# New EOS M Body Coming in October? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 24, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon will announce a new EOS M body in October. This new mirrorless body will actually be under the current EOS M3, a more entry level product. This new body will likely be about $200 less than the current camera.</p>
<p>No specs were given for the new EOS M model, and there was no comment as to whether or not there would be a high end EOS M body to come as well.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 24, 2015)

" This new mirrorless body will actually be under the current EOS M3, a more entry level product."

NO NO NO! WHY oh WHY???   


@Canon: 
As if the freakin' M3 would not already be "ENTRY LEVEL" and less than competitive enough. Make it 200 cheaper, offer it "body only" or "body+EVF-kit" also in Europe and call it a day! 

And finally bring that "EOS M4 Pro" that really kicks some butt!


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 24, 2015)

What content could they possibly take out to differentiate between it and the M3? Maybe they could use a 1" sensor to reduce costs and mess up all the M-series lens focal lengths. I don't own one, but the M3 doesn't seem to have a lot of content to begin with.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 24, 2015)

if true, it also does not bode well for the next few EF-M lenses. Even more consumery zooms ... maybe an 18-200/f8-11


----------



## SeppOz (Sep 24, 2015)

That is bizarre if true. Thought Canon had one of those already - called an M2 :


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 24, 2015)

LOL! More entry level? Your sources must have a sense of humour!


----------



## rsdofny (Sep 24, 2015)

Canon needs to realize that there are some people who want a smaller camera than a DSLR. It should merge the capability of the Rebel and the M, price them at the same price, and let people pick their cameras. I have a 70D that I don't want to use, and want something better than my RX100. If it does not do that, sooner or later I am going to switch over to Sony.


----------



## infared (Sep 24, 2015)

Hee...hee....just when we thought that The Tale of "M" could not get any more amusing...or is it just sad?


----------



## zim (Sep 24, 2015)

Maybe they have a warehouse full of M2's to get rid off :


----------



## Tyroop (Sep 24, 2015)

The comments and Canon bashing so far read as if this is factual information made in a Canon announcement. It's just a level CR1 rumor, isn't it? I too would be disappointed if this were true, but I think a large grain of salt is required.


----------



## Bernard (Sep 24, 2015)

I could see using the M3's 24MP sensor in an M/M2 form factor.

I've been using the M3 a lot lately, and I used the M a lot before that. While I like a lot of things about the M3, it is a lot bigger, to the point where I can't fit the M3 in the camera bag I used for the M.

There is something to be said for a tiny, high quality camera. A friend has been borrowing my M to use rock climbing. The picture-quality-to-weight ratio is outstanding.


----------



## lw (Sep 24, 2015)

Perhaps this ties together with the EF-M 15-45 pancake zoom rumour

A smaller entry level M, with a smaller entry level kit lens.

Disappointing though if true, as it seems Canon is ever more determined to move the M system further down market.

First the M3 with a dumb PowerShot UI, and many lacking features (compared to previous M's, not just the competition) and now we have an 'entry level' M and a kit lens that is F6.3 @ 45mm

There really needs to be proper 'enthusiasts' M in the next 6 months


----------



## veng (Sep 24, 2015)

"[CR1]" I think that says it all...


----------



## MJ (Sep 24, 2015)

wtf?!


----------



## HaroldC3 (Sep 24, 2015)

I sure hope this is not true. If it is then hopefully they release a pro-level version at the same time.


----------



## Vivid Color (Sep 24, 2015)

Canon introduced the M3 to the US as if it were a brand-new camera. Since the M2 was never sold in the US, Canon could introduce it as a new body – – as in new to the US.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 24, 2015)

It could be a repackaging of the m1/m2. But, unlike some others, if it is an all new entry level camera, I just do not see that as being that bad. It could be that Canon is looking for a gateway product and the current "M" series has failed in that. If they are successful in introducing a true "gateway" camera, then we benefit because all of a sudden it becomes "gate way to what??" and that is when Canon has to introduce a higher end series of bodies.

In other words, Canon may just be trying to create demand for a mirrorless system. Honestly, this may be a much better approach than introducing something high end and then wondering why no one is buying it.

BTW...obviously, the "demand" from people on CR is not enough.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2015)

Like it or not, mass buyers go by price. That has always been Canons roots. They pay exceptional detail to the tradeoffs between features and costs. That's why they make a profit when others are losing money.

Unfortunately, enthusiasts are not getting what they want, but the stockholders are.


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 24, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Like it or not, mass buyers go by price. That has always been Canons roots. They pay exceptional detail to the tradeoffs between features and costs. That's why they make a profit when others are losing money.
> 
> Unfortunately, enthusiasts are not getting what they want, but the stockholders are.



I agree, which makes this rumor a bit more odd. The canon M system is already pretty affordable. The 22mm pancake? 100 bucks as part of a deal? The 18-55 kit lens (which is quite nice for a kit) I got white box, brand new from bhphoto. I feel they have the lower end covered (compared to say a Fuji X system) and should be coming out with higher end stuff for the M.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 24, 2015)

The 1200D (SL1?) goes for 270 Euro in Germany, the M3 is - kit lens 
deducted - around 470 currently. This is exactly the 200 Euro difference
that this rumour mentioned.

Yes, this entry level position needs to be manned and the position needs
to be defended, if they want to replace DSLRs with M-series mirrorless 
cameras.


----------



## Tinky (Sep 24, 2015)

Point of spectrum bordering pedancy. The 1200D is actually the EU version of the Rebel T5, the EU version of the SL1 is called the 100D which is slightly higher spec'd and slightly more expensive.

It would be slightly nice if any new M reverted back to the LP-E12... 

The M3 is too expensive. Any new M needs dual pixel af. It's simple Canon, if you are going to make a camera aimed at AF users, and make MF so horrible to use, then your AF needs to work, and needs to be on a par with your competitors.

The M is dead until then.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 24, 2015)

Quackator said:


> The 1200D (SL1?) goes for 270 Euro in Germany, the M3 is - kit lens
> deducted - around 470 currently. This is exactly the 200 Euro difference
> that this rumour mentioned.
> 
> ...



Problem is, in Germany and most of Europe you cannot deduct the M kit lens, because the M3 is sold WITH kit lens only. EF-M 18-55 kit lens is close to impossible to sell, since most users with an EOS M/2/3 body have that lens already. Those who don't have it, don't want it - but prefer some other lens, mostly 22/2.0 

1. Canon should have offered M3 body and M3 body+ECV kit - without lens - also in Europe from the start. 
2. Price for M3 body and kits should at least not be higher than EOS 100D/SL-1 (if not 1200D/T5). 
3. Then M3 would be priced right for the entry level camera it is. Although it would still not match the fact, that a mirrorless cam is way cheaper to build than a mirrorslapper. 
4. What's needed is a higher specced M body - EVF built-in, better AF, battery with more juice, regular EOS interface (not Powershot) - to start with.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> It would be slightly nice if any new M reverted back to the LP-E12...



yeah, they should have skipped the LP17 - hardly any improvement despite 875 to 1040 mAh - not worth the incompatibility. Given the increase in size with the M3 (over M1/2) I would have preferred Canon sticking a grwon-up LP-E6N battery into it. Would have fit into the grip. And might have yielded at least 500 shots.


----------



## gn100 (Sep 24, 2015)

I wouldn't be surprised if they split the M range in 2 ..... an entry level model with body similar to an M/M2 to enable the smallest possible camera, and a higher specified model with a body more similar to an M3 (maybe with built in EVF?). 

The interview with the Canon exec recently posted suggested that a higher end model will be here very soon. 

All the M cameras have been overpriced at release, which has scared away the lower end consumers .... even though the lenses have been competitively priced. Instead many M's have been sold at discounted prices as a compact camera for enthusiasts. If Canon is serious about mirrorless, then they will need different models for different customer segments.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 24, 2015)

In my point of view, M3 in Europe is a joke, compared to M/M2 taking the price into account. I might collect some money to get M3, but it comes only with the lens I don´t want to use, and it doesn´t run anywhere far once you shoot more stationary objects. Simply a joke. No real upgrade.
So M3 Light edition in very small and light body would be more sensible for me, and M4 higher class/specs body would also be more sensible to me. Not the current M3. It´s a joke. And of course, just an opinion.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2015)

Whatever it is, they need Dual Pixel AF on EOS-M.
It's completely illogical to have one of the best on-sensor autofocusing systems on the market and not implement it on your system that is limited to using on-sensor autofocus.

Apparently that also means it's going to be a higher priced product, but selling EOS-M only in one price bracket doesn't make sense either.
To be fair, Canon takes years and years to develop anything. For all we know the M-4 body (regardless of what it's called in the end) could have been in the works since 2012 and we're just hearing about it now.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Problem is, in Germany and most of Europe you cannot deduct the M kit lens, because the M3 is sold WITH kit lens only.



Right. Which is exactly why I haven't bought one yet. 
Had one tet sample for four weeks, and would have instantly bought 
it if it weren't for that kit lens. 

BUT: They will not be able to sustain that forever.
The minute they drop the forced bundle, I will buy the M3 body only.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2015)

Quackator said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Problem is, in Germany and most of Europe you cannot deduct the M kit lens, because the M3 is sold WITH kit lens only.
> ...



almost the same for me. Except ... NOW I will no longer buy an M3, even it if were offered at € 299 body only. I will only upgrade, if Canon really moves their butt and brings a totally competitive high-end M4. 

"Totally competitive" means to me: at least as good as upcoming Sony A7000 (meaning: better than A6000) in all key aspects: top-notch EVF built in, sensor performance, AF performance, connectivity, battery charge, etc. - priced not 1 cent higher than A7000. Of course available as body only, not just forced kits. Otherwise, I'll skip the next gen EOS M bodies as well.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 25, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> I could buy the SL1 and have something similar in size and weight, just less expensive. Plus I have an optical VF and much quicker AF.



I've always thought that the SL1 is the M-system's biggest competitor.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> The whole M thing is so unattractive for me right now... Its size and weight advantage is almost gone when you're using the 18-55mm kit lens or anything bigger like EF lenses with the adapter. Except you're attaching pancakes on an EOS M... but there's not so much to choose from.
> 
> I could buy the SL1 and have something similar in size and weight, just less expensive. Plus I have an optical VF and much quicker AF.
> 
> Can you explain it to me, why someone should buy an EOS M3 right now? If it's the size & weight advantage, I'd just shake my head... :



for me it is size/weight. My M (1) + 18-55 + 1 spare battery fits into a little LowePro Dashpoint 20 bag. This bag is attached to my left Backpack strap on all my mountaineering activities without restricting my movements or being uncomfortable at all. Not possible with SL-1 plus EF-S 18-55. That package is too bulky. 

And if I want to go really small, it is M + 22/2.0 ... that one fits into any of my coat pockets and is with me in urban environments.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 25, 2015)

I hope they are not thinking of going "below" the EOS-M3 ... that's just depressing.


----------



## that1guyy (Sep 25, 2015)

Canon exec: "So guys, we have failed three times so lets create an even more crippled camera and maybe it'll sell this time"
Canon exec 2: "Brilliant!"

Good ol' deluded Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Canon exec: "So guys, we have failed three times so lets create an even more crippled camera and maybe it'll sell this time"
> Canon exec 2: "Brilliant!"
> 
> Good ol' deluded Canon.



Yeh, apart from the fact that all three M's have been best sellers in Japan. The camera world does not revolve around you or the good ol' USA, go figure..........


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Canon exec: "So guys, we have failed three times so lets create an even more crippled camera and maybe it'll sell this time"
> ...


Correct. EOS M1/2/3 are a total disaster in Europe too. Go figure!


----------



## Quackator (Sep 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Correct. EOS M1/2/3 are a total disaster in Europe too.



Are they? Canon managed to sell the EOS M to me, and the very
minute they drop the kit zoom bundle they will sell the M3 to me.

No other brand managed to sell me onto one of their mirrorless
cameras. THIS is the face of failure.


----------



## WillT (Sep 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Canon exec: "So guys, we have failed three times so lets create an even more crippled camera and maybe it'll sell this time"
> ...



Can you provide a source, I am not doubting you but all I can find suggest Sony is the market leader in Japan for mirrorless cameras?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 26, 2015)

WillT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Didn't mean to imply No1 best seller, but this is a lot of cameras....


2012: 3rd http://photorumors.com/2012/11/01/top-10-best-selling-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-cameras-in-japan/
2013: 2nd http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-m-second-sold-mirrorless-camera-japan-2013/
2014: 3rd/4th http://petapixel.com/2015/01/31/graph-mirrorless-camera-industry-japan-changed-2014/


You might notice in that time the Sony market share for mirrorless has actually decreased and the Canon market share increased. Canon also dominate the DSLR market and the "Digital Camera Integrated Lens" markets where Sony have virtually no presence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2015)

WillT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Sony is the #1 MILC brand in Japan. But they have several lines with several models each. Canon has one line and three models, and the point is on an individual basis the M cameras do very well. For example, the original M was the #2 selling model in Japan for its first (partial) year out. 

In August, looking across all ILCs in Japan, 7 models/kits were dSLRs (5 Canon, 2 Nikon), two were Oly MILCs, and the M2 was #10, outselling all Sony models. 

Data are from BCN, here's August 2015:

http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0008_month.html


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Like it or not, mass buyers go by price. That has always been Canons roots. They pay exceptional detail to the tradeoffs between features and costs. That's why they make a profit when others are losing money.



Exactly this - I've said from the start, I see a range of three cameras, the then original M being the mid point, metal body, good build, with a plastic body underneath with a lesser sensor, then a range topper. I still see this, with an entry level using next genbasic tech, the M4 using 80D tech, the range topper offering something extra EVF and bigger body perhaps ?

An entry level body is fantastic news, it will shift loads of 18-55mm lenses, increase the sales of the current range and build the case for higher quality and esoteric lenses in the EF-M range. Bring it on I say.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 26, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> An entry level body is fantastic news, it will shift loads of 18-55mm lenses, increase the sales of the current range and build the case for higher quality and esoteric lenses in the EF-M range. Bring it on I say.


I fail to see the link between an entry level M and the demand for "higher quality and esoteric" EF-M lenses. Any EOS camera lower than the M3 would be a shame in 2015. no need for a M more entry level, just reduce the M3 price by €/$ 200 and bring a kick-ass M4. No need for freakin' "esoteric" lenses like f/1.2 crap .. all that's missing is a compact, optically good, and highly affordable medium/portrait tele ... EF-M 85/2.0 IS STM @ €/$ 300. 
no need for fisheyes, tilt-shifts, 800mm teles in EF-M mount. No need for multiple 18-200mm f/6.3 consumer dark-zooms. No need for yet snotjer 60mm macro lens. Use the Ef-s or the 100mm Ef lenses. 
It really really comes down to one fully competitive EOS M4 body.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 26, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > An entry level body is fantastic news, it will shift loads of 18-55mm lenses, increase the sales of the current range and build the case for higher quality and esoteric lenses in the EF-M range. Bring it on I say.
> ...



If there is no need for more native M-system lenses, why even bother with an M-system at all? Why not just make a slightly upmarket, perhaps mirrorless SL2 that can use all the EF and EF-S lenses you propose using with the M4?

At the very least, I want a tiny 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 M-mount lens.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I fail to see the link between an entry level M and the demand for "higher quality and esoteric" EF-M lenses.


I don't think there is a real demand for higher quality EF-M lenses. I can't reconcile somebody wanting to spend a lot of money on high quality lenses wanting to shoot with a Canon APS-C based mirrorless camera. And given that the EF-M mount won't (at Least, easily) support a FF sensor, this rumor, if true, just reinforces that Canon are not going to compete for the enthusiast mirrorless market.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I fail to see the link between an entry level M and the demand for "higher quality and esoteric" EF-M lenses. Any EOS camera lower than the M3 would be a shame in 2015.



Because it generates a larger installed user base - odds on that most of us on here started our digital camera adventure with an entry level Canon, without those sales, Canon wouldn't have had the cash flow to invest in the advanced cameras we have now... If the EF-M range is here to stay, numbers of users need to increase and that's done by volume - small margins on high volume movers is what keeps Canon in business, the low volume products like the 7DII, 5DIII etc serve to provide confidence and trickle down technology for the money making cameras.



AvTvM said:


> no need for a M more entry level, just reduce the M3 price by €/$ 200 and bring a kick-ass M4.



So now the M3 is great ? Just expensive... A paragraph ago you claimed that anything less would be useless 



AvTvM said:


> No need for freakin' "esoteric" lenses like f/1.2 crap .. all that's missing is a compact, optically good, and highly affordable medium/portrait tele ... EF-M 85/2.0 IS STM @ €/$ 300. no need for fisheyes, tilt-shifts, 800mm teles in EF-M mount. No need for multiple 18-200mm f/6.3 consumer dark-zooms. No need for yet snotjer 60mm macro lens. Use the Ef-s or the 100mm Ef lenses.
> It really really comes down to one fully competitive EOS M4 body.



In your opinion ! The EF-M range has the potential to expand, it needs a greater selection of kit lenses, the pancake zoom, the 15-85 or 18-135 type consumer lenses. It also needs some iconic fast primes and a high end standard zoom. It's early days, the market is getting larger, the recent Samsung exit just made things even healthier than before, Fujifilm are blazing a great product range, M43's seems to be quietly just getting on with sales, Nikon haven't a clue and Sony are shouting like a demanding toddler at how great their A7 is. Mirrorless is here to stay, but you ain't going to get a full range of products from day one, start small, grow... Fujifilm really have dropped lucky, but then their future is all mirrorless, they can't afford to fail at mirrorless, Canon have other lines, so can flow with the growing market.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 27, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I don't think there is a real demand for higher quality EF-M lenses. I can't reconcile somebody wanting to spend a lot of money on high quality lenses wanting to shoot with a Canon APS-C based mirrorless camera.



Yeah because it's really not working for Fujifilm is it ??? /sarcasm ;-)


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 27, 2015)

Except its not really working for Fuji - their sales numbers aren't that great. 

Still, the thing I like about Fuji is that they only have one sensor. Every camera in their range produces the exact same image quality and that takes away a lot of anxiety and concern about gear. They aren't getting big sales numbers, but the customers they attract tend to be experienced photographers who want quality gear and don't mind paying for it. 

But Canon has a problem. After more than a decade of marketing aimed at convincing people to step up to FF, how do you convince them to step down to an APS-C mirrorless camera? That's a tough sales job. Hence the focus on entry level and the difference between Fuji and Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I fail to see the link between an entry level M and the demand for "higher quality and esoteric" EF-M lenses. Any EOS camera lower than the M3 would be a shame in 2015.
> ...



...or the user base with an interest in buying them as upgrades. 

Canon seems to have done a good job of planning for the future of the market (although global economic issues often transcend such planning). Fortunately for us, Canon doesn't fail to see these links.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 27, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> But Canon has a problem. After more than a decade of marketing aimed at convincing people to step up to FF, how do you convince them to step down to an APS-C mirrorless camera? That's a tough sales job. Hence the focus on entry level and the difference between Fuji and Canon.



Ten years of trying to convince people to 'step up' to a FF camera ? I don't see that at all, in fact Canon seem to be giving more support to crop; look at the quality of the crop lenses they are producing now, and introducing a heavy weight camera like the 7DII. 

And as far as APS mirrorless, when you say this I read compact system mirrorless, looking at latest generation high end compacts such as the G1XII makes me wonder what the point is.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 28, 2015)

the reality is than on the BCN website this week the M2 outsold the M3, so there is a demand in Japan for a body plus lens in the 72000 yen price range. the m3, 130 000yen included an extra lens over the M2 kit but still if you look at the price difference the Japanese this/last week prefered the much cheaper M2....

well I have the M3 now and the EVF makes a huge difference, but it is still massively flawed in many ways, but perhaps if we complain enough many could be fixed via a firmware update...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 28, 2015)

Noticed today that the Leica T now has a reasonably faster 55-135mm 3.5-4.5 tele zoom than the EOS-M offering, plus a similar 11-23mm wide zoom. Whilst I'm not convinced there's a market yet, it would be interesting to see a faster standard and tele zoom than we have now, even if they were just something random like a 15-40mm f2.8 and a 40-135mm f4, albeit a higher quality than the current offerings - that said, the 18-55 EF-M is pretty good anyways


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 28, 2015)

Doesn't jive with recent interview with Canon CEO, who said an enthusiast M was on the way.

Canon may be slow in the mirrorless world, but they aren't stupid. Look at the recent raft of top quality lenses. Just wait and a better M will come...


----------



## scrup (Sep 28, 2015)

I don't see the point of a lower specced M. What can they take away? They should just continue building the M2 and sell that at the M1 firesale price if they are trying to hit a price point. 

The next M should be the M4. Same ergonomics with improved autofocus and responsiveness. Price needs to be thought out as Sony currently gives better bang for buck. 

EF to E mount adapters are getting cheaper and focusing is getting faster with them. This time next year adapters will have quite comparable speeds to that of some native canon bodies. It be one less reason to get a canon body.


----------

