surprised that with all the pining for "4k video in every camera", including the most compact EOS M models, there is hardly any clamouring for fixed aperture zooms by the same folks? 

Wouldn't fixed f/4.0 zooms (if f/2.8 not possible) be high on the wish list of all "video" users? But all i see them clamoring for is "uncropped 4k/60, served with zebras and fancy codecs" ... suitable lenses seem largely irrelevant to the "4k in every camera videots".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2018)

mirage said:


> is short end the real limitation? should not 15-19mm at f/2.8 all be possible with a 58 filter thread, 61.6mm diameter and 18mm FFD? what about long end - 45mm vs 50 or 55 or 60? "mathematically" no issue, but in real life? without 4+ stops large corner vignetting?


If the short end is too short, that means a more retrofocal design and retrofocal + wide aperture = big lens. 35/1.4 for EF is retrofocal, 32/1.4 for EF-M is not.


----------



## mirage (Oct 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the short end is too short, that means a more retrofocal design and retrofocal + wide aperture = big lens. 35/1.4 for EF is retrofocal, 32/1.4 for EF-M is not.



yes. 35mm on 44mm FFD is "a problem". 32mm lens on 18mm FFD mount is comparatively easy. 

Question is: at what wide FL would retrofocal design be absolutely necessary on EF-M mount (18mm FFD)? 
16mm still possible without? Or alternatively achievable by rear element protruding 2mm [or so] behind flange?

Looking at Fujifilm, f/2.8 is definitely "a challenge" ... 
* XF 16-55/2.8 is 83.3 D x 106mm L, 655g, 77mm filter, € 1150 
* XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 is 65 D x 70.4mm L, 310g, 58mm filter, € 750; 

so yes, the compact lens starts at 18mm [not 16], but aperture goes from f/2.8 at 18mm quickly to f/3.2 @24mm, f/3.6 @35mm and f/4.0 @55mm. From that I conclude, that long end is more of a problem with compact size and 58mm filter thread. Otherwise Fuji would have probably made it constant f/2.8 ... or is it just done to "protect sales" of the more expensive 16-50/2.8 ?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 11, 2018)

mirage said:


> motion seconded!
> 
> but EF-M 15-85/4.0 IS STM preferred, if it were f/4.0


For someone who's been advocating for compact and inexpensive lenses, you certainly seem to be going in the other direction. I want an EF-M 17-50 roughly equal to the EF 24-70 f/4L IS. I don't think I'm greedy...


----------



## mirage (Oct 11, 2018)

hmm, 15-85/4 might be pushing things, but hopefully less so than a f/2.8 16-50. 

and yes, i want both, a constant f/4 wide-standard zoom within EF-M lens size standards and at an affordable price as "general walkabout lens" AND a few very compact, "moderately fast" EF-M primes for "specific tasks and situations".

Especially when i cannot get there by adapting an existing, small EF/EF-S lens (EF-S 24, EF 40, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 60) that i already own and want to utilize until i can consolidate all my gear to only one, "reasonably compact" FF system (R / RF ... provided there will be reasonable RF lenses some day as well as more compact bodies).

So currently for me 22/2.0 is "golden" whereas 28/3.5 and 32/1.4 are of less interest to me and a short tele around 85mm is totally missing.

re. affordable price: I'd be willing to pay for a Canon EF-M 15-85/*4* IS STM up to *twice the price* of Tamron 17-50/*2.8* (€ 250) ... 

if we are looking at "Fuji eXpensive" for crop lenses, i refuse - irrespective of IQ or build quality. north of € 500 i only consider lenses if they very capably serve FF image circle. straightforward decision rule. yes, i did make 1 exception: EF-S 17-55, because it had IS and FF was no option for me back then.


----------



## Sergio Smorovoz (Oct 17, 2018)

Hello colleagues.

This is a very interesting discussion.

For a long time I was a fan of DSLR cameras. Recently, the Canon G7X M2 and EOS M3 came into my hands. I was very surprised by their compactness and photo (video) quality.

I'm afraid we should accept this trend! The main thing is that the EF lenses remain working in new systems.


----------



## SaP34US (Oct 18, 2018)

How will the M6 mark II and M5 mark II be speced? What will be the differences be? M6 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8 
4k 30 fps 422 10 bit
1080p 60 fps maybe 120 fps
15 fps for stills
M5 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8
4k 60 fps 420 10 bit
1080p 120fps
20 fps


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 18, 2018)

SaP34US said:


> How will the M6 mark II and M5 mark II be speced? What will be the differences be? M6 mark II
> 24 MP
> Digic 8
> 4k 30 fps 422 10 bit
> ...



The main difference between the M5 and M6 is that the M5 has the built in EVF (in addition to the rear screen)... and it also has an extra dial. Whereas M6 just has the rear screen (no EVF, so the M6 is a smaller camera body).

I have a M5 (and a M10) - and I love the M5's ergonomics for it's size that is, it's pretty good (I prefer my 80D overall). 

These are exciting times... particularly because yes, the M50 (entry level, but latest EOS-M body) outspecs the M5. So I expect the M5ii to have some significant upgrades / updates. 

Cheers

PJ


----------



## john kriegsmann (Nov 8, 2018)

I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.


----------



## BillB (Nov 8, 2018)

john kriegsmann said:


> I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.


Your are right. The Canon M line is not for people who like to buy expensive lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2018)

john kriegsmann said:


> I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.


Yeah, the M line is just the most popular MILC line in the world, of course Canon doesn't care much about it. 

I mean, it's not as if you could easily adapt any lens in the EF lineup to work on an EOS M body, right? 

I can state with certainty one thing that Canon doesn't give a damn about is what _you personally_ think about the EOS M system.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 8, 2018)

john kriegsmann said:


> [..] and a cheap plastic lens mount.[..]


 Roger from lensrentals.com remarked in a teardown that the metal bajonet portion on most lenses screws into a plastic frame internally, so it only gives an illusion of strength. After reading that I've become less inclined to use "metal" as a marker for quality or perceived worth.
But all other things being equal, I'd pick a metal mount over a plastic one if given the choice


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 8, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> Roger from lensrentals.com remarked in a teardown that the metal bajonet portion on most lenses screws into a plastic frame internally, so it only gives an illusion of strength.



I’d not make any inferences about *strength* by looking at a tear down.

However, I would make assumptions about *hardness.*

A metal mount is likely less succeptical to damage than a plastic one regardless of the primary structure material. It is a wear surface, after all, and slides against the camera side of the mount (metal).


----------



## Rocky (Nov 8, 2018)

The strength of M system is, smaller, lighter, and cheaper, even compare to the XXD. I still have my 20D and 40D. As for the quality of lens, I call it “ passible”. For sure they are not “L” quality. But they are decent, unless you are a pixel peeper. The M system served me very well as travel cameras. I packed the M2 and M50 with the following lenses in an old Nova 3 bag: 22mm, 15-45mm,18-55mm, 11-22mm, 28-135mm with adapter, 270EX and a few odds and ends. I can never do that with any other system. The 28-135 works surprisingly well with the M50. Focusing is fast and resolution is almost as good as any other EF-M lenses. If you do a 75% shrink at pixel level (that becomes 12 M) you cannot tell the difference.


----------



## Sergio Smorovoz (Nov 8, 2018)

Rocky said:


> I still have my 20D and 40D.



A good choice! I modified the 20D for infrared shooting.



Rocky said:


> I can never do that with any other system. The 28-135 works surprisingly well with the M50.



"MF peaking settings" make it easy to use manual focus lenses. It is excellent! No longer need Magic Lantern.


----------



## scottsworld (Jun 12, 2019)

I am in limbo waiting for a "new" M system camera to come out.  The current are a bit long in the tooth (except M50).
I can't afford to buy a new one next year just because the 'aggressive price and features' makes the next Mxx? _way better _than the M50 I bought this month.  
Same goes for rumoured updated M-lenses. There are some good EOFY sales on now, so I was considering buying a lense at least.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 12, 2019)

scottsworld said:


> I am in limbo waiting for a "new" M system camera to come out.  The current are a bit long in the tooth (except M50).
> I can't afford to buy a new one next year just because the 'aggressive price and features' makes the next Mxx? _way better _than the M50 I bought this month.
> Same goes for rumoured updated M-lenses. There are some good EOFY sales on now, so I was considering buying a lense at least.



My two requirements for a new M were "Hot shoe", "No EVF" and "Eye AF". But I now have an RP to use for macro with flash, so the requirements are now just "Eye AF" and "No EVF". I hope the Mxxx version is good enough and cheap enough so I don't have to pay a lot after selling the M50.

I'm still hoping for a revamped original M, that one was built like a tank.


----------

