# Canon talks IBIS and EOS M in a recent interview



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 14, 2019)

> Amateur Photographer had a chance to interview Canon executives at the recent CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan. They touched on the usual things going on in the industry.
> Canon also confirms (again) that IBIS is coming to future EOS R camera bodies, as well as saying the EOS M and EF-M will be around for a while. They also didn’t close the door on an APS-C EOS R camera.
> 
> You can also likely expect dual card slots on coming EOS R bodies as well. Canon has apparently heard everyone on this issue.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## criscokkat (Mar 14, 2019)

If they do pursue a APS-C R mount, I'm hoping it'll include a 7D replacement.


----------



## amorse (Mar 14, 2019)

It's interesting to me that Canon thinks of the M mount as a small and lightweight option, though I guess it does make sense when you consider the size of the lenses currently available.

With that said, comparing the size of an M50 and an RP suggests to me that the differences in body size don't need to be substantial.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Mar 14, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> If they do pursue a APS-C R mount, I'm hoping it'll include a 7D replacement.



I hope so as well. If Canon are able to improve the focus acquisition speed of DPAF, then an APS-C sensor paired with their x1.4 or x2 Teleconverters and a moderately fast telephoto (say a 200mm f/2.8L or a 400mm f/5.6L) will open up some new (and affordable) photographic opportunities for wildlife/sports photographer enthusiasts.

I don't think Canon will develop APS glass for the RF mount, but there's plenty of EF and EF-S glass to make it an affordable and effective model.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 14, 2019)

amorse said:


> It's interesting to me that Canon thinks of the M mount as a small and lightweight option, though I guess it does make sense when you consider the size of the lenses currently available.



Of course they consider they whole system when talking about small and lightweight. As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means _four times_ smaller lenses by volume and weight. And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.


----------



## amorse (Mar 14, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.


I would argue that the M50 is the most fair comparison we can make between the RF mount cameras and the M mount cameras if we're comparing bodies with comparable features (i.e. having an EVF) and insinuating the size savings we can get because of having one mount over another. I think you can use any M mount camera with an EVF and come up with a similar size comparison. If we're not comparing equivalent features, then yea you can save a lot of space with the right sacrifices - my cell phone has a pretty small camera module but I wouldn't suggest that it's comparable to an M mount or RF mount camera either. My only suggestion here is that the RP is proof that Canon can make a pretty compact RF mount camera body, even when compared to some of the M mount bodies with similar features.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Mar 14, 2019)

As much as I'd like to see the EOS M lineup continue, I can understand why Canon would more strongly favor allocating development resources to the higher margin EOS R products. Even if Canon decides to abandon the EOS M as an ILC system, they could turn right around and convert them to a series of premium fixed-lens cameras sporting APS-C sensors. For example, a G0 X model with a fixed variant of the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS would be a dream camera of mine for backpacking trips. And a longer G2 X model with a 45-150mm would pick up where the G1 X left off. And finally, a much larger advanced bridge camera with an EOS M variant of Tamron's 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 would be an ideal travel companion.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ...Canon also confirms (again) that IBIS is coming to future EOS R camera bodies...





> _In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future. _



It is quite a leap to call that a confirmation of anything. In fact, the whole interview consists of the interviewer asking questions and Canon responding with "we will consider that if the market demands it."

People can read into the interview whatever they want, but the truth is, all that Canon said is that they are putting products out there and are waiting to see how the market reacts. Don't expect any major reconfiguration of the lineup.


----------



## bf (Mar 14, 2019)

I personally think M should continue. It offers a lot in a small package.
I also like to see a range-finder style EOS R body (FF) with no EVF and a tilt screen. Similar to EOS M6 with no built in flash.

Sport/wild life high performance with R mount? I'm not a user so can't comment on the desire. My guess is Canon will develop its next Pro-DSLR first. Then offers a FF high performance Mirrorless to compete with Sony A9, and afterwards may release an APSC. I don't see it coming anytime soon. As far as I know, Sony never did it either.


----------



## amorse (Mar 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It is quite a leap to call that a confirmation of anything. In fact, the whole interview consists of the interviewer asking questions and Canon responding with "we will consider that if the market demands it."
> 
> People can read into the interview whatever they want, but the truth is, all that Canon said is that they are putting products out there and are waiting to see how the market reacts. Don't expect any major reconfiguration of the lineup.


You're right that the comment is certainly short of a confirmation, but the below comment from Canon in this interview is a pretty good indication:

"In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future. We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features."

I have a hard time seeing Canon say IBIS will work with their in lens IS to offer better performance and then not develop it. 

I think there is a fair bit of suggestion that its coming: i.e. the slide at the recent lens unveiling that said IBIS would work with in lens IS, and the 2 CR2 rumours since December, and the IBIS patent from late 2018, and the IBIS patent from earlier in 2018 to address focus stacking while using IBIS. There's been a number of indications that it could come, but still certainly short of a confirmation.


----------



## digitalride (Mar 14, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means _four times_ smaller lenses by volume and weight.
> ...
> I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.



1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame? The olympus 50mm f/2 weighs 300g while the canon 50mm f/1.8 weighs 160g. Maybe they're not the same quality but for smaller sensors you need better ( heavier due to more glass ) lenses if the pixel density is higher.

For telephoto lenses a smaller sensor doesn't really make the lens any smaller at all due to the physics of it, and you don't get more "reach" with crop compared to a higher megapixel full frame sensor with the same pixel density.

So while you can indeed make some crop lenses a little bit smaller/lighter your first order approximation is completely off base.

...

I think there will most certainly be an M100-sized R body as full frame gets cheaper and more common, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 15, but most certainly at some point in the next 30 years before Canon switches mounts again.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 14, 2019)

digitalride said:


> 1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame? The olympus 50mm f/2 weighs 300g while the canon 50mm f/1.8 weighs 160g. Maybe they're not the same quality but for smaller sensors you need better ( heavier due to more glass ) lenses if the pixel density is higher.



I think he's taking 1.6 * 1.6 * 1.6= ~4, maybe to try and compare equivalent focal length as well as image circle size? I don't think it works that way though... I don't believe lens length is proportional to focal length.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 14, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> If they do pursue a APS-C R mount, I'm hoping it'll include a 7D replacement.



I'm guessing if there's an APS-C R camera it will be some combination of the 7D and 80D. That would be nice, actually.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 14, 2019)

Adding dual slots and IBIS require more electronics, hence more battery power. Maintaining the current body size of the R and the battery will severely limit battery life- which is on the short end now. Look for the form factor to grow a bit. I'm holding out until Canon can get the R series to shoot sports at a minimum of 7 fps.


----------



## amorse (Mar 14, 2019)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Adding dual slots and IBIS require more electronics, hence more battery power. Maintaining the current body size of the R and the battery will severely limit battery life- which is on the short end now. Look for the form factor to grow a bit. I'm holding out until Canon can get the R series to shoot sports at a minimum of 7 fps.


That's a good point. If Canon's going to offer IBIS, dual card slots, improvements in AF tracking, AND higher throughput, they may need more power than an LP-E6N can provide. I am half wondering if we'll see the higher resolution camera body stray away from the LP-E6N and use an LP-E19 from the 1DX II, or a new battery entirely.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2019)

amorse said:


> You're right that the comment is certainly short of a confirmation, but the below comment from Canon in this interview is a pretty good indication:
> 
> "In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future. We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features."
> 
> ...



Yeah, I agree there are lots of tea leaves pointing in that direction. I just think it is a bit of an overreach to characterize it as confirmation. And knowing how people on this forum jump to conclusions I think a bit more caution ought to be exercised before claiming a confirmation. If the next mirrorless body does not have IBIS, I can guarantee you there will be tons of forum experts claiming that Canon promised IBIS and using Craig's post as "evidence."


----------



## Kit. (Mar 14, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Of course they consider they whole system when talking about small and lightweight. As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means _four times_ smaller lenses by volume and weight. And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.


As a first order approximation, 1.6x crop means 1.6x smaller lenses by volume and weight, unless you are willing to give up the absolute aperture, but then you will be comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 14, 2019)

digitalride said:


> 1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame?



2.56 is the surface area, 4 is volume. Given that flange distance is not a problem with mirrorless anymore, and with EF-M you're not constrained by the large diameter of the EF/EF-S mount, you _could_ simply reduce all the dimensions of a FF lens by 1.6 and get a 4x lighter crop lens with the same field of view and relative aperture. After all, a 28mm equivalent f/1.8 phone camera lens weighs maybe a few grams. Now, in the real world not everything in a lens scales down like that, so the real gains are less than 4x. But they _can_ easily approach and exceed 3x.

Of course an f4 crop lens gathers less light than an f4 FF lens, but that's not really relevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. People who are in the market for a small camera aren't going to attach huge lenses just to get that FF look.



> For telephoto lenses a smaller sensor doesn't really make the lens any smaller at all due to the physics of it, and you don't get more "reach" with crop compared to a higher megapixel full frame sensor with the same pixel density.



Of course a 1.6 crop factor makes telephoto lenses smaller, keeping FoV the same! Compare the EF-M 55-200mm to, say, the EF 70-300mm.



> So while you can indeed make some crop lenses a little bit smaller/lighter your first order approximation is completely off base.



Have you actually _seen_ any of the existing EF-M lenses? They are _tiny_.


----------



## digitalride (Mar 15, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> 2.56 is the surface area, 4 is volume. Given that flange distance is not a problem with mirrorless anymore, and with EF-M you're not constrained by the large diameter of the EF/EF-S mount, you _could_ simply reduce all the dimensions of a FF lens by 1.6 and get a 4x lighter crop lens with the same field of view and relative aperture. After all, a 28mm equivalent f/1.8 phone camera lens weighs maybe a few grams. Now, in the real world not everything in a lens scales down like that, so the real gains are less than 4x. But they _can_ easily approach and exceed 3x.
> Of course an f4 crop lens gathers less light than an f4 FF lens, but that's not really relevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. People who are in the market for a small camera aren't going to attach huge lenses just to get that FF look.
> Of course a 1.6 crop factor makes telephoto lenses smaller, keeping FoV the same! Compare the EF-M 55-200mm to, say, the EF 70-300mm.



Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. EF-M lenses are smaller than EF-S because they make compromises to be small in some cases, and for wide angle the smaller registration distance allows them to be smaller than EF-S. EF-S lenses are not anywhere near 3x smaller than EF. Ask yourself why aren't olympus 2x crop lenses 8x smaller/lighter than canon full frame lenses? If you can make a 1.6x crop lens 3x smaller than a full frame lens while keeping all the other qualities the same you have a very lucrative future ahead of you as a lens designer.

I don't think you understand my other points, I recommend you do a little more research.


----------



## bdbender4 (Mar 15, 2019)

This is the same non-answer for the future of EF-M that they have been giving for the last 18 months. I gave up on waiting for something other than low-level consumer-zoom-packages. The 32mm f/1.4, which I have, is nice but: Weather resistance in this system? IBIS? Updated sensors? My M5 and various lenses are packed away and I am greatly enjoying my new Nikon Z6.


----------



## TAF (Mar 15, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> This is the same non-answer for the future of EF-M that they have been giving for the last 18 months. I gave up on waiting for something other than low-level consumer-zoom-packages. The 32mm f/1.4, which I have, is nice but: Weather resistance in this system? IBIS? Updated sensors? My M5 and various lenses are packed away and I am greatly enjoying my new Nikon Z6.



Make sure you removed the battery and packaged it separately. Otherwise, you run the risk of camera damage over time. You'll want to sell all that stuff some day to buy more Nikon stuff, right?


----------



## Gillettecavalcad3 (Mar 15, 2019)

"_We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features"_


In other words, we have these really expensive lenses that come with IS, so buy them if you are interested in image stabilisation, because we're not in any hurry to offer ibis in any of our cameras in the near future.


Extremely disappointing.


----------



## espressino (Mar 15, 2019)

TAF said:


> Make sure you removed the battery and packaged it separately. Otherwise, you run the risk of camera damage over time. You'll want to sell all that stuff some day to buy more Nikon stuff, right?


Also, why did bdbender4 buy the EF-M 32, which was released after the Z6, knowing that weather sealing and IBIS (by definition) weren't on the cards for that lens?


----------



## bdbender4 (Mar 15, 2019)

espressino said:


> Also, why did bdbender4 buy the EF-M 32, which was released after the Z6, knowing that weather sealing and IBIS (by definition) weren't on the cards for that lens?


That's a good logical question. My thinking didn't follow the release dates. I was waiting - and still am waiting - for an update to the M5. If that ever happens, I can see perhaps using both systems. I like the EF-M system, but if the only thing keeping it alive is the popularity of the M50 in Japan, then it won't evolve into a real system. Then I will lose interest and probably sell it.

Regarding the Z6, with the 24-70 zoom it is reasonably compact and takes really nice images. I wanted to like the Canon R better, but IMHO strange throwback controls, handicapped video, no IBIS, and large heavy lenses didn't float my boat. Not to mention that the EOS-R with the 24-105 lens was _$800 more(!)_ than the Z6 with 24-70.


----------



## espressino (Mar 15, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> That's a good logical question. My thinking didn't follow the release dates. I was waiting - and still am waiting - for an update to the M5. If that ever happens, I can see perhaps using both systems. I like the EF-M system, but if the only thing keeping it alive is the popularity of the M50 in Japan, then it won't evolve into a real system. Then I will lose interest and probably sell it.
> 
> Regarding the Z6, with the 24-70 zoom it is reasonably compact and takes really nice images. I wanted to like the Canon R better, but IMHO strange throwback controls, handicapped video, no IBIS, and large heavy lenses didn't float my boat. Not to mention that the EOS-R with the 24-105 lens was _$800 more(!)_ than the Z6 with 24-70.



I absolutely agree with you on the M5. It's all good and well to say that they'll let the market decide but I wonder if the fact that they barely released anything EF-M-related (let alone EF-S) last year, and don't seem to be planning on this year given that they're shifting most of their resources to the R system, doesn't send a strong signal (at least to those customers who read up before they buy). The release of the M50 last year was accompanied by a chorus of reviews saying that this was only the entry-level model, and that most of its drawbacks didn't matter in that class and would not be there in the (surely soon-to-be-released) M5 successor. Which shows no signs of materialising over a year later. And I honestly don't understand why there wouldn't be a market for 'small, capable, portable, sells in large quantities'. Surely they will have done their research but if you don't release certain models you don't know whether they wouldn't potentially sell really well. (So by taking another route I absolutely agree with your reasoning on the EOS R as well: lenses too pricey and too heavy for semi-dedicated hobbyists (those smartphone users the camera manufacturers arguably want to court), R and RP not up to the standards (I think) of (some) pros).


----------



## bf (Mar 15, 2019)

bdbender4 said:


> That's a good logical question. My thinking didn't follow the release dates. I was waiting - and still am waiting - for an update to the M5. If that ever happens, I can see perhaps using both systems. I like the EF-M system, but if the only thing keeping it alive is the popularity of the M50 in Japan, then it won't evolve into a real system. Then I will lose interest and probably sell it.
> 
> Regarding the Z6, with the 24-70 zoom it is reasonably compact and takes really nice images. I wanted to like the Canon R better, but IMHO strange throwback controls, handicapped video, no IBIS, and large heavy lenses didn't float my boat. Not to mention that the EOS-R with the 24-105 lens was _$800 more(!)_ than the Z6 with 24-70.


Why do you care about the M5's update? I imagine it offered something that you bought it; wheter it being updated or not would not change it.
In contrast, if you already moved on to Z6, there would be no EOS M update to compete with Z6 (or R/RP)


----------



## bdbender4 (Mar 15, 2019)

bf said:


> Why do you care about the M5's update? I imagine it offered something that you bought it; wheter it being updated or not would not change it.
> In contrast, if you already moved on to Z6, there would be no EOS M update to compete with Z6 (or R/RP)


Huh? It's like having more than one pair of shoes, for different uses. By your logic i should still be using the Nikkormat I had in the 1970's.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 15, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Of course an f4 crop lens gathers less light than an f4 FF lens, but that's not really relevant.


Then where's my G7X III?

EOS M series is not pocketable.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 16, 2019)

Maybe Canon will use the EOS M system as a testbed for IBIS and presumably full sensor 4k: If the systems work in the field, tested by hundreds of thousend customers you can track failure rates of subsystems and customer feedback.

E.g. the EF-M 32 f/1.4: A strange lens because it is designed for an "amateur camera system" but is in my opinion something like a mini RF 50 f/1.2 construction wise and IQ wise (TDP, both lenses, f/1.4 https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1) The RF wins the direct comparison but (1) maybe the influence of the higher sensor resolution (~112 % scaling / linear) helps the perception and (2) the combo is not miles ahead but ~ 5 times more expensive.

But where are the raving reviews about EF-M 32 two days after its availability? Missing. Where have been the bad reviews if it were crap? Missing too.

Releasing stuff with new features/capabilities for the EF-M system is IMO a low risk procedure. The M50 is a good example because it has a lot of features (and some standards are underrepresented) which were new at the time of introduction and maybe Canon will do the same with an EOS M5 mkii adding IBIS and maybe 4k without additional crop.

This might keep the EOS M system alive for a longer time especially if Canon releases some fine primes in the lower focal length region like
EF-M 10 f/4.0 (16mm equiv)
EF-M 15 f/2.0 (24mm)
(EF-M 22 f/2.0) (35mm) done, pancake
(EF-M 32 f/1.4) (50mm) done, high quality, high aperture standard prime
EF-M 53 f/1.4 (85mm)
EF-M 85 f/1.8 IS (135mm) <= f/1.8 to keep the diameter inside the ~60mm standard


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 16, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Maybe Canon will use the EOS M system as a testbed for IBIS and presumably full sensor 4k: If the systems work in the field, tested by hundreds of thousend customers you can track failure rates of subsystems and customer feedback.
> 
> E.g. the EF-M 32 f/1.4: A strange lens because it is designed for an "amateur camera system" but is in my opinion something like a mini RF 50 f/1.2 construction wise and IQ wise (TDP, both lenses, f/1.4 https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1) The RF wins the direct comparison but (1) maybe the influence of the higher sensor resolution (~112 % scaling / linear) helps the perception and (2) the combo is not miles ahead but ~ 5 times more expensive.
> 
> ...



And looking at the M50, that camera really seems to have been a trial run for the RP.


----------



## FairlyKors (Mar 17, 2019)

Only one person is upset that Canon’s dropping support for the EF-M mount? And several negative remarks directed at the only person who cared enough to leave the cult?

Canon confirmed in writing that their next premium RF mount camera would have IBIS at Photokina. There a photo from their PowerPoint presentation out there somewhere.

Canon knows what the market is going to do. That’s the only reason the R and RP exists. How many years were spent by Canon and its customers attacking every “fake benefit” that mirrorless offered? (Sure, Canon were late to market, overpriced, and missing features that every other brand offers—but that’s also how Canon works.) A low price alone doesn’t mean it is a good value. This is a misconception that companies take advantage of all the time. An M50 with the 6D II’s sensor in it is hardly a deal priced even one penny over $999 in March of 2019.

Playing dumb by pretending the market is going to decide the fate of EF-M would be a little insulting to me if I owned a Canon mirrorless APS-C camera. But I also don’t belong to this religion, so there _truly_ is no way I “get it.” I know enough to know I “don’t get it.”


----------



## spandau (Mar 17, 2019)

Say what you want about the M50 but I have owned a 30D, 40D, 70D, 7D, 7D Mark II, 1D Mark III and 5D and the 5D is the only one that outdoes the M50 for photography and has no video capability at all. Low light is its only drawback when compared to the other models I have owned. I can use all my Canon lenses on the M50 with the Canon adapter and can use a speedbooster to give EF lens the ability to be used in the M50 as close to full frame lenses with 1 stop increase in the lens native maximum F stop to help with low light photography. Video ability is excellent for the price. Only disadvantages in video are Canon purposely crippling that function in the camera. Love the 720P slow motion video straight out of the camera and is perfect for Facebook postings. Canon needs to develop a better battery for the camera though. My only problem with the M50 so far is me actually learning how to use it better and learning all its abilities. Would be nice if Windows would come out with a Codec for CR3 files so I could shoot only RAW in camera and use windows to view the files on my computers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2019)

FairlyKors said:


> Only one person is upset that Canon’s dropping support for the EF-M mount?


Yes, just one person. Apparently, (almost) everyone else can read. 



> Canon also confirms (again) that IBIS is coming to future EOS R camera bodies, as well as saying *the EOS M and EF-M will be around for a while*.


----------

