# Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 30, 2020)

> More specifications for the Canon EOS M7, rumored to be announced this year are making the rounds on the web. I cannot confirm these specifications, but I figured I’d post them anyway.
> The rumored price tag here doesn’t fit as a follow-up to the EOS M50.
> *Canon EOS M7 Specifications:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

To be honest that last part sounds like wishful thinking from Mr. Majestyk.

M is one of the best selling camera lines on Earth. OK they may kill it but they will have to replace it with something else.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 30, 2020)

I'm not sure I put much, if any, faith in a rumor that points out its flaws already. "overheats at 120p" and "clog for marketing purposes" both sound like someone who isn't a fan of the products trying to make them sound bad. 

At this point in development, who would have access or information to the cameras and would want to talk down on them? It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 30, 2020)

No compatibility between RF and M. That cant work. Not sure if the registration distance would allow an RF-M adapter of any kind (doubt it?) or maybe an RF speedbooster to M. 

But it is a shame Canon has pulled such a shortsighted move, if the rumors of its demise are true. 

With m43 declining, maybe the compact MILC is on the way out.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Aug 30, 2020)

Honestly, I know everyone wants smaller and lighter cameras, but I'm fine with bigger cameras because the ergonomics are MUCH better and intuitive. Was never a fan of the M line. And I gave it a chance. I own the M, M3, and M50. They are decent cameras but don't work well enough for me. Let the line die I say


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 30, 2020)

FWIW, it seems that the M5 including its kits have been discontinued at B&H and seem to have disappeared from the Adorama website.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2020)

Nah, Canon's not pulling the '18MP Philosophy' rehash style of bodies and parts any longer. I don't buy this, after all, it's a CR1


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

slclick said:


> Nah, Canon's not pulling the '18MP Philosophy' rehash style of bodies and parts any longer. I don't buy this, after all, it's a CR1



CR1 seems awfully generous, to be honest.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 30, 2020)

Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 30, 2020)

I agree that this will be the end of the line for the M. I doubt we'll see much more out of the high end DSLR side of the house either.

Once they dial in the mirrorless budget line crop bodies that’ll probably be all she wrote over there too.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.



Why, oh why would they kill off their best selling camera line? You love to drive-by snipe at the M series but you've never given a rationale.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 30, 2020)

Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor. 

The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

That’s Funny. When I said on these very forums last year that the EOS M line would be replaced by an upcoming RF-S line.... i was laughed at by some folks in here... Obvious then, and even more obvious now


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> That’s Funny. When I said on these very forums last year that the EOS M line would be replaced by an upcoming RF-S line.... i was laughed at by some folks in here... Obvious then, and even more obvious now



Wow, feeling vindicated by a CR-1 rumor?


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I'm not sure I put much, if any, faith in a rumor that points out its flaws already. "overheats at 120p" and "clog for marketing purposes" both sound like someone who isn't a fan of the products trying to make them sound bad.
> 
> At this point in development, who would have access or information to the cameras and would want to talk down on them? It just doesn't make sense.



To add to that full sensor 4k60p? that means 32mp down sampled to 4k which will be freaking awesome but no way Canon' cripple hammer will allow that at $1600 US price point. if that is true the camera will over heat for sure


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

@Canonrumorsguy you meant to say 15-45mm "historically we’ve always had 18-55mm/*18*-45mm kit lenses for APS-C cameras."


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2020)

Many people who post on sites such as this one are biased against the M. Lord knows why.

Canon's line of M cameras are only growing in popularity...especially in Asia.

I honestly do not know if the M format will be orphaned soon but it just doesn't make sense to me, and it almost seems like those who propose these sorts of things are trolling.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> FWIW, it seems that the M5 including its kits have been discontinued at B&H and seem to have disappeared from the Adorama website.



Adorama did a fire sale on the M5 during last (2019) Thanksgiving and later followed by B&H. So no surprises there.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.



Except it is the M series probaly helped gained the 2%+ market share that Canon gained recently. M50 is one of the best selling Canon MILC (based on various reporting) ever.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> Canon's line of M cameras are only growing in popularity...especially in Asia.



What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

RF-S like EF-S makes lot more sense than the EF-M mount. Knowing Canon' history I would not be surprised if Canon kills EF-M mount altogether. If that happens, I am sure the internet will be full of people crying, weeping and whining but it sounds like no matter how many times people get burned they will keep buying Canon. That is definitely good for Canon coz now they can sell the same cameras and lens with a different mount to the same consumers . So that makes sense from business POV.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> Many people who post on sites such as this one are biased against the M. Lord knows why.
> 
> Canon's line of M cameras are only growing in popularity...especially in Asia.
> 
> I honestly do not know if the M format will be orphaned soon but it just doesn't make sense to me, and it almost seems like those who propose these sorts of things are trolling.



It does not make sense to you and me but that makes sense to Canon coz now they can sell the same Cameras and the same lenses to the same set of consumers with a new mount. People tend to suck it up like they suck up Apple products


----------



## secant (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> To be honest that last part sounds like wishful thinking from Mr. Majestyk.
> 
> M is one of the best selling camera lines on Earth. OK they may kill it but they will have to replace it with something else.


They are probably gonna replace it with RF mount APSC just like the Nikon Z and EF/EF-S.
It's sad, I like the form factor of the EOS M they are really small and the lenses are small as well. But I can understand if they want to expand RF into APSC as well, they will be in conflict with the M and they don't want to design lenses for two different lens mounts. I just hope if they really are making APSC RF they can make it small as well.

And its also sad that just as the EOS M get more competitive with the M6 II vs the likes of Sony and Fuji they are cutting this line, but we'll still have to see this is probably just rumors. If this is true, I can see the likes of Fuji being my alternative to the EOS M they do have a more complete lens lineup and good colors.


----------



## tigers media (Aug 30, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


If they want to evolve that's fine, but just add a rf mount onto the new pro model rumored to be coming out. Would be a great way to get best of both worlds i dont think canon is going to be stupid enough to get rid of their best selling camera ! Next thing people will be saying columbians sell rugs


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Wow, feeling vindicated by a CR-1 rumor?


Yeah. Come back when it’s a Canon Press Release. Zero sense in maintaining the M line production when you can completely replace it with Uniform upgradeable glass on a singular mount system and transition over to the same end result


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2020)

While the M line doesn't really have a clean upgrade path to the R bodies, I still struggle to see Canon offloading a popular system without a replacement. 

Canon doesn't really have anything else which offers that level of performance in such a small package. I think offloading M would leave them without offerings in a niche that sells well. I guess if they wanted to consolidate manufacturing effort they could offload both M and EF-S bodies in favor of an RF APS-C line, which would create a cleaner transition to high end R bodies, but that may be a lot of transition work to take on whole still filling out the RF line of lenses. 

I guess it's possible, maybe even probable eventually, but I struggle to see it until the RF mount is better established.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah. Come back when it’s a Canon Press Release. Zero sense in maintaining the M line production when you can completely replace it with Uniform upgradeable glass on a singular mount system and transition over to the same end result



Zero sense in dumping their best selling line.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> That’s Funny. When I said on these very forums last year that the EOS M line would be replaced by an upcoming RF-S line.... i was laughed at by some folks in here... Obvious then, and even more obvious now



C1

lol


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> RF-S like EF-S makes lot more sense than the EF-M mount. Knowing Canon' history I would not be surprised if Canon kills EF-M mount altogether. If that happens, I am sure the internet will be full of people crying, weeping and whining but it sounds like no matter how many times people get burned they will keep buying Canon. That is definitely good for Canon coz now they can sell the same cameras and lens with a different mount to the same consumers . So that makes sense from business POV.



hell no.

if canon cancel EF-M mount and make a new mount, I'll go to sony's a6xxx.

I still want 2 systems. 1 for when I want the best I can afford (FF). and the 2nd for portability (M/APS-C).
I don't want to use huge lenses when I need portability.

But I'll probably still get Canon for FF.

LOL!!


----------



## secant (Aug 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> hell no.
> 
> if canon cancel EF-M mount and make a new mount, I'll go to sony's a6xxx.
> 
> ...


Pretty much same. I use RP but probably will switch to Fuji for light weight street photography and hiking.


----------



## lyleschmitz (Aug 30, 2020)

God, I really hope this isn't true. I know a lot of pros don't like the M line, but as a semi-pro I saw a lot of potential in it (though I'll admit, Canon has yet to fulfill that potential). About six months out of the year, I travel almost constantly. My M50 with 22 is a great little jacket-pocket camera that is nearly invisible in my carry-on and I can bring my adapted 17-55 f/2.8 for when I wanna get a bit more diverse. The other six months I do product and portrait photography on the side, and I use my 80D for that. 

I've always thought if Canon put a few more features in the body, as well as gave us a substantial battery grip, the M line would be perfect for people like me. The option of having a tiny travel camera on one hand, and then the option to expand that via a battery grip and EF adapter into an APS-C workhorse is still a dream of mine. I hate having to swap between cameras - I'd rather be able to mod my tiny travel camera into a bigger pro body when necessary and that's what I always hoped they'd do with the M line - make it a kind of transformer. 


And while I certainly think there are nowhere near enough M lenses, the ones we have are great. The Sigma trio is amazing from what I've seen, and the 22 f/2 is my favorite lens ever. I'll miss it if the M line dies.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

lyleschmitz said:


> And while I certainly think there are nowhere near enough M lenses, the ones we have are great. The Sigma trio is amazing from what I've seen, and the 22 f/2 is my favorite lens ever. I'll miss it if the M line dies.



The good news is this is probably all BS anyway. But even if it isn't your 22mm f/2.0and M50 will continue to function. Ironically right now that same lens is on MY M50. I haven't really done too much with it yet.


----------



## Skux (Aug 30, 2020)

It would be tremendously foolish of them to dump the EOS M line, which is hugely popular with vloggers and amateurs, and leave themselves with no entry-level or compact offering in the market.

Just take a second and think about what a bad idea that is lol


----------



## dwarven (Aug 30, 2020)

I'd be shocked if Canon dropped the M line. I realize a lot of enthusiasts want it to go away, but the sales figures are what Canon listens to.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 30, 2020)

B & H is selling EOS RP with the slower ( cheaper ) 24-105 lens for $1300. I am wondering who will pay $1500 for M7 that has only one lens that may be good enough for 32MP APS-C sensor.


----------



## i_SH (Aug 30, 2020)

I would be more interested if Canon released a full-frame camera with a slightly updated M mount! And new little optics for her! 
Judging by the rumors, Sony is going to do it on her native mount.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 30, 2020)

I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations. 

But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 30, 2020)

Too many maybes to believe the details, but a top flight M body would be very welcome. I really like the M5, but added a 90D instead of an M6II for the better video. I have almost all the M lenses and although most are not fast, they are all quite good with the 11-22 being my favorite. Since the camera currently in certification is likely not this one, that means two new M bodies before the end of the year. That hardly sounds like a precursor to a funeral. The M line is still the most portable APS-C family out there, particularly if you are planning to take several lenses with you (what those lenses give up in speed, they give back in portability).


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I'd be shocked if Canon dropped the M line. I realize a lot of enthusiasts want it to go away, but the sales figures are what Canon listens to.



What I can't fathom is why the hate. It's a perfectly good system, and it being there doesn't break your bones or pick your pocket.

They do ditzier cameras by far than the M, yet they don't get nearly the hate.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Since the camera currently in certification is likely not this one, that means two new M bodies before the end of the year. That hardly sounds like a precursor to a funeral.



Yeah, that struck me as odd too. They're supposedly going to release the best M camera ever...then kill the line? If they plan to kill it, why bother with that body then?

And yes the M is very useful, for portablility. Even with the Tamron 18-200 lens on my M6-II (a lens fatter than Canon makes for the M series), it's still petite next to my R5 and the two monster lenses on it (those suckers bend light outside the lens).


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 30, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.
> 
> But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.



It’s a possibility, I can’t deny that, but let’s delve a little bit more

People who only have M lenses and the eos-m bodies, why does Canon think if they forced them to upgrade would stay with Canon? That’s a brave move at best, but very foolish. You’ve alienated people and their current kit is their only connection to Canon. Some may be foolish enough to upgrade, but I see a lot of people deciding to show Canon where they can stick their suggestions and swap to another brand. Especially as this is their only connection to Canon. And I can see a lot of those other brands falling over themselves to offer trade ins and marketing to those people who have just been abandoned by Canon.

People who may have some m glass but supplement it with ef-s or ef lenses. More difficult decisions. Canon knows they will not buy any rf glass and they’re not expanding the ef or ef-s range, but there is still chance of them buying more ef and ef-s glass or m glass, and future bodies. If Canon wants them to move, offer a trade in to move to R system and see how many take it up. Or do a survey and see if they would, except that would also get out to the media if they did. So maybe just when they announce the death, they offer a free rf-ef converter and a trade in to a new APS-C R body. This same body could attract the mid range DSLR users.

To me, for this second camp, I would have not ever introduced the m6 ii last year. And I don’t think Canon makes these sorts of decisions on a yearly basis. Adjust plans? Sure. But I think when they released the m6 ii they already had the next 2-3 years mapped out. If you want to kill a line, stop developing bodies. If you want to encourage the enthusiast to move, only develop the entry level and midrange bodies.

I think worst case might be the latter. They stop developing higher end m bodies, but not the entry and mid level stuff for vloggers. They can point to the m6 ii as their best enthusiast model but then see how many of those move to an r based aps-c. No need to kill the line.

I understand that many people find the M too small, but I would suggest that smaller bodies appeal more to women - and they’re more discreet and easy to carry. Plus vloggers who do it on the move I think are less likely to be happy with an r and an rf lens. You’re hand holding these and lighter / compact is better.

Me personally, I think i would either buy a second m6 ii and keep the system for the life of it, with all the new lenses i just bought, or I would sell the lot and go Fuji. I’d keep my r5 and all that ecosystem as I’ve long accepted they are separate bar the ef lenses. But I would also inform Canon direct at my disappointment.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Aug 30, 2020)

I am also skeptical of killing off the line, however, since no one who thinks it's going to happen ever actually gives any reasons beyond they don't personally like the format (if that), let me speculate why it might happen.

If Canon's research shows that the Rebel line does a good job of getting people to eventually buy full frame cameras and lenses while the EOS-M line isn't getting that same kind of traction, and they replace it with an RF-S line, then it could possibly make sense.

But maybe more importantly, if you combine that with the fact that while they gained market share, it's a percentage gain of a _shrinking_ market, and if they have projections showing them how much that specific market is going to shrink as new smartphones keep getting released now with multiple lenses and always advancing camera software, maybe it's not worth it for them to keep pursuing the line, because they're actually losing a particular demographic because of smartphones. The EOS-M line may even be considered too "saturated," or at least certainly much more so than the RF line which is positioned for explosive growth (But I know nothing about that really and how it's doing in the Asian market as mentioned by others), so it _may_ be worth it to them to just put all the resources there in the RF basket.

They don't have to stop making the current EOS-M cameras anytime soon. They can still have those manufactured and sold to keep hold of the portion they have for the next few years as the market continues to shrink. They just might stop developing new ones.

(I think I may have just convinced myself from thinking there's no way it's going to happen to I guess I can see it possibly happening but still have hope it's not true.)

It's too bad though. I was hoping for an M6 Mark III with IBIS and eye-autofocus. If it's killed off, I was already starting to look at Fuji cameras during this long wait for the R5. If/when it happens, I expect that's where I'll look to for my next compact option whenever I feel like it's time to part with my M6 Mark I.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 30, 2020)

PhotoGenerous said:


> I am also skeptical of killing off the line, however, since no one who thinks it's going to happen ever actually gives any reasons beyond they don't personally like the format (if that), let me speculate why it might happen.
> 
> If Canon's research shows that the Rebel line does a good job of getting people to eventually buy full frame cameras and lenses while the EOS-M line isn't getting that same kind of traction, and the EOS-M line isn't giving them the same launching pad, and they replace it with an RF-S line, then it could possibly make sense. And they re
> 
> ...



Guess we posted at roughly the same time with some similarities. 

I think unless they consider moving those resources to the r / rf line gives them more profit, then I can’t see them killing it while it still makes a profit.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 30, 2020)

To me it made no sense to have interchangable lens in smaller camera body.

Will canon follow Sony A7C style with pancake lens?

Anything smaller like G1 mark 2 would be eaten by mobilephone market.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 30, 2020)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor.
> 
> The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.



1) pan cake lens
2) if sigma and sony ( upcoming A7c ) can do small ff bodies so can canon...


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.


I have taken well over 150,000 photos with that pathetic lens lineup without issues. 

Talent > gear.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?


There's no markets it isn't selling well that is just the problem.
it's actually outselling by a vast margin other cameras in north america even given some sales figures that were shared with me, and that was probably the last major market it wasn't selling well in.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.
> 
> But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.



yeah, that's a good theory but it really doesn't happen that much.
if you are going to force everyone to buy a completely new kit, they simply will look at other options as well. which would be Sony and Fuji.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I have taken well over 150,000 photos with that pathetic lens lineup without issues.
> 
> Talent > gear.


talent ≠ gear
gear ≠ talent
talent > gear
talent + gear > talent


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 30, 2020)

The EF-M 32 1.4 is out about two years now and I bought it days after release. This lens with 14 sheets of glass is a commitment to the M system. I bought it not only for the M50 but to use it maybe the next 10 or 20 years - it is light, has a high aperture, good close focus range of 1:4 (~60 x 90 mm field of view!) and excellent image quality. This with IBIS and full sensor 4k makes a tiny package for tight situations which might be good enough for professional cine productions.

Cancelling the M system shortly after introducing that lens while others might be released soon? I just do not believe that.


----------



## scottw (Aug 30, 2020)

I do wonder what percentage of EF-M users would even consider a full-frame camera. Let's say an M200 styled camera in RF mount would cost $550 with a lens. Is that enough of a difference for the person to not consider the RP at $1300 with a FF lens? Would people that have any interest in FF consider an APS-C starter when their kit lens and camera don't get them there? Sure they could buy this M200 with an RF 35mm f1.8, but that combo is getting close to the RP plus kit lens price. I can't see many beginners starting with a 35mm prime even though they might benefit from it. Back in the DSLR days, there was more of a reason to start in APS-C. Not until the Nikon D600 did FF really start to drop in price (I switched from Pentax to the D600 so I could try FF).

I could see Canon trying to follow Nikon for better or worse. I tried the Z50 and it is a decent camera, but it has a lot of drawbacks and will for a long time based on their lens roadmap. The current Z-mount FF lenses aren't amazing focal length combinations for a crop camera. It's totally possible Canon is willing to drop EF-M out of stubbornness.

What benefit is there to APS-C cameras in a FF mount? I guess maybe a sports focused camera if Canon had a fast and recent lower resolution APS-C sensor to source. Besides that, Canon already has RF pretty covered from $999 full-frame to high resolution with the R5. I wouldn't expect them to handle it any better than EF-S. I'm seeing 19 EF-S lenses on B&H right now with 4 of them have an aperture f/2.8 or faster.

Full-frame is a lot more accessible now than it was. I see the benefit of APS-C in the potential size of the lenses and to a lesser degree the size of the cameras (the RP is pretty small, so much so I prefer it with the grip extension). Okay, I guess people really want an 80D or 7D in RF, buy why? What would those as RF, updated to current tech, really get you over what current RF FF cameras that exist? 

Fujifilm shows what dedicated APS-C can look like and it makes the most sense to me as the path of that sensor size, though maybe Fujifilm's APS-C will die out eventually... who knows. How much pricing room does Canon have in RF for APS-C? We'd probably see a bigger M200 styled camera. Maybe the sports camera if a sensor exists. What else? An M6 II with RF mount? The rest of it seems covered by current FF cameras. Right now the only recent APS-C sensor we know of is the 32mp one.


----------



## Joules (Aug 30, 2020)

Sounds like complete BS to me.

Why dedicate R&D to a new M flag ship camera if the market situation were so dire that even a product line with low investment and high sales numbers like EF-M can't be maintained? If things were looking so bad, it would make more sense to put this effort into an RF mount equivalent. We've seen that Canon is (probably) fine with killing a product in development once it doesn't sit with their future plans anyway (RIP 5D V). 

In any case: 12 FPS without AF at over 1500 $? lol. This rumor is BS. Quick reminder that the 1000 $ M6 II does 14 FPS mechanical with AF (yes, speed priority. Still, it has AF) and 30 FPS in the electronic shutter 18 MP crop mode, still with AF.

Also,why even bother with lenses like the 600 mm and especially the 800 mm f/11 lenses. If you can instead get more reach at lower costs by going with an upcoming RF APS-C camera and a brighter lens. They specifically serve the market for low budget FF reach there. To me, that makes the most sense if there will be no APS-C alternatives in RF mount and so they go for focal length rather than pixel density.


----------



## LensFungus (Aug 30, 2020)

I like my M50 and I like the general idea of the small and cheap M-system. Having said that there are two things to consider:

1. Yes, the M50 and M100 are/were worldwide bestsellers but the M6 II and the M200 never got the same reputation. If the M50 II just becomes a mediocre seller, Canon gets one more reason to pay - again - less attention to the M-system.
2. Yes, Nikon's APS-C camera Nikon Z50 share one mount with the fullframe cameras. The fullframe Z lenses have excellent quality and while they are now not really cheap, pixelpeepers don't have to worry if these lenses are good enough for the APS-C cameras compared to the M6 II 32mp situation. I don't care but some people do. Their first two APS-C lenses are a bit fat but Nikon managed it to keep them very small because they made them collapsible like the popular Canon EF-M 11-22mm.
Now comes the problem. According to Sonyalpharumors Sony plans to release a new line of "compact" fullframe lenses (which obviously can be attached to their APS-C A6x00 cameras). There is no detailed information so far but the word "compact" is enough because in my opinion it will translate to "cheap" and cheap fullframe is able to attack sales of APS-C from Canon EF-M lenses and Fujifilm.
One of the reasons for people to not enter the fullframe world were the expensive fullframe lenses. That's where Canon was able to shine with their older lenses like EF 50mm 1.4, EF 85mm 1.8 etc. but Sony might be planning something similar. What's missing is a cheap fullframe camera by Sony. Yes, they have the old A7 II and the A7 III will continue to become cheaper but they lack a more modern camera like the Canon EOS RP or the Nikon Z5. However a cheap and modern fullframe camera by Sony is only a matter of time.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> CR1 seems awfully generous, to be honest.


I have an impression our host, @Canon Rumors Guy, is slightly biased against M...


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2020)

LensFungus said:


> I like my M50 and I like the general idea of the small and cheap M-system. Having said that there are two things to consider:
> 
> 1. Yes, the M50 and M100 are/were worldwide bestsellers but the M6 II and the M200 never got the same reputation. If the M50 II just becomes a mediocre seller, Canon gets one more reason to pay - again - less attention to the M-system.


Same with every other brand though, the top sellers are the low end to midrange bodies.


LensFungus said:


> 2. Yes, Nikon's APS-C camera Nikon Z50 share one mount with the fullframe cameras. The fullframe Z lenses have excellent quality and while they are now not really cheap, pixelpeepers don't have to worry if these lenses are good enough for the APS-C cameras compared to the M6 II 32mp situation. I don't care but some people do. Their first two APS-C lenses are a bit fat but Nikon managed it to keep them very small because they made them collapsible like the popular Canon EF-M 11-22mm.


Alot of if's .. Z50 isnt' selling that well btw.


LensFungus said:


> Now comes the problem. According to Sonyalpharumors Sony plans to release a new line of "compact" fullframe lenses (which obviously can be attached to their APS-C A6x00 cameras). There is no detailed information so far but the word "compact" is enough because in my opinion it will translate to "cheap" and cheap fullframe is able to attack sales of APS-C from Canon EF-M lenses and Fujifilm.


it doesn't. cheap full frame will still not replace APS-C. Sony rarely makes good and cheap.

there still is a reason to have a dedicated small sensor ILC camera.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

canonnews said:


> There's no markets it isn't selling well that is just the problem.
> it's actually outselling by a vast margin other cameras in north america even given some sales figures that were shared with me, and that was probably the last major market it wasn't selling well in.



Fair enough, I was under the impression it wasn't selling well in North America. If I was wrong about that, so much the better.

Anecdotally, a few days before r5 day, I watched someone buy an M6 at the brick and mortar. Not an M6-II, an olde model one.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 30, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> I have an impression our host, @Canon Rumors Guy, is slightly biased against M...



Ha ha, we are all biased towards the gear we own


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 30, 2020)

Looking at the price, if this is body only, by the time a lens is added the price is knocking on the door of the Fuji X-T4 which is king of the hill as far as APS-C at the moment.

Whilst it will have the Canon label it won't be as well made and won't have the X-T 4 feature set.

The M-Series have sold well because a lot of casual shooters want a compact camera that is good enough at an affordable price point from a brand with good name recognition.

I haven't read anything on this site that gives me confidence in Canon coming up any time soon with something between that segment and the the FF R range to meet the needs of enthusiasts, semi-pros and pros who need a crop option. Though I have a hat and I'm prepared to eat it if I'm proved wrong.

That vacuum in the range is probably why speculation is running rife.

Personally I couldn't be bothered to wait for whatever Canon decides to serve up and went out and bought an X-T4. I've had it just over a week and I've been surprised at just how capable it is. I was planning to keep my RP and a couple of lenses. I've come round to thinking I don't need to.


----------



## Mark3794 (Aug 30, 2020)

Rumor is wrong btw " 12fps serial shooting, without AF active " the M6 mark II already does 14 fps with full autofocus so...


----------



## Traveler (Aug 30, 2020)

IMO it would make sense to kill APSC system completely and focus on FF R cameras only. FF sensors can be cheap and fast with current technology so there’s no need for smaller sensors.
The task for Canon is to create a low end FF camera that is as cheap as APSC cameras but doesn’t cannibalize higher models; and create cheap FF lenses for that. For example a FF 28-90mm f/9 would be as compact as 18-55 f/5.6 for APSC, providing equal results (angle, DOF, noise performance).

It would allow much smoother transition for beginners to move towards high end cameras and lenses. It seems like the DSLR way brings more money to manufacturers (buy APSC first and then spend your money again for FF cameras and lenses) but in many cases it holds people back because the transition is a pain therefore it takes a decade for some people to move to FF.


----------



## candyman (Aug 30, 2020)

It's an interesting rumor. What I noticed, and this has been going on long before the rumor was published on Canon Rumors, is that one of the major camera suppliers in the Netherlands now sells a lot of EF-M occasion lenses. A large part of this comes from their own stock (demo models). This includes lenses such as the 11-22, the 22 and the 28 macro. These are lenses that you hardly ever see offered as an occasion. And they sell quite a few. Usually only at 15-45 or 55-200 lenses are offered. It seems they have received a signal to empty their supply.
As you can see here: https://www.kamera-express.nl/produ...ideo/tweedehands-lenzen#?tags=738,1367&page=1


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> hell no.
> 
> if canon cancel EF-M mount and make a new mount, I'll go to sony's a6xxx.
> 
> ...



EF-M lenses have a diameter of 60.9mm, which is already larger than the RF mount's throat diameter. The RF mount's throat diameter is 10mm larger than EOS-M, and its flange distance is 2mm longer.

So my impression is Canon can switch to RF mount, make lenses the same size, and the body just a wee bit larger.


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 30, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Ha ha, we are all biased towards the gear we own


Is the market shrinkage so significant Canon can't afford to continue this two mount diversification? In this way they are encompassing two hardly overlapping markets, I suppose.

PS
Should Toyota stop selling Tacoma because Land Cruiser is "better" (or Ford halt offering Ranger not to cannibalize F-150)?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

APS-C RF mount camera might make sense. 
RF mount is only 7mm bigger than EF-M, which is significant but not that big. They could still make a nice and compact camera. 
Maybe not as compact as an M100 tho.


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

None of this makes sense , surely an R7 aps-c rf mount camera makes more sense ? 
I doubt canon would add ibis to an M camera either


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> APS-C RF mount camera might make sense.
> RF mount is only 7mm bigger than EF-M, which is significant but not that big. They could still make a nice and compact camera.
> Maybe not as compact as an M100 tho.


Who cares about compact ? 
Light weight is good but little dinky boxes aren’t comfortable to hold for long periods .
I have small hands and much prefer the chunky comfortable grip on my 7D ii


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> RF-S like EF-S makes lot more sense than the EF-M mount. Knowing Canon' history I would not be surprised if Canon kills EF-M mount altogether. If that happens, I am sure the internet will be full of people crying, weeping and whining but it sounds like no matter how many times people get burned they will keep buying Canon. That is definitely good for Canon coz now they can sell the same cameras and lens with a different mount to the same consumers . So that makes sense from business POV.


Don’t understand why Canon ever made the M cameras


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Honestly, I know everyone wants smaller and lighter cameras, but I'm fine with bigger cameras because the ergonomics are MUCH better and intuitive. Was never a fan of the M line. And I gave it a chance. I own the M, M3, and M50. They are decent cameras but don't work well enough for me. Let the line die I sat



When i travel, i want the smallest camera and lenses possible. Something like the M6II has great ergonomics (3 wheels) and still very compact. But the lenses are tiny. 

The 15-45 and 22mm weight 200g together!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> Who cares about compact ?
> Light weight is good but little dinky boxes aren’t comfortable to hold for long periods .
> I have small hands and much prefer the chunky comfortable grip on my 7D ii



Yeah, i prefer the 7D too. But when im traveling or walking in a city, i rather carry a 300g small M100 or M6 with a 100g lens than a massive 7D with lens which weights 1kg together.

Its just so nice to toss the M in a backpack and take it everywhere.


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

scottw said:


> I do wonder what percentage of EF-M users would even consider a full-frame camera. Let's say an M200 styled camera in RF mount would cost $550 with a lens. Is that enough of a difference for the person to not consider the RP at $1300 with a FF lens? Would people that have any interest in FF consider an APS-C starter when their kit lens and camera don't get them there? Sure they could buy this M200 with an RF 35mm f1.8, but that combo is getting close to the RP plus kit lens price. I can't see many beginners starting with a 35mm prime even though they might benefit from it. Back in the DSLR days, there was more of a reason to start in APS-C. Not until the Nikon D600 did FF really start to drop in price (I switched from Pentax to the D600 so I could try FF).
> 
> I could see Canon trying to follow Nikon for better or worse. I tried the Z50 and it is a decent camera, but it has a lot of drawbacks and will for a long time based on their lens roadmap. The current Z-mount FF lenses aren't amazing focal length combinations for a crop camera. It's totally possible Canon is willing to drop EF-M out of stubbornness.
> 
> ...


They could downsize the R5 sensor to make a 17mp aps-c sensor for an R7 I guess ?


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yeah, i prefer the 7D too. But when im traveling or walking in a city, i rather carry a 300g small M100 or M6 with a 100g lens than a massive 7D with lens which weights 1kg together.
> 
> Its just so nice to toss the M in a backpack and take it everywhere.


In that situation I’d just use my iPhone like most people, I use my 7D ii when I shoot wildlife or sport


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 30, 2020)

I was lusting for M6 II for quite some time as an amusement camera, but realistically we are going to get R5 next spring, to support our business. M line is nice and small. If you take it for what it is, everything is fine. But having something like M7 (7D III?) without a lens transition path, is a problem imo. The problem is not in not being able to use M lens on RF body, but the reverse scenario. Of course, there is still tonnes of EF lens available, but those are EOL and such situation does not feel right imo.

I really wonder, how small Canon could get with an RF mount body plus some RF-S lens. Sure, most probably it would not be pocketable, so once again - different cameras for different scenarios, but advantage of being able to use RF mount less, is too important to be missed imo.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

If they can make a good RF camera with some small and good lenses, why not. The M is great but doesn't get much love from Canon. Barely a lens a year, rarely a firmware update and only with bugfixes while the RF gets constant improvements via firmware.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> In that situation I’d just use my iPhone like most people, I use my 7D ii when I shoot wildlife or sport



Smartphone is just not enough quality for me. I ideally have 2 systems. One as tiny as possible but with a big sensor and one full sized for wildlife, like the 7D or R5 with all the big glass.


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Smartphone is just not enough quality for me. I ideally have 2 systems. One as tiny as possible but with a big sensor and one full sized for wildlife, like the 7D or R5 with all the big glass.


Smartphones compare fine at close quarters with compact cameras eg this photo I took with my iPhone SE


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> I was lusting for M6 II for quite some time as an amusement camera, but realistically we are going to get R5 next spring, to support our business. M line is nice and small. If you take it what it is, everything is fine. But having something like M7 (7D III?) without a lens transition path, is a problem imo. The problem is not in not being able to use M lens on RF body, but the reverse scenario. Of course, there is still tonnes of EF lens, but those are EOL.
> 
> I really wonder, how small Canon could bet with an RF mount body plus some RF-S lens. Sure, most probably it would not be pocketable, so once again - different cameras for different scenarios and many M users are not going to be happy, if the news is true.



I fully agree. You cannot expect people to buy an expensive and high performance M7 and not be able to share the same RF 100-500 lens with the R5/R6 they might have. 

The Nikon Z50 is pretty small (with much bigger mount than EF-M) and removing the EVF could be made about the same size as the M6. Their 16-50 kit lens is also tiny and much better than Canon's 15-45.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Is the market shrinkage so significant Canon can't afford to continue this two mount diversification? In this way they are encompassing two hardly overlapping markets, I suppose.
> 
> PS
> Should Toyota stop selling Tacoma because Land Cruiser is "better" (or Ford halt offering Ranger not to cannibalize F-150)?



Im afraid they won't be able to compete with Sony or Nikon in the high performance APS-C market
without a system with clear update path.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 30, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Adorama did a fire sale on the M5 during last (2019) Thanksgiving and later followed by B&H. So no surprises there.


And that's when I bought my M5.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> They could downsize the R5 sensor to make a 17mp aps-c sensor for an R7 I guess ?



One could get the RF 100-500 for example with an $1000 APS-C camera and have more pixels on a bird than with a $4000 R5.


----------



## vjlex (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Zero sense in dumping their best selling line.


I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can easily imagine the same thing being said about the 5D, 6D, 7D, XXD, and rebel lines. some of those have already been transitioned over. even the 1DX3 seems like the last of its line. "zero sense" seems a bit of an over-estimation.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 30, 2020)

An RF-mount APS-C would definitely compete better than an EF-M mount camera with the biggest market threats to Canon, right? Fuji, Nikon, Sony, right? Or wait, is the biggest market threat coming from cellphones, meaning the best way to compete is with an ultra-compact and inexpensive line with only a few lenses?


----------



## reef58 (Aug 30, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.
> 
> But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.



They are not going to force me to buy anything. I have the m50 not only for the small camera size, but the small lens size. You can't get that with the RP. If they kill off the M series I will use the M50 until it dies and shop for a replacement that can also fit in the pocket of my cargo pants with a tiny zoom lens. I would be surprised if they kill it off. Last week the rumors were more high end M lens coming, so it appears we don't know yet.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 30, 2020)

scottw said:


> I do wonder what percentage of EF-M users would even consider a full-frame camera. Let's say an M200 styled camera in RF mount would cost $550 with a lens. Is that enough of a difference for the person to not consider the RP at $1300 with a FF lens? Would people that have any interest in FF consider an APS-C starter when their kit lens and camera don't get them there? Sure they could buy this M200 with an RF 35mm f1.8, but that combo is getting close to the RP plus kit lens price. I can't see many beginners starting with a 35mm prime even though they might benefit from it. Back in the DSLR days, there was more of a reason to start in APS-C. Not until the Nikon D600 did FF really start to drop in price (I switched from Pentax to the D600 so I could try FF).
> 
> I could see Canon trying to follow Nikon for better or worse. I tried the Z50 and it is a decent camera, but it has a lot of drawbacks and will for a long time based on their lens roadmap. The current Z-mount FF lenses aren't amazing focal length combinations for a crop camera. It's totally possible Canon is willing to drop EF-M out of stubbornness.
> 
> ...



I think you will find a lot of full frame users have an M series camera as a walk around. It is a second camera. If I am going on a trip to take photos I will carry one or more of my full frame cameras. If I am going on a trip for work but may take a few photos and I am packing light the M50 comes. That is the beauty of it. It fits in my computer bag with lens on and you don't even know it is there. When I used an SL2 it also fit, but was way bigger and heavier.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 30, 2020)

First, no one is buying an M for 1600. That makes no sense at all.
Even 1k for an M would confuse the market unless its some new robust, metal body that would be that small/and or small and super rugged. It would be a 'mighty' M? confused: sorry, had to)

As a M user who is looking to pick up a m6mk2 right now, a new version with ibis and updated eye dpaf would be the holy grail of small camera shooting. The m62 was one of the very few M bodies that was well reviewed across the board aside from the m50.....easy to dismiss with nonsensical personal hate of a fine camera. (put a adapter on it ya crybabies).

I bet there's a fair portion of people still thinking mirrorless = tiny everything..that dream is over. But a small cheap RF cam...hey it can happen but really only if its a reworked RF. And the RF lenses are way too expensive for the market that the M serves.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 30, 2020)

Canon will find a way to an option for photographers at lower price points. But, it would need to be lower cost lenses and lower cost bodies. It does make sense that those lower cost bodies/lenses can be a gateway to more expensive products. But, it is not that having two distinct lines is not without precedent. Just look at Fuji. The "X" line is APS-C while the "G" mount is a larger sensor. Yet, I know of at least a couple photographers that pack around X and G gear because they are "Fuji" users and that also plays into the files that come out of the camera, familiarity with the ergonomics and menu systems, etc.


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 30, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im afraid they won't be able to compete with Sony or Nikon in the high performance APS-C market
> without a system with clear update path.



Stop this illusion of upgrade path. 
Most of APS-C users never upgrade to full frame. 
They buy rebel after rebel, xxD after xxD.


----------



## slclick (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> What I can't fathom is why the hate. It's a perfectly good system, and it being there doesn't break your bones or pick your pocket.
> 
> They do ditzier cameras by far than the M, yet they don't get nearly the hate.


And the logic behind the must have M>RF upgrade path? Please, a company cannot have distinct lines in a segment? Keep that stupidity out of the equation. M stands on it's own, does well and is a fine imaging product. Why on earth should the M glass be as expansive as EF or RF? Just to please some forumites in their Mom's basement? It's a nice little list of lenses. Try them.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Zero sense in dumping their best selling line.


If it can be effectively replaced with same/very similar cameras (size) but with a si gular mounting system across all Canon lines? Yes absolutely Canon would do this because it would save millions of otherwise duplicative development and manufacturing costs


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

Sounds like someone that is jealous of the M line's popularity and trolling incognito. Let's just start this rumour about Canon eliminating the M line, that way people won't buy it in fear of it going away.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?
> There aren't any.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> If it can be effectively replaced with same/very similar cameras (size) but with a si gular mounting system across all Canon lines? Yes absolutely Canon would do this because it would save millions of otherwise duplicative development and manufacturing costs


BS. Name recognition is a selling point of the product. Marketing 101. This merely a trolling ploy to diminish the ever growing popularity of the M line by a person posing as having a legitimate positive interest.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

Another ploy to tarnish the ever so popularity of the M line. Some just can't stand that hey, lot's of people prefer the M line over the other offerings. And it's popularity with content developers has crossed over to teleworkers and Zoom streamers. The M6mk II has become a hit with content developers that care very little about an EVF and often put asside it's EVF for a smoother looking package.


----------



## ZenYogiVegan (Aug 30, 2020)

As an M user for the last 2 years (M50 then M6II) if Canon kills the M line I reckon most will go elsewhere, most likely Sony, maybe Fuji. 

There are no good affordable Canon FF options at the moment for 4k video (the R crop is ridiculous and no DPAF in RP). Sure I could spend a lot more and get R6 but for me I like the small size and affordability, and oh yeah I like the NO OVERHEATING!

If this turns out to be true there will be a whole lot of pissed off M users that will want to give Canon a big ****** you and then give their $$$ to Sony, which maybe we M users should've done in the first place


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

Another ploy to tarnish the ever so popularity of the M line. Some just can't stand that hey, lot's of people prefer the M line over the other offerings. And it's popularity with content developers has crossed over to teleworkers and Zoom streamers. The M6mk II or M50 + Sigma 16mm f 1.4 is the combo to beat.


----------



## jam05 (Aug 30, 2020)

If they put a permanent EVF on the M7 it may not sell as well as the M6mkII. That is a huge selling point and appeal of the M6mk II. Those that care not for the EVF hump can merely leave it off for a slimmer curvy little Canon powerhouse camera.


----------



## Whowe (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah. Come back when it’s a Canon Press Release. Zero sense in maintaining the M line production when you can completely replace it with Uniform upgradeable glass on a singular mount system and transition over to the same end result


Ecept there is a large market for these smaller and inexpensive bodies. Just look at the sales of the M6ii and M50.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

jam05 said:


> Another ploy to tarnish the ever so popularity of the M line. Some just can't stand that hey, lot's of people prefer the M line over the other offerings. And it's popularity with content developers has crossed over to teleworkers and Zoom streamers. The M6mk II has become a hit with content developers that care very little about an EVF and often put asside it's EVF for a smoother looking package.


Huh????? If Canon can make the SAME bodies right now in the M line but with RF mounts, they will. They can call it the RF-M instead of the EOS M. Whatever. It’s not about killing off the M line itself, its just about the MOUNT. 
The purpose of the M line was for Canon to make great, compact, APS-C MILCs for the masses. Huge success.
But now we have the RF glass line, whose mount is similar to the M (albeit a tiny bit bigger but very close.). ApsC RF bodies are the next step for Canon. So what sense would it make for Canon to make two APSC MILC mount systems IF you can achieve the same thing on one??
Why would not want an M6 with an RF mount that can use small apsc rf glass and all the up to everything in RF if you wanted to? Canon is not making a huge line of M glass. They never have.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2020)

Sounds like a Sony rumor.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> Don’t understand why Canon ever made the M cameras



Given how succesful they have been, that points to a lack of imagination on your part, rather than a misstep on Canon's


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2020)

Sounds like CR0 to me. Some random guy on the internet trolling CanonRumors Guy to get some attention.

Specs are mainly just guesses based on existing bodies.

$1699 price point is a little low for a 7DII replacement, but it would make sense if Canon wanted to price it aggressively. I've said it before: put out an M7, add a 15-85 walk around lens and a 150-500 or even 150-600 f6.3 that's a little better than the Sigma and Tamron and has a Canon label on it and most disgruntled 7D users will be happy.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 30, 2020)

Seeing how Nikon have failed utterly with their APS-C offering on the Z mount, the Z50, I can't see Canon making the same mistake and ditching their highly profitable EF-M line for an untested RF APSC camera.

As for the complaints of the EF-M lens lineup not being good enough, how many APS-C lenses are there for RF? Don't count EF lenses - those work on EF-M too.

The noise and probably this rumour seem to be coming from a few noisy forum types who think Canon owes them a replacement for the 7D II and that only the RF mount can do because obviously RF is the best mount and they wouldn't want something that isn't the best. 

Canon wouldn't be launching a high-end EF-M body now if they were going to be launching an R7 any time soon.

Face it guys, it's not going to happen. At least not for a while.


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Aug 30, 2020)

If they introduce a $1700 camera and then call the line dead, then they are dumber than I thought and I’ll move onto another system.

Give us damn near 2 Grand after taxes, and we will give you a product we aren’t supporting any more. Then they wonder why the pie is shrinking.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

The M line isnt going to be retired until Canon has comparably small $500-$1000 RF ApSC bodies (same size types as the M) out with at least the same, few basic lenses the M has now. Then they can call it RF-M or whatever. You may still have an M line in name but the M mount is what I see getting phased out if they can make similar sized cameras with RF


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> The M line isnt going to be retired until Canon has comparably small $500-$1000 RF ApSC bodies (same size types as the M) out with at least the same, few basic lenses the M has now. Then they can call it RF-M or whatever. You may still have an M line in name but the M mount is what I see getting phased out if they can make similar sized cameras with RF


Compare the sizes and weights of the RP and M5. The difference isn't all that great.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Compare the sizes and weights of the RP and M5. The difference isn't all that great.



Put a big fat lens on the RP and then see how physically HUGE it is compared to the M5 with a lens.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Ecept there is a large market for these smaller and inexpensive bodies. Just look at the sales of the M6ii and M50.


Absolutely. The M bodies are HUGELY successful! I own one! My point is not that Canon is going to terminate that TYPE/SIZE of the M. Simply that over time, it only makes total sense for Canon to unify mirrorless mounts under RF. If they can produce a crop sensor, RF Mounted MILC in the same size and body types as the M line currently.... not much sense in continuing the M long term. So, think of an M6 right now, but with the RF mount.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Seeing how Nikon have failed utterly with their APS-C offering on the Z mount, the Z50, I can't see Canon making the same mistake and ditching their highly profitable EF-M line for an untested RF APSC camera.
> 
> As for the complaints of the EF-M lens lineup not being good enough, how many APS-C lenses are there for RF? Don't count EF lenses - those work on EF-M too.
> 
> ...



What's wrong with the Z50? It's a great camera. The lack of lenses is a different matter.

"how many APS-C lenses are there for RF"

Hm...none, because there is no RF APS-C camera yet. I'm sure there will be some once we have an APS-C camera.

But for a high-end APS-C camera you need high-end lenses, like the 70-200 F4, F2.8 or 100-500. Just like for 90D, 7D people use and used big whites or lenses like the 100-400. And no, don't want to adapt EF if i can rather buy RF lens (price aside now, we are talking long term).


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Put a big fat lens one the RP and then see how physically HUGE it is compare to the M5 with a lens.


Yes precisely. But eventually in the next couple years, Canon is very likely going to huge slate of small, compact Non-L RF glass far more comparable to current M Lines


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Yes precisely. But eventually in the next couple years, Canon is very likely going to huge slate of small, compact Non-L RF glass far more comparable to current M Lines


Maybe! I'm sure that If Canon thinks they can profitably both sell an APS-C R body and continue the M system, that is exactly what they will do.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Yes precisely. But eventually in the next couple years, Canon is very likely going to huge slate of small, compact Non-L RF glass far more comparable to current M Lines



if Canon can keep the camera/lens system a small as the M line is now, I'd probably be ok if they killed it. But lens girth is what I am worried my be the issue.

I like the small factor for many reasons. More acceptable in venues where "Pro" cameras are not allowed. Easy to travel with.
....And it gets tiring when people are looking at you. I did a 360 degree pan around just before the lawn met the sand at a resort in Hawaii and I hear an annoyed woman say "Uh, What are you doing??" - I thought to myself "Please biAtcH, I wouldn't touch your saggy leather tanned skin with a 10 foot pole" This was with my already small M50, but with a mid sized lens (Sigma 18-35 1.8) and gorillapod on my shoulders for stability. If it were with just with the kit lens (sized) and no gorilla, I think she would've reacted the same as if I just had a cellphone (meaning no reaction). it's really weird how people react as if your camera is a machine gun, but like a released box of beautiful butterfly's when using a cell phone camera.

LOL!


----------



## tbintb (Aug 30, 2020)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor.
> 
> The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.


You hit the nail on the head. I use my M6 where professional cameras aren’t allowed or when I need something on the go, that’s pocketable as well. Its more or less on the discreet side, and probably why it’s a great seller. It’s also a great travel companion. I love my R5, and would love to take it everywhere when everything reopens but there’s no way I could get away bringing it in to places that frown on photography.


----------



## jwpatmore (Aug 30, 2020)

I have a Canon M6 Mark II which has 1080P at 120FPS with no overheating... I'm very confused why it says it will overheat at 1080P 120FPS on the "rumored" M7. Does this mean that the M7 will have Dual-Pixel AF II during 120FPS or will it simply overheat with the lack of AF like M6 Mark II which does not overheat?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Why, oh why would they kill off their best selling camera line? You love to drive-by snipe at the M series but you've never given a rationale.


There seems to be an RF über alles mindset that seems to feel threatened as long as any other cameras and lenses continue to exist. There could be some commercial or rational arguments for One Lens Mount to Rule Them All, but I never seem to see them in the posts. It reminds me of the emotional tribalism of political posts. 

Don't get me wrong. Apparently there are great RF lenses and some very nice R-series cameras. The R5 sounds amazing in spite of all the bad press. I am in no way casting aspersions on everybody who owns and likes those bodies and lenses, just the convert-or-die crusaders.


----------



## KenLLL (Aug 30, 2020)

I highly doubt they'll kill off the M line-up. I've owned the m6 and now replaced it with the m6 mark ii. Love em both. Plus the M cameras are a top seller. The general population buying these cameras aren't working professionals. When i tell my coworkers i spent $1800 on my Eos R, they lose their minds. I'd rather not tell them i spent $3300 on my 5d4 that is currently collecting dust.
Long story short, i think it would be stupid for Canon to kill off the M line-up just because some snobby camera enthusiasts think they are worthless because of a weak lens lineup. For the general population, the lens lineup is more than satisfactory. 15-45 + 55-200 and they are set. Plus that 32mm is quite a gem. For someone who wants a better image, adapt adapt adapt! I've had zero issues throwing a big lens on the front. It's quite hilarious to me putting a Sigma 105mm f1.4 on my baby m6 ii. Okay, rant over. My opinion, the M cameras are here to stay.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

jwpatmore said:


> I have a Canon M6 Mark II which has 1080P at 120FPS with no overheating... I'm very confused why it says it will overheat at 1080P 120FPS on the "rumored" M7. Does this mean that the M7 will have Dual-Pixel AF II during 120FPS or will it simply overheat with the lack of AF like M6 Mark II which does not overheat?



Because its a C0, I mean C1 *rumor*.

LOL!


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> Smartphones compare fine at close quarters with compact cameras eg this photo I took with my iPhone SE
> View attachment 192516


Is that the current SE or the older, smaller model? I'm still using my iPhone 6S, but thinking about replacing it with the SE while I can. I don't want anything larger in my shirt pocket. I did the $29.95 battery replacement in my 6S a couple years ago, so it is still going strong. The SE would give me a few advantages, but also would mean I could continue using a phone of that size, the Lightning connector, and fingerprint recognition. (OK, I'm old and don't want to change too much.) The main thing I would lose is the headphone jack. With an Apple Card, Apple makes it way too easy to do the upgrade: $70 trade-in, 3% cash back, no interest, and so payments around $15/month. I came close the other night to an impulse purchase of a tricked-out iMac 5K until I thought of the hassle of dongles and such for my Firewire and pre-Thunderbolt 3 items.

Within its limitations, I find the camera on the 6S takes good pictures and serves its purpose as The Camera I Always Have With Me. I still was using G cameras for travel (back when I could travel) because I don't want to stay within those limitations. When upgrading from my G7X II, I considered the M50 very briefly, but decided to go with the G5X II for greater portability. I find the 24–120mm equivalent range almost perfect for travel photos, so I don't miss interchangeable lenses. If anything, I might want something wider for interiors and scenic vistas, so I occasionally take shots to be stitched later, and/or do panoramas on the iPhone. For later GPS location, I usually will take a quick shot on my phone rather than linking the camera to the phone.


----------



## jvillain (Aug 30, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.



The down side is it will not give a lot of confidence in Canon killing off the EF-s and M lines both within a coup,e of years of each other. If you were an EF-S shooter and them moved to M because Canon said they were killing off EF-S and now they are killing off M, your moving to another company that won't make you rebuild from scratch every couple of years.


----------



## mpb001 (Aug 30, 2020)

I am a Canon FF DSLR user. I was a bit interested in the M system but hearing this news, I don’t know what sense it makes for Canon to introduce a new M body, especially with IBIS, if they are also planning of discontinuing the M series in 2021, which is right around the corner.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 30, 2020)

Maybe this thread is Canon's research project  . If so, they will likely keep the M line.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 30, 2020)

As to the 18-45 non-L, why is that materially different from the EF 17-40 L. Just a little more range (which seems to be the norm for RF mound). It makes no sense for an APS-C lens to start at 18 and end at 45. If Canon were to make an APS-C R body, the lens of choice would be a 15-85 (arguably the most useful lens in the EF-s line).


----------



## jwpatmore (Aug 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Because its a C0, I mean C1 *rumor*.
> 
> LOL!



I get it! It's just confusing as to why it would overheat at 1080P 120FPS (if it's true) when the M6 Mark II doesn't even do that!


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Is that the current SE or the older, smaller model? I'm still using my iPhone 6S, but thinking about replacing it with the SE while I can. I don't want anything larger in my shirt pocket. I did the $29.95 battery replacement in my 6S a couple years ago, so it is still going strong. The SE would give me a few advantages, but also would mean I could continue using a phone of that size, the Lightning connector, and fingerprint recognition. (OK, I'm old and don't want to change too much.) The main thing I would lose is the headphone jack. With an Apple Card, Apple makes it way too easy to do the upgrade: $70 trade-in, 3% cash back, no interest, and so payments around $15/month. I came close the other night to an impulse purchase of a tricked-out iMac 5K until I thought of the hassle of dongles and such for my Firewire and pre-Thunderbolt 3 items.
> 
> Within its limitations, I find the camera on the 6S takes good pictures and serves its purpose as The Camera I Always Have With Me. I still was using G cameras for travel (back when I could travel) because I don't want to stay within those limitations. When upgrading from my G7X II, I considered the M50 very briefly, but decided to go with the G5X II for greater portability. I find the 24–120mm equivalent range almost perfect for travel photos, so I don't miss interchangeable lenses. If anything, I might want something wider for interiors and scenic vistas, so I occasionally take shots to be stitched later, and/or do panoramas on the iPhone. For later GPS location, I usually will take a quick shot on my phone rather than linking the camera to the phone.


That’s the older model SE , I currently use an iPhone 7 which suits me and I keep my 7D ii and a big telephoto in my car so it‘s always handy and if I want it I have my pancake 24mm f/2.8 lens in the Car too


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Sounds like CR0 to me. Some random guy on the internet trolling CanonRumors Guy to get some attention.
> 
> Specs are mainly just guesses based on existing bodies.
> 
> $1699 price point is a little low for a 7DII replacement, but it would make sense if Canon wanted to price it aggressively. I've said it before: put out an M7, add a 15-85 walk around lens and a 150-500 or even 150-600 f6.3 that's a little better than the Sigma and Tamron and has a Canon label on it and most disgruntled 7D users will be happy.


No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have , we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest


----------



## Chig (Aug 30, 2020)

stevelee said:


> There seems to be an RF über alles mindset that seems to feel threatened as long as any other cameras and lenses continue to exist. There could be some commercial or rational arguments for One Lens Mount to Rule Them All, but I never seem to see them in the posts. It reminds me of the emotional tribalism of political posts.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Apparently there are great RF lenses and some very nice R-series cameras. The R5 sounds amazing in spite of all the bad press. I am in no way casting aspersions on everybody who owns and likes those bodies and lenses, just the convert-or-die crusaders.


I have no objection to M cameras but I will never buy one and I object to the idea of replacing the 7D ii (which is one of the best cameras ever for Birds in Flight/action) with an M mount camera. What I want is an R7 aps-c replacement and as Canon is the biggest camera maker in the world (bigger than Sony and Nikon combined) they can easily continue making M cameras as well as the RF line and also DSLRs so long as it’s worth their while


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 30, 2020)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor.
> 
> The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.



The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6, so imagine if Canon only had to cover an APS-C-sized sensor with the same image circle. In addition, lenses like this STM and the 24-240 would be much better matched to an APS-C sensor and require less correction.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6, so imagine if Canon only had to cover an APS-C-sized sensor with the same image circle. In addition, lenses like this STM and the 24-240 would be much better matched to an APS-C sensor and require less correction.



But of course many of the people who want an APS-C RF camera also want the APS-C lenses to go with it, so that would negate part of the IBIS advantage.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

jwpatmore said:


> I get it! It's just confusing as to why it would overheat at 1080P 120FPS (if it's true) when the M6 Mark II doesn't even do that!



IMHO, that's the smoking gun.

This rumor came from someone's rectal database, and that someone is no friend of Canon's. Else why put a ridiculous overheat caveat like this into the rumor, other than to light the overheat screamers off?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> ...so long as it’s worth their while



Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while. 



Chig said:


> No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have, we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement...



Speak for yourself. I would be fine either way. What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet Canon has.



Chig said:


> ...which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest



Okay. So you what to use EF lenses with your APS-C body. You can do that just as easily with an M mount as with an RF mount. And, you would prefer the R5, but don't want to pay that much for a body. Yet you are talking about big white EF lenses and new RF mount lenses. The big whites already cost more than the R5 and have you taken a look at the prices of RF lenses?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't confuse him with logic.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6...



Good Lord, how much image stabilization do people need? The combined IBIS and lens stabilization is already more than you can use if you are taking pictures of anything that is alive...or taking pictures outside if there is even the slightest breeze...or taking pictures on a planet that rotates every 24 hours.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Good Lord, how much image stabilization do people need? The combined IBIS and lens stabilization is already more than you can use if you are taking pictures of anything that is alive...or taking pictures outside if there is even the slightest breeze...or taking pictures on a planet that rotates every 24 hours.



Hey, if I can't take my camera out on the basketball court, dribble it like it were the ball, shoot a basket with it, and have it come out with a *SHARP* 30 second exposure, whoever manufactured that camera is *******.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm willing to give them a pass on the issue of whether it has a 400mm prime attached, or a wide angle lens.


----------



## bernie_king (Aug 30, 2020)

Dragon said:


> As to the 18-45 non-L, why is that materially different from the EF 17-40 non L. Just a little more range (which seems to be the norm for RF mound). It makes no sense for an APS-C lens to start at 18 and end at 45. If Canon were to make an APS-C R body, the lens of choice would be a 15-85 (arguably the most useful lens in the EF-s line).


FWIW, the EF 17-40 is an L lens


----------



## Dragon (Aug 30, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> FWIW, the EF 17-40 is an L lens


Yep, corrected. The rest holds.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 30, 2020)

I find it odd that a decision to kill the EF-M mount would escape from Canon HQ and make it to a rumor site. And things like "cheap" EVF and overheating 1080p? Sounds more like something cooked up by Sony fanboys than a credible rumor. As long as they make money from it and don't need to do more R&D than this, they will probably keep EF-M.

that said, it does make sense to add an APS-C RF model at some point to be able to offer a lower cost model.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please go find a mirror, look into it, take a deep breath and repeat to yourself - "What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet canon has. Speak for yourself".


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

Chig said:


> No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have , we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest



Thinking Canon should:

Keep putting out new M camera and lens. Make better M lenses.
Add APS-C camera in RP size/form bodies.
Do not create crop lenses for the RP type bodies. Just buy the R FF lenses so you can use them when/if you upgrade to FF.

But maybe also:
Create, at VERY MOST, 3 of the most commonly sold APS-C kit quality lenses. Just to get newbies started.

Some WILD & CRAZY ideas to make upgrade path to FF easier:
If not making Crop RP bodies, create an adapter to fit R lenses onto M bodies. LOL  It would likely require glass.
Create new crop M bodies that have direct fit to RF lenses, but with an adapter you can still use existing EF-M lenses


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> Please go find a mirror, look into it, take a deep breath and repeat to yourself - "What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet canon has. Speak for yourself".


Did I say I was speaking for anyone *but* myself? No. I did not. I am not the one that claimed to know what other 7D users want.


----------



## fingerstein (Aug 30, 2020)

They should kill all the crippled cameras.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Don't confuse him with logic.



When we speak about the logic, then what about the following arguments? For how many years there were DSLR APS-C cameras? Maybe apart from the SL1/2, they were nowhere near the small size of the M body.

The problem is not in EOS-M family cameras as per se, but in missing M bodies of certain ergonomic aspects. No 7DII user is going to switch to M5 kind of the camer imo. The other problem REALLY is the lens. Forget the EF, it's EOL, period.

So, what I think is, that Canon should keep EOS-M as a completly separate line, which perfectly fits its purpose. But then they could potentially introduced an RF mount based APS-C family. As - why not? Canon surely have numbers. Where do they move all those DLSR users to? To much smaller and different ergonomy M family? Producing bigger M body with an M mount? Makes no sense imo.

Since the R line release, my prediction is, that there is going to be APS-C R variant one day. It depends on how cheap FF can get. If APS-C could go much cheaper, than it will likely happen.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 30, 2020)

I am wondering how many people that wants to kill the M line and want a APS-C RF mount camera have ever used a M camera???


----------



## stevelee (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> IMHO, that's the smoking gun.
> 
> This rumor came from someone's rectal database, and that someone is no friend of Canon's. Else why put a ridiculous overheat caveat like this into the rumor, other than to light the overheat screamers off?


The old saying is, "Generating more heat than light."


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

Rocky said:


> I am wondering how many people that wants to kill the M line and want a APS-C RF mount camera have ever used a M camera???



And for some reason, that made the lightbulb light up for me.

Why so many people here aren't simply "not interested in M cameras" but rather want Canon to kill it. An awful lot of hate for something they don't have to use and can ignore if they want. 

They're probably largely APS-C users who are afraid Canon is going to try to herd them into it, instead of giving them something that will use RF lenses.


----------



## secant (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And for some reason, that made the lightbulb go off for me.
> 
> Why so many people here aren't simply "not interested in M cameras" but rather want Canon to kill it. An awful lot of hate for something they don't have to use and can ignore if they want.
> 
> They're probably largely APS-C users who are afraid Canon is going to try to herd them into it, instead of giving them something that will use RF lenses.



Idk tbh. I can see an argument from them saying the size difference between APSC and FF nowadays isn't that big. Just go on camerasize.com and check out A7III + Tamron 28-75/2.8 vs X-T4 or X-T30 + 16-55/2.8, the size difference isn't that big. X-T4 + 18-135 vs A7III + Tamron 28-200 as well. Maybe Canon sees this and thinks eventually the size difference between APSC and FF will become almost a non factor and so they drop the APSC and just focus on FF?

But I think APSC still has a market and there's still a lot of potential on the M line. Just make some small, cheap, and decent primes and it'll be my choice for street photography and just compact general photography. Fujifilm is good and all but they are not cheap as well. The Canon 32mm F1.4 is not a cheap lens, but still cheaper than the Fujifilm 35mm F1.4.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

A few people here have claimed the RF mount is not that much bigger than the EF-M mount, and there'd be no problem putting it on, say, an M6. I just took the body cap off my R5 and used it to compare. By eyeball (which means there's a one or two millimeter error) Its diameter is identical to the height of my M6-II and slightly beats out my M50 except, of course for the viewfinder hump. [really, autoincorrect is flagging "millimeter"?]


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2020)

secant said:


> Idk tbh. I can see an argument from them saying the size difference between APSC and FF nowadays isn't that big.



That simply isn't true.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 30, 2020)

These don't seem like specs at all. Seems rather stupid actually


----------



## secant (Aug 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That simply isn't true.
> 
> View attachment 192521



Thats why in the next paragraph I said the M line choose the correct path in making decent small primes instead of big zooms because as soon as you make a 16-55/2.8 the size difference becomes not as big compared to a full frame.




I was looking at the Fujifilm 16-55/2.8 thinking of getting it since there's no such lens in the M line up, but then found out its actually a pretty big lens and the size difference compared to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is not that much.
Hence, I am not saying I think this is why Canon might consider cutting the M line, I am just saying SOME PEOPLE might use this as an argument. I think APSC still has a lot of potential as I said in my previous post that small primes + small body will be my choice for street and just general photography.


----------



## Durf (Aug 30, 2020)

The M Series creates to good of a cash flow for Canon in my opinion for them to just kill it off, especially as soon as next year (2021)....
Canon's actions and what we see with our own eyes can be used as a guide; it looks like they are killing off certain lines of DSLR's such as the 5D's, 7D's, quite possibly the 6D's. It also looks like the 90D may be the last of the **D series. We may actually be seeing the 1DXiii being the last of it's line.
We don't hear much of the Rebel Series being spoke about....
We do hear a few new lenses and camera's soon to be released for the M Series and right out of Canon's mouth they have said the RF mount is their main focus.
Looks to me they are phasing out the middle ground and will in a few years just have the budget friendly M Mount or the outrageously expensive RF Mount to choose from.


----------



## GeraldPerkins (Aug 30, 2020)

In the US the M50 sells in various kits from about $550 to $800. Canon will not abandon this price point. If the M goes away then there should be a corresponding rumor of a replacement.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 30, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Good Lord, how much image stabilization do people need? The combined IBIS and lens stabilization is already more than you can use if you are taking pictures of anything that is alive...or taking pictures outside if there is even the slightest breeze...or taking pictures on a planet that rotates every 24 hours.



MOAR IBIS


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2020)

secant said:


> Thats why in the next paragraph I said the M line choose the correct path in making decent small primes instead of big zooms because as soon as you make a 16-55/2.8 the size difference becomes not as big compared to a full frame.
> View attachment 192522
> View attachment 192523
> 
> ...


My point was with what is available the M series is massively smaller than ff cameras with ff camera lenses. I personally believe the vast majority of people here underestimate three things, first is how much money the M series actually makes for Canon. Obviously none of us know an actual figure but seeing as how the Rebels used to be the cash cows and the M is a similar success I'd guess quite a decent percentage. 

Second, Canon see the M as a size thing, they see it as a major selling point for the mass market that want better than phone quality images but not the size and price nor ultimate system flexibility of the ff cameras and lenses. We will never see Canon EF-M f2.8 zooms, never. Canon do not see the core customer base for the M series as giving a damn about f2.8 lenses, yes some people here might like them, but Canon do not see them as representative of the M mass market.

Third, the vast majority of people who buy into ILC's don't actually buy any more lenses, they get the kit lens, maybe a two lens kit, but most don't give a damn about how big or small other lenses are because they are not going to buy them anyway. But if they do get another lens, a macro or a prime, they don't want it to be the size and weight as the camera and zoom lens they already have.

Personally I don't see Canon as needing to do anything at all to continue dominating in the APS-C ILC space, no more lenses and little but minor updates to the 6, 50 and 100 series, sure I personally would like an M5 II, but truthfully I am not the M series primary market and I understand that simple point. Every camera doesn't have to be attractive to every customer even if we are GAS addled camera freaks.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That simply isn't true.
> 
> View attachment 192521



Reminds me we still need that RF pancake served up ASAP.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2020)

I've thought about this a bit.

It is my view that the subject of this thread is...

"FAKE NEWS!"


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> IMHO, that's the smoking gun.
> 
> This rumor came from someone's rectal database, and that someone is no friend of Canon's. Else *why put a ridiculous overheat caveat like this into the rumor*, other than to light the overheat screamers off?



as well as this one:

Cheap EVF, 2.36Mdots

Pretty Haha funny and I am sure others feel the same way


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> My point was with what is available the M series is massively smaller than ff cameras with ff camera lenses. I personally believe the vast majority of people here underestimate three things, first is how much money the M series actually makes for Canon. Obviously none of us know an actual figure but seeing as how the Rebels used to be the cash cows and the M is a similar success I'd guess quite a decent percentage.
> 
> Second, Canon see the M as a size thing, they see it as a major selling point for the mass market that want better than phone quality images but not the size and price nor ultimate system flexibility of the ff cameras and lenses. We will never see Canon EF-M f2.8 zooms, never. Canon do not see the core customer base for the M series as giving a damn about f2.8 lenses, yes some people here might like them, but Canon do not see them as representative of the M mass market.
> 
> ...



Man oh man is this a great post.

I do have but one nit to pick about your wonderful screengrab of the size comparison (M5 +22mm vs RP + 35mm RF): the M5 22mm combo lacks IS (which of course an IBIS-equipped M format body would solve wink emoji)


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 30, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> as well as this one:
> 
> Cheap EVF, 2.36Mdots
> 
> Pretty Haha funny and I am sure others feel the same way



i told you


----------



## SteveC (Aug 30, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> even if we are GAS addled camera freaks.



I resemble that remark!!!

(Admittedly I've yet to drop $2000+ US for a short prime, but I wouldn't have much use for one so I've not felt the impulse. But dropping a wheelbarrow full of cash on the RF 15-35 apparently is within the scope of my GAS-beaddlement [I may have just invented that word].)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 31, 2020)

vangelismm said:


> Stop this illusion of upgrade path.
> Most of APS-C users never upgrade to full frame.
> They buy rebel after rebel, xxD after xxD.



Most don't but many make purchase decision based on that.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

vangelismm said:


> Stop this illusion of upgrade path.
> Most of APS-C users never upgrade to full frame.
> They buy rebel after rebel, xxD after xxD.



And even in my case, it took forever. I only entered the full frame world this last July 30. (Fortunately I have a few EF lenses, but did break down and buy one RF...)


----------



## renlok (Aug 31, 2020)

If they made this camera with a RF mount, Done. TAKE MY MONEY! I just switch most of my EF lenses to RF. I'm not about to jump onto the EF-M mount.


----------



## Trout Bum (Aug 31, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> To me it made no sense to have interchangable lens in smaller camera body.


To me, that makes no sense. Maybe if you're lucky enough to live to an older age (with or without arthirtis in your hands and fingers) you'd sing a different tune. 
To all the M-haters, can you comprehend that a camera line can be the ONLY one for some folks, and/or a SECONDARY line for others (like me)?


----------



## Trout Bum (Aug 31, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> if Canon can keep the camera/lens system a small as the M line is now, I'd probably be ok if they killed it. But lens girth is what I am worried my be the issue.
> 
> I like the small factor for many reasons. More acceptable in venues where "Pro" cameras are not allowed. Easy to travel with.
> ....And it gets tiring when people are looking at you. I did a 360 degree pan around just before the lawn met the sand at a resort in Hawaii and I hear an annoyed woman say "Uh, What are you doing??" - I thought to myself "Please biAtcH, I wouldn't touch your saggy leather tanned skin with a 10 foot pole" This was with my already small M50, but with a mid sized lens (Sigma 18-35 1.8) and gorillapod on my shoulders for stability. If it were with just with the kit lens (sized) and no gorilla, I think she would've reacted the same as if I just had a cellphone (meaning no reaction). it's really weird how people react as if your camera is a machine gun, but like a released box of beautiful butterfly's when using a cell phone camera.
> ...


 I think it was the gorillapod. But I feel your frustration!


----------



## Trout Bum (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> ...Why so many people here aren't simply "not interested in M cameras" but rather want Canon to kill it. An awful lot of hate for something they don't have to use and can ignore if they want.


And why are they even posting here!! If you have no skin in the game, and don't intend to ever have...I don't care what you think. Go post on an R5 thread and rant about overheating.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2020)

Trout Bum said:


> To me, that makes no sense. Maybe if you're lucky enough to live to an older age (with or without arthirtis in your hands and fingers) you'd sing a different tune...


This raises an interesting point, since I am pretty sure that most buyers of cameras with interchangeable lenses skew much older than the average consumer, probably by several decades. Maybe Canon has done the research and figured out that they need to reduce the weight and size of their cameras for their aging customer base.


----------



## Otara (Aug 31, 2020)

A bit specialist perhaps but I love my M5 as an underwater camera, with a cheap housing its been great for travel, wide angle and macro is great, my only gripe is the housing cant take the EF-S 60mm. 

A bit academic at the moment but one day I might get to use it again.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 31, 2020)

slclick said:


> And the logic behind the must have M>RF upgrade path? Please, a company cannot have distinct lines in a segment? Keep that stupidity out of the equation. M stands on it's own, does well and is a fine imaging product. Why on earth should the M glass be as expansive as EF or RF? Just to please some forumites in their Mom's basement? It's a nice little list of lenses. Try them.



Nice little list? Maybe.... The 15-45 is ok but weak, the 55-200 is mediocre, the 18-150 just ok for the price, all full plastic-fantastic.


----------



## Trout Bum (Aug 31, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This raises an interesting point, since I am pretty sure that most buyers of cameras with interchangeable lenses skew much older than the average consumer, probably by several decades. Maybe Canon has done the research and figured out that they need to reduce the weight and size of their cameras for their aging customer base.


I would have bought into the M system decades ago had it been available (as I did with my Fuji's) just to have something small and light with good IQ for those times I couldn't/didn't want to carry/travel with a “serious” system, which I also had and have as well.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This raises an interesting point, since I am pretty sure that most buyers of cameras with interchangeable lenses skew much older than the average consumer, probably by several decades. Maybe Canon has done the research and figured out that they need to reduce the weight and size of their cameras for their aging customer base.


another point which i raise often is the reduction of carry on especially in Asian carriers. 5 and 7kg are the norm in most discount airlines (and even some non discount ones), and while some offer upgrades, others do not.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 31, 2020)

canonnews said:


> another point which i raise often is the reduction of carry on especially in Asian carriers. 5 and 7kg are the norm in most discount airlines (and even some non discount ones), and while some offer upgrades, others do not.


Even some big name European airline are limiting 7 or 8 Kg. My old 40D Plus 20D and lenses etc plus personal item will reach tha limit easily. That is one of the reason that I switched to M.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Even some big name European airline are limiting 7 or 8 Kg. My old 40D Plus 20D and lenses etc plus personal item will reach tha limit easily. That is one of the reason that I switched to M.


indeed and same here, that's why i'm struggling with the justification of moving to the RF system, because right now even with the M I sit at 6.8kg .. the only way I can reduce it further is to carry the camera gear on me, which is IMO not optimum.


----------



## bearcat (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> To be honest that last part sounds like wishful thinking from Mr. Majestyk.
> 
> M is one of the best selling camera lines on Earth. OK they may kill it but they will have to replace it with something else.



I agree - I can't see them doing this, it's one of their best selling cameras and it's easy to pick up and use...it's a great starter / travel / vlog whatever camera for those who aren't too serious about photography. My friend has one and I can see the appeal. He returned his a6400 for the m100 (he is a newbie so tghe a6400 was too much for him)


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> MOAR IBIS



Except there is a view that the earth’s rotation limits the max ibis to 6.5 stops and hence why Olympus and others never went further unless you do some really clever stuff. I posted a link to that article in another thread or you can google for it


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have , we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest


My impression is that from Canon’s perspective, the 90D is the closest to a 7D2 replacement we will likely see any time soon, unless it is the 1DX III.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> To be honest that last part sounds like wishful thinking from Mr. Majestyk.
> 
> M is one of the best selling camera lines on Earth. OK they may kill it but they will have to replace it with something else.


actually I was thinking the entire specifications were typed up by a deranged sony user.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

canonnews said:


> actually I was thinking the entire specifications were typed up by a deranged sony user.



As you read on you will see I came to that conclusion, without saying so in so many words.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 31, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> i told you


.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 31, 2020)

Otara said:


> A bit specialist perhaps but I love my M5 as an underwater camera, with a cheap housing its been great for travel, wide angle and macro is great, my only gripe is the housing cant take the EF-S 60mm.
> 
> A bit academic at the moment but one day I might get to use it again.



Which housing?


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

Short version: This rumour is just a confusion grenade, along with talk of a higher end M. Canon will not publicly cease dev of M next year.

Longer version

The challenge that Canon has is what to do with their APS-C DSLR range. I think that is why any rumours about eos M or FF R makes the APS-C users question are they next? And that’s from the entry level bodies costing what? 400-500 dollars, up to the enthusiast/pro body costing maybe 1800.

They’ve tried to appease share holders by focusing on the more lucrative segments, including Cine ranges. And they offer an up market compact range the eos-m and powershot to try and reduce defection to smartphones where size and weight and good enough are the criteria. For the Powershot / m ranges I do wonder if they should consolidate those lines, and offer 1” sensors in an M body with a fixed zoom lens to lower their costs, but that’s a slight diversion.

Many people don’t want smaller, don’t want FF (cost perhaps or reach), but Canon can’t lower their costs by standardising on mirrorless as they’ve not got something there. And I think these “disagreements” will continue because there isn’t any upsell that appeals to the APS-C camp. If there was, then I think some of the people posting here wouldn’t bother as they know where they’re going or they’re already there.

As per my earlier post and other contributions, if Canon correctly do their finance and can tell if the M is making a profit, then it will continue. Market share is of course important to keep investors quiet although I doubt they see any breakdown to individual lines. So the M might just maintain market share more than profit. 

And for the M enthusiasts who want a bit more well there are some 3rd party lenses or attach an EF or EFs. Canon may not develop any more new EF lenses, but nor are they going to stop manufacturing popular lenses so long as people keep buying them, for whatever camera, Canon or not. But the enthusiast are the smaller of the m segment.

I can’t see Canon supporting a 3rd mount. 

A R style body with an M mount - I see that as bad as an rf-s. 

I also don’t see Canon wanting to develop too many lower cost EFS / RFS style lenses simply as the volume is shrinking, and will stabilise higher than film days but no where near the hay day of DSLR. Plus with their 1-2 lenses is the upsell more likely a new body than another lens?

Shove a 32MP APS-C sensor in a R body with a good set of the stills features from the R5/6 and then what was the point of the r6? Unless you price it more than the r6, but then would the high end 7d ii users go for it?

Shove the same sensor in a r body with the 90d feature set and perhaps R style Af, then you might convince 90d users to migrate. Canon already have stats from the 90d vs the m6 ii, and it would be interesting to know that split, but for ergonomics and market size, I would guess the existing m users chose a better m and DSLR chose the 90d and not many people changed camps. Love to know if any 7d ii users went with the 90d. Not many...

Similarly, put their previous generation of 24mp in the r for the lower end.

Heck bundle in the ef-rf adapter. If they only have 1-2 lenses no biggie, the only upgrade you might get them on is a new body in any case.

Back to this fake news

There was enough noise when Canon said they were focusing on RF and not EF albeit most reasonable people would expect it sooner or later. Dropping the M series and M lenses by saying no more development and nothing to migrate some of your kit to? Nah, far more noise even though the market is smaller. If Canon want to do this, they will just stop developing any lenses (and despite views, I think they will iterate m lenses every so often to keep up with competitors, and once the existing inventory is cleared and dev costs are recovered).

They could just say market forces dictate what they develop and when if they wanted to try and nudge M owners but I don’t see it.

I’m just puzzled by any high end M atm. I wonder if something is being lost in translation somewhere?

I am sure the m6 ii has better margin than other m, but why would you supersede it in 12 months? If it sold well, no need to iterate yet. If it didn’t sell, then would a higher end version sell or would it indicate most m users aren’t interested?

I think Canon is doing something cause they need to attract aps-c. That’s not an m7. And an m7 isn’t warranted by most people who just bought the m6 ii.


----------



## shawn (Aug 31, 2020)

The problem with RF doing duty as an M replacement is that the mount is much larger than M-mount and any RF camera lens combo is going to be a lot bigger than an equivalent M even if Canon adds an APS-C RF mount camera.


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2020)

stevelee said:


> My impression is that from Canon’s perspective, the 90D is the closest to a 7D2 replacement we will likely see any time soon, unless it is the 1DX III.


90 D isn’t even as good as the 7D ii so hardly a replacement


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> 90 D isn’t even as good as the 7D ii so hardly a replacement



And let's face it, the 1DX III doesn't even attempt to be equivalent, no reach to speak of. Not saying it's inferior, it just doesn't do the same job; it'd be like claiming a screwdriver is superior (or inferior) to a hammer.


----------



## pulseimages (Aug 31, 2020)

If the EOS M line had a better line of Canon lenses and a flagship camera with a built in EVF that was weather sealed it would be almost perfect!


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Already own 2 big white lenses which I bought second hand the EF400 f/5.6 and the EF300 f/2.8 non is and i really dislike the ergonomics of dinky little M mount cameras so if Canon wants me (And all the 7D ii owners)to buy a new body they need to offer something we want like an RF aps-c with say a downsized 17mp version of the R5 sensor


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> When we speak about the logic, then what about the following arguments? For how many years there were DSLR APS-C cameras? Maybe apart from the SL1/2, they were nowhere near the small size of the M body.
> 
> The problem is not in EOS-M family cameras as per se, but in missing M bodies of certain ergonomic aspects. No 7DII user is going to switch to M5 kind of the camer imo. The other problem REALLY is the lens. Forget the EF, it's EOL, period.
> 
> ...


If I could afford it I’d buy the R5 which is the best wildlife camera ever made but second best for me is a aps-c R7 with a downsized 17mp R5 sensor to give more reach (like the R5 has in crop mode) but a bit more affordable


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> Already own 2 big white lenses which I bought second hand the EF400 f/5.6 and the EF300 f/2.8 non is and i really dislike the ergonomics of dinky little M mount cameras so if Canon wants me (And all the 7D ii owners)to buy a new body they need to offer something we want like an RF aps-c with say a downsized 17mp version of the R5 sensor




Again, you presume to speak for "all the 7D ii owners." If you want to be taken serious, stop this jackass behavior, since at least one owner has told everyone you don't speak for him.


----------



## Fletchahh (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> Already own 2 big white lenses which I bought second hand the EF400 f/5.6 and the EF300 f/2.8 non is and i really dislike the ergonomics of dinky little M mount cameras so if Canon wants me (And all the 7D ii owners)to buy a new body they need to offer something we want like an RF aps-c with say a downsized 17mp version of the R5 sensor



I feel I'm in a similar situation (7D Mark II & used 100-400mm II), and I'd much rather the smaller M with the 32mp sensor all else being equal. For ergonomics, I'd just add an L-bracket with grip (like something made by SmallRig), and at the moment not having access to the newest RF lenses doesn't particularly bother me since (at this point) I have bought all my lenses used.

But that's just what would be best for me, in my eyes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> To be honest that last part sounds like wishful thinking from Mr. Majestyk.
> 
> M is one of the best selling camera lines on Earth. OK they may kill it but they will have to replace it with something else.



That all depends upon how much that entire market segment is shrinking. At this point, the demise of the entire EOS M system seems more like click-bait to me, though. If Canon were pulling the plug by the end of 2021, they wouldn't bother with an M7 at all. Particularly since it seems little more than an M6 Mark II with an integral EVF, IBIS, and dual card slots.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?



More likely than killing it completely. Though SARS-CoV-2 may have killed M sales in their tracks considering the regions where it was selling well and the types of consumers to whom it was marketed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah. Come back when it’s a Canon Press Release. Zero sense in maintaining the M line production when you can completely replace it with Uniform upgradeable glass on a singular mount system and transition over to the same end result



Yeah, especially when most of the world areas where the M sells well has very few potential buyers who have the luxury of "upgrading" constantly before the camera they already have gives up the ghost.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.
> 
> But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.



I'm sure Fuji and Sony agree with you. 

If Canon pulls the plug on the EOS M system, that is where the majority of the buyers are going.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Rocky said:


> B & H is selling EOS RP with the slower ( cheaper ) 24-105 lens for $1300. I am wondering who will pay $1500 for M7 that has only one lens that may be good enough for 32MP APS-C sensor.



Those who want IBIS and more than 3 fps with AF between each frame?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> It’s a possibility, I can’t deny that, but let’s delve a little bit more
> 
> People who only have M lenses and the eos-m bodies, why does Canon think if they forced them to upgrade would stay with Canon? That’s a brave move at best, but very foolish. You’ve alienated people and their current kit is their only connection to Canon. Some may be foolish enough to upgrade, but I see a lot of people deciding to show Canon where they can stick their suggestions and swap to another brand. Especially as this is their only connection to Canon. And I can see a lot of those other brands falling over themselves to offer trade ins and marketing to those people who have just been abandoned by Canon.
> 
> ...



I'd be interested to know how much of total EOS M series sales are to vloggers in N. America/W. Europe? Maybe 1%? Vloggers in the West aren't who are making the EOS M series the best selling ILC system in the world. Single camera owners in Asia and the Pacific rim are.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> 1) pan cake lens
> 2) if sigma and sony ( upcoming A7c ) can do small ff bodies so can canon...



Sony's e-mount (46.1mm) throat is no larger in diameter than the EOS M mount (47mm). Canon's (54mm) and Nikon's (55mm) FF ILC mount throat diameters are considerably larger. That gives design possibilities to Canon and Nikon that Sony simply does not have, particularly for large aperture wide angle lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Traveler said:


> IMO it would make sense to kill APSC system completely and focus on FF R cameras only. FF sensors can be cheap and fast with current technology so there’s no need for smaller sensors.
> The task for Canon is to create a low end FF camera that is as cheap as APSC cameras but doesn’t cannibalize higher models; and create cheap FF lenses for that. For example a FF 28-90mm f/9 would be as compact as 18-55 f/5.6 for APSC, providing equal results (angle, DOF, noise performance).
> 
> It would allow much smoother transition for beginners to move towards high end cameras and lenses. It seems like the DSLR way brings more money to manufacturers (buy APSC first and then spend your money again for FF cameras and lenses) but in many cases it holds people back because the transition is a pain therefore it takes a decade for some people to move to FF.



Most current EOS M buyers, or Fuji APS-C buyers, for that matter, are not the kind of buyer that plans to transition to anything anytime soon. They've already bought the only camera they want for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

candyman said:


> It's an interesting rumor. What I noticed, and this has been going on long before the rumor was published on Canon Rumors, is that one of the major camera suppliers in the Netherlands now sells a lot of EF-M occasion lenses. A large part of this comes from their own stock (demo models). This includes lenses such as the 11-22, the 22 and the 28 macro. These are lenses that you hardly ever see offered as an occasion. And they sell quite a few. Usually only at 15-45 or 55-200 lenses are offered. It seems they have received a signal to empty their supply.
> As you can see here: https://www.kamera-express.nl/produ...ideo/tweedehands-lenzen#?tags=738,1367&page=1



What is an "occasion" lens?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> EF-M lenses have a diameter of 60.9mm, which is already larger than the RF mount's throat diameter. The RF mount's throat diameter is 10mm larger than EOS-M, and its flange distance is 2mm longer.
> 
> So my impression is Canon can switch to RF mount, make lenses the same size, and the body just a wee bit larger.



They're anywhere from 60.8mm to 61.2mm, but who's measuring?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> Don’t understand why Canon ever made the M cameras



To sell cameras and make money. And they have.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> They could downsize the R5 sensor to make a 17mp aps-c sensor for an R7 I guess ?



More likely to use the 32 MP APS-C sensor from the 90D/M6 Mark II, or a 32MP APS-C version of the possible 80MP or so R5s.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> What is an "occasion" lens?



It's the stupid dutch idiom for 'used'. It always trips me up, since everything related to my day job is in English, so going outside and seeing English words misused gives me a big enough mental stutter to bring it into 'pet peeve' territory.
'Occasion' used to be only for used cars, but it seems the stupidity has spread beyond that.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> If I could afford it I’d buy the R5 which is the best wildlife camera ever made but second best for me is a aps-c R7 with a downsized 17mp R5 sensor to give more reach (like the R5 has in crop mode) but a bit more affordable



I am no expert in sensor production. Just wonder how "downsized" R5 (whatever it means) sensor would make it cheaper? A smaller die, so less expensive? If such an APS-C camera should have IBIS, identical AF capabilities, etc., and the only difference would be the sensor, how much cheaper would it be in comparison to FF models? 

Maybe an era of APS-C models, as we know them, is mostly over, apart from special purpose line, like OES-M is? And for reach, there could be some high-resolution R model, using a crop mode? But that would be expensive again. But anyway - there is no upgrade path to all those DSLR APS-C guys, who want better ergonomics (I mean larger body here) than EOS-M provides.


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Sony's e-mount (46.1mm) throat is no larger in diameter than the EOS M mount (47mm). Canon's (54mm) and Nikon's (55mm) FF ILC mount throat diameters are considerably larger. That gives design possibilities to Canon and Nikon that Sony simply does not have, particularly for large aperture wide angle lenses.



So . EOS M replacemant RF-S with utrawide could be possible.

How are RF-S pancake lens with elements backwards "into mount" excluded? Canon has mentioned before, that it is willing to put elements "backwards, into mount".


----------



## candyman (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> What is an "occasion" lens?


Sorry, English is not my native language. I thought occasion is the proper translation. By occasion I mean: used/2nd hand/demo model.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Aug 31, 2020)

What the rumor source meant to say was that the advent of the M7 will mark the end of treating the M line as a step child. The M line is being taken over from the Powershot folks at Canon by the big boys and girls who run the R (and formerly D) shop. The first evidence will be the M7 which will check all the boxes for the 7D folks. And then will come the M5 MkII, which will be the all - arounder. And, don't forget the coming speed booster so you can mount your R glass on your M. M glass will be limited to the wide side. Long stuff will be via RF (or legacy EF) lenses. And, the M50 line will be continued and expanded. Think of this end of the M line as the mirrorless Rebel series.


----------



## FilipDP (Aug 31, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> My point was with what is available the M series is massively smaller than ff cameras with ff camera lenses. I personally believe the vast majority of people here underestimate three things, first is how much money the M series actually makes for Canon. Obviously none of us know an actual figure but seeing as how the Rebels used to be the cash cows and the M is a similar success I'd guess quite a decent percentage.
> 
> Second, Canon see the M as a size thing, they see it as a major selling point for the mass market that want better than phone quality images but not the size and price nor ultimate system flexibility of the ff cameras and lenses. We will never see Canon EF-M f2.8 zooms, never. Canon do not see the core customer base for the M series as giving a damn about f2.8 lenses, yes some people here might like them, but Canon do not see them as representative of the M mass market.
> 
> ...


I would like an M 2.8 zoom.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 31, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Honestly, I know everyone wants smaller and lighter cameras, but I'm fine with bigger cameras because the ergonomics are MUCH better and intuitive. Was never a fan of the M line. And I gave it a chance. I own the M, M3, and M50. They are decent cameras but don't work well enough for me. Let the line die I say



They may not work well enough for YOU, but they've been working for a heck of a lot of people over the years. The M6 Mark II is an incredibly capable little camera, and the M5 Mark II/M7 will even be more-so. I say let the line LIVE!


----------



## Franklyok (Aug 31, 2020)

dppaskewitz said:


> What the rumor source meant to say was that the advent of the M7 will mark the end of treating the M line as a step child. The M line is being taken over from the Powershot folks at Canon by the big boys and girls who run the R (and formerly D) shop. The first evidence will be the M7 which will check all the boxes for the 7D folks. And then will come the M5 MkII, which will be the all - arounder. And, don't forget the coming speed booster so you can mount your R glass on your M. M glass will be limited to the wide side. Long stuff will be via RF (or legacy EF) lenses. And, the M50 line will be continued and expanded. Think of this end of the M line as the mirrorless Rebel series.


M7 to 7D folks? How is that going to look ergonomy wise? Probably will get never the same grip...


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 31, 2020)

This rumor and list of specs make no sense. 12 FPS with no AF?? The M6 Mark II can do 14 FPS WITH AF. Slow SD Card slots, "Cheap EVF"??? Sounds far more like a list from a Sony fanboy then a reputable source . And killing off the line in 2021?? That would make no financial sense as the EOS M series is one of the best selling mirrorless systems on the market.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> M7 to 7D folks? How is that going to look ergonomy wise? Probably will get never the same grip...



I keep hoping for an Olympus E-M1X type body. But after buying the RF100-500 I'm not so sure what a 7D-like M7 would give me over my current M6II and R5. If it weren't for the R5 I'd be preordering the M7.
And I'm still hoping for an Mxxx with eye-AF in servo mode and decent fps. The M6II is too big to easily take it anywhere, which I did with the M+22mm. On the other hand, with large lenses the M6II is too small


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 31, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Except there is a view that the earth’s rotation limits the max ibis to 6.5 stops and hence why Olympus and others never went further unless you do some really clever stuff. I posted a link to that article in another thread or you can google for it



But they could improve the amount of movement that it compensates for once they reach the limit of time/stops that are possible.

Also, the stops of stabilization are designed toward the test that measures them, not necessarily real life where 8 stops becomes 4-5 in practice. I still think they have some room to improve performance before hitting the theoretical limits, at least with full frame and APS-C.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Im afraid they won't be able to compete with Sony or Nikon in the high performance APS-C market
> without a system with clear update path.



You're confusing overlapping sensor sizes with overlapping markets.

High performance APS-C is in the same market served by the EOS R system.

That's not the same market served by the EOS M system.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Except there is a view that the earth’s rotation limits the max ibis to 6.5 stops and hence why Olympus and others never went further unless you do some really clever stuff. I posted a link to that article in another thread or you can google for it



If you go back to the original interview, it is not entirely clear if he was being serious or not. The interview contains some banter, which makes me think he could've gone for "account for butterflies flapping their wings across the ocean" as well to describe that doing more than 6.5 stops is very difficult.
And I also don't know if those 6.5 stops were CIPA stops or actual, real world stops.


----------



## hazydave (Aug 31, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> No compatibility between RF and M. That cant work. Not sure if the registration distance would allow an RF-M adapter of any kind (doubt it?) or maybe an RF speedbooster to M.
> 
> But it is a shame Canon has pulled such a shortsighted move, if the rumors of its demise are true.
> 
> With m43 declining, maybe the compact MILC is on the way out.


Much like M43, the EOS M line sells very well, and yet, pundits keep wishing it away for some reason. Canon never intended M to be a professional system. That seems to bother people. 

And no, you can't put an M lens on an RF body, but you could never put an EF-S lens on an EF body either. Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful. And you can still put EF or EF-S on M or RF.


----------



## hazydave (Aug 31, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.


It is a line for consumers. Not pros. Why does that seem to aggrevate folks? Canon did no better with the EF-S lineup.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 31, 2020)

I finally saw an M50 in the real world this weekend, for the first time. A friend of mine has an M50 he uses for his youtube channel. I couldn't believe how tiny it was! I finally see the point, which I clearly couldn't put together from spec sheets on the internet. And none of the local stores ever had one for me to put my hands on. 

I'm thinking it would be nice to grab one, to take with places where photography isn't the main objective. So my daughter's soccer games, vacations, trips to the zoo would stay with the DSLR where i want the advantages of that lens kit and the weight/bulk is justified, but an M series could go in the pocket to the museum, or other outings where we may want snapshots of ourselves or random things we see. The DSLR stays home on those trips now because we don't want to carry it for little perceived use, and an M Series would give more creative control than a cell phone. 

Just have to convince the wife.....M50 isn't that pricey.....


Brian


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 31, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> Huh????? If Canon can make the SAME bodies right now in the M line but with RF mounts, they will. They can call it the RF-M instead of the EOS M. Whatever. It’s not about killing off the M line itself, its just about the MOUNT.
> The purpose of the M line was for Canon to make great, compact, APS-C MILCs for the masses. Huge success.
> But now we have the RF glass line, whose mount is similar to the M (albeit a tiny bit bigger but very close.). ApsC RF bodies are the next step for Canon. So what sense would it make for Canon to make two APSC MILC mount systems IF you can achieve the same thing on one??
> Why would not want an M6 with an RF mount that can use small apsc rf glass and all the up to everything in RF if you wanted to? Canon is not making a huge line of M glass. They never have.



If it ain't broke, don't fix it!


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I finally saw an M50 in the real world this weekend, for the first time. A friend of mine has an M50 he uses for his youtube channel. I couldn't believe how tiny it was! I finally see the point, which I clearly couldn't put together from spec sheets on the internet. And none of the local stores ever had one for me to put my hands on.
> 
> I'm thinking it would be nice to grab one, to take with places where photography isn't the main objective. So my daughter's soccer games, vacations, trips to the zoo would stay with the DSLR where i want the advantages of that lens kit and the weight/bulk is justified, but an M series could go in the pocket to the museum, or other outings where we may want snapshots of ourselves or random things we see. The DSLR stays home on those trips now because we don't want to carry it for little perceived use, and an M Series would give more creative control than a cell phone.
> 
> Just have to convince the wife.....M50 isn't that pricey.....



Have a look at the M200 as well, it's even smaller with similar internals. If you don't need a hot shoe and want a really small camera, the M200 fits the bill. The M50 has that sweet tilty-flippy screen, though.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 31, 2020)

It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.

Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.

It is a pity that the rumors/leaks/plants don't give us a timeline for how quickly Canon will end R&D for EF.

RF is the way of the future.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2020)

hazydave said:


> It is a line for consumers. Not pros. Why does that seem to aggravate folks? Canon did no better with the EF-S lineup.



It seems like most of the aggravation comes from people who want a 7D equivalent either in the M mount or the R mount. Some people are agnostic about the mount (me). Others are hell bent on an RF mount. Much of this comes from people who, in my mind, think that what Canon currently offers in the M mount somehow makes it impossible for them to offer anything else.

For example, just because the current M cameras are small, they think that a 7D replacement in the M mount has to be small. I find that ridiculous. The 7D wasn't constrained by the size of Rebels, why would an M7 be constrained by previous M bodies?

Also, people act like whatever Canon has offered in M mount lenses in the past means they can't offer different lenses in the future. Again, I find that silly.

Another point of contention is pricing. People seem to think they will get an R mount 7D replacement at a significantly lower price point than either the R6 or R5. I have my doubts.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Canon will want to repeat the confusion of the past by offering APS-C bodies in the RF mount. I think they may very well be over the idea of a high end APS-C body in their full frame mount. Suggesting that really upsets some folks. 

Finally, there is just a lot of uncertainty about the future path of Canon ILCs. Some folks love to stir things up with "EF is dead comments" or with "the M line is going to be killed off" comments, regardless of whether or not such comments are relevant.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2020)

dilbert said:


> It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.
> 
> Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.
> 
> ...


I see time has not changed you. Welcome back.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> They're anywhere from 60.8mm to 61.2mm, but who's measuring?



They're all larger than the RF mount's throat diameter, so who cares?


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 31, 2020)

The M Series has some okay lenses, the 22mm pancake, the 32mm f1.4, the 11-22mm. The others, I have found are just so so.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd be interested to know how much of total EOS M series sales are to vloggers in N. America/W. Europe? Maybe 1%? Vloggers in the West aren't who are making the EOS M series the best selling ILC system in the world. Single camera owners in Asia and the Pacific rim are.



Yep agreed. The core are the women and Asian, and probably simply down to the size of the camera and how it fits. Conversely, many people want a larger body and larger lenses and the two requirements don’t fit the same line.

I’d also like to know if they make much profit from them or they just use it to shore up the numbers....

How much fun we’d all have if all this info from all manufacturers was made available - ha ha


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

dilbert said:


> It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.
> 
> Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.
> 
> ...



EF-M cameras can give you 14 frames per second.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

hazydave said:


> Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful.



Why "rarely useful"? If people are going to complain that few EF-S lenses were ever made, that was the answer--grab an EF lens and use it!

In fact the 7D has an EF-S mount and EF big whites got used (and continue to get used) a lot on it.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> But they could improve the amount of movement that it compensates for once they reach the limit of time/stops that are possible.
> 
> Also, the stops of stabilization are designed toward the test that measures them, not necessarily real life where 8 stops becomes 4-5 in practice. I still think they have some room to improve performance before hitting the theoretical limits, at least with full frame and APS-C.



Too complex for me, here’s the DPR thread and both the article link and Olympus links are in there...






Earth’s Rotation Limits IBIS to 6.3 Stops: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> If you go back to the original interview, it is not entirely clear if he was being serious or not. The interview contains some banter, which makes me think he could've gone for "account for butterflies flapping their wings across the ocean" as well to describe that doing more than 6.5 stops is very difficult.
> And I also don't know if those 6.5 stops were CIPA stops or actual, real world stops.



The article shared suggests 6.5 and yes he doesn’t know how CIPA calculates it. So yes, CIPA stops are not real world but we’re also appearing to reach limits cause any IS system hasn’t advanced massively in the past decade..

Anyway, it was just a distraction from the current thread which has again reached its conclusion like all the rumours do - consensus is split and we don’t know what Canon has planned...


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 31, 2020)

dilbert said:


> It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.
> 
> Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.
> 
> ...



Seeing as there's rumors about a new M50, M5 Mark II/M7 and rumors of NEW EF-M lenses coming soon, your line about Canon ending the EF-M system doesn't hold water. And what technical analysis has been done to state that EF is "to slow for modern cameras"?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2020)

hazydave said:


> Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful.





SteveC said:


> Why "rarely useful"? If people are going to complain that few EF-S lenses were ever made, that was the answer--grab an EF lens and use it!
> 
> In fact the 7D has an EF-S mount and EF big whites got used (and continue to get used) a lot on it.



Exactly. The only issue with using EF lenses on an APS-C body was at the wide end. But between Canon and third party manufacturers there were sufficient choices for most users. The Tokina 11-20 f2.8 is an excellent wide angle and the Canon 15-85 covers a wider range than the 24-105. For telephoto, there are plenty of EF choices and you get more reach for less money.


----------



## Stu_bert (Aug 31, 2020)

hazydave said:


> Much like M43, the EOS M line sells very well, and yet, pundits keep wishing it away for some reason. Canon never intended M to be a professional system. That seems to bother people.
> 
> And no, you can't put an M lens on an RF body, but you could never put an EF-S lens on an EF body either. Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful. And you can still put EF or EF-S on M or RF.



So when I purchased my 10d then 20d and 40d until the 5 came out you think I, and others went out and replaced our ef lenses with ef-s ones?


----------



## Andy Westwood (Aug 31, 2020)

As the advancing cameras on smartphones continue to improve the demand for compact and some DSLR type cameras mirrorless included sadly continues to diminish.

We might not be seeing the end of crop sensor cameras just yet, but I suspect the range of models will reduce as demand lessens.

I think there is still a good market for cameras such as the M50 M200 and even the M6 II. Personally, I enjoy my M5 although I don’t really use it much these days.

I would buy an improved EOS-M body, but it will need to have much improved AF to my current M5 and have a twisty flippy screen and be compact.

Would anyone really spend $1600 on a 1.6 crop sensor camera these days!


----------



## shawn (Aug 31, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Another point of contention is pricing. People seem to think they will get an R mount 7D replacement at a significantly lower price point than either the R6 or R5. I have my doubts.
> 
> Personally, I have serious doubts that Canon will want to repeat the confusion of the past by offering APS-C bodies in the RF mount. I think they may very well be over the idea of a high end APS-C body in their full frame mount. Suggesting that really upsets some folks.



I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C. I think this expectation is outmoded in 2020 which is especially true when you look at the R6 specs. An APS-C R7 could happen but I doubt it because the R6 is too good at it's current price point. The R6 compares very favorably to a lot of high end cameras including cameras in Canon's own lineup. I'm sure a lot of people have noticed that it's very much a competitor to an A9 II for almost half the price. If Canon did an R7 would it be 32MP? Probably. That would put it in a weird spot in terms of market expectations. How do you price an R7 with the same capabilities of an R6 but with a higher megapixel sensor? Would it be the same price? If so, people will throw fits. IMO the R7 is a losing proposition for Canon if it has to be cheaper than the R6, and I don't think the market will like the R7 at the same price as the R6, and they certainly won't like an R7 with reduced capabilities vs the R6... Ultimately the question becomes, why do an R7 at all? APS-C vs FF, you'll actually get more detail at higher ISO's with a FF camera so the advantage of APS-C having more pixels on subject is kind of erased unless you always shoot at really low ISO's. With the new RF600 and RF800 it's looking like high ISO performance is the future for Canon cameras. Plus, many people shoot wildlife with the 1Dx series and do great with it.

Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 31, 2020)

hazydave said:


> Much like M43, the EOS M line sells very well, and yet, pundits keep wishing it away for some reason. Canon never intended M to be a professional system. That seems to bother people.
> 
> And no, you can't put an M lens on an RF body, but you could never put an EF-S lens on an EF body either. Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful. And you can still put EF or EF-S on M or RF.



Rarely useful? Like tonnes of ppl using 70-200s on their APS-C DSLRs? The only thing in this thread rarely useful is the M commando defending the inevitable.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

shawn said:


> Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.



Although I am not by any means an advocate for an R7, there's no way the 7D folks are going to accept 7MP on their targets after cropping. The (recent) mistake, IMHO was making the R6 with such a low-res sensor, it should have been 30 MP or so.

Realistically, their replacement as far as capability is concerned is actually the R5 run in crop mode. Unfortunately, it's quite pricey.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 31, 2020)

Canon obviously realizes they are *******, and therefore are ending the M, EF, EF-S, and RF lines.


----------



## CombatWombat (Aug 31, 2020)

I own a Canon 6D Mark II with six EF-mount lenses. It's my Big Boy Camera, the one I'll use when I set out on a specific photo project. But on most days I grab my M50 as I head out the door. It's not perfect (actually at times it can be a bit frustrating), but I love its size, and its photo quality works just fine for most subjects (I have the kit lens and the 55-200mm telephoto zoom).With my Fotodiox EF-M adapter, I can mount any of my EF lenses and make use of an effective tele-extension because of the camera's smaller sensor. I'd be very interested in an M50 Mark II or M7 camera, and I hope Canon chooses to keep and expand the M line rather than shutting it down. Perhaps it has been underdeveloped by Canon over the years, but I think a wise move would be to keep the M cameras for APS-C fans and let full-frame lovers explore the R line. One thing that endears me to Canon (after many disappointments over the decades) is that I expect to use many of my EF-mount lenses with an EF-R adapter whenever the company makes an R camera that says "buy me - now!" The R6 is close but needs a bit more resolution before I move in that direction.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Most current EOS M buyers, or Fuji APS-C buyers, for that matter, are not the kind of buyer that plans to transition to anything anytime soon. They've already bought the only camera they want for the foreseeable future.



My gf wanted a good camera. So I got her a Sony A6000 (at the time, the best camera I owned was a T3i).
That camera overheated in 1080. I felt bad. So a 3 years later got her a A6400, even though she said she is fine with the 6000. 
The is just one case, but I am sure there are many others that will be fine with their Crop camera and likely never want another. If anything, most will leave their CROP for their cell phones (I know a bunch of people who've done that the past 2 years, with some saying "It's just as good").

My opinion: It's USUALLY a small group of enthusiasts like us that are not these forums that upgrade more often than most CROP camera owners. The majority of all camera owners will leave crop cameras for cell phones.

Curious...what does "M" stand for in these M series cameras? 
Mini?
Micro?
Medium?
Massive?


----------



## TAF (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?



That's how I got my original 'M'.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

TAF said:


> That's how I got my original 'M'.



I presume by this you mean you got it on closeout?

I think I mentioned watching someone, about a week before the R5 came out, buying an M6 (not a mark II) at my brick and mortar. Perhaps he got it for cheap because it's supposedly obsolete. But it looked like his firsts M camera since he also bought an adapter with it (no lenses other than (perhaps) the kit lens).


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Why "rarely useful"? If people are going to complain that few EF-S lenses were ever made, that was the answer--grab an EF lens and use it!
> 
> In fact the 7D has an EF-S mount and EF big whites got used (and continue to get used) a lot on it.


This is my internet chuckle moment for the day....countless threads about how Canon is letting people down by not producing a high pixel density/7D2 replacement camera, and here is a statement that the use case so fervently searching for an upgrade path is 'rarely useful'. Gotta love internet reality. Only your own is the true one and it applies to everyone else in the world. If they cant' see that, its THEIR problem. 

-Brian


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 31, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I presume by this you mean you got it on closeout?
> 
> I think I mentioned watching someone, about a week before the R5 came out, buying an M6 (not a mark II) at my brick and mortar. Perhaps he got it for cheap because it's supposedly obsolete. But it looked like his firsts M camera since he also bought an adapter with it (no lenses other than (perhaps) the kit lens).



About a week before my honeymoon (2013) the M+22mm kit dropped from €800 to €250 and the firmware with the improved AF had been released. I'm really glad that I bought it, the M+22mm was so much easier to bring along everywhere compared to the 7D + 24-105.


----------



## Chig (Aug 31, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> To sell cameras and make money. And they have.


What I meant was why did Canon make a mount that was incompatible with their FF mirrorless system ? 
Makes no sense as surely they were already planning the R system


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 31, 2020)

Chig said:


> What I meant was why did Canon make a mount that was incompatible with their FF mirrorless system ?
> Makes no sense as surely they were already planning the R system


Maybe so they could get a system that is capable of being smaller and lighter than what the R and EF systems can do? 

-Brian


----------



## Baron_Karza (Aug 31, 2020)

BIG reason for wanting to keep small M, LOL!


----------



## toodamnice (Aug 31, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> talent ≠ gear
> gear ≠ talent
> talent > gear
> talent + gear > talent



I am hoping my R5 will make it look like I have more talent lol! With awesome DR, IBIS and killer AF my R5 will give me more keepers than my 2 6Ds do. 

I joke... I know gear doesn't make up for talent, but honestly the R5 (and R6) will make better photographers of us all! 

I need for my R5 to ship...


----------



## jam05 (Aug 31, 2020)

Another year, another try at the "End the M line" worthless rumor. M50 and M6mk II selling as soon as they become available and on every top 10 list. Anyway, my EOS R5 Smallrig cage and L bracket arrived today. SWEET!!. Can't wait to start adding stuff.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> I am hoping my R5 will make it look like I have more talent lol! With awesome DR, IBIS and killer AF my R5 will give me more keepers than my 2 6Ds do.
> 
> I joke... I know gear doesn't make up for talent, but honestly the R5 (and R6) will make better photographers of us all!
> 
> I need for my R5 to ship...


I agree, add to either metric of the sum and the result gets better. In particular AF is becoming a game changer in acquisition, tracking and scene coverage. More in focus shots mean more keepers!


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 31, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> About a week before my honeymoon (2013) the M+22mm kit dropped from €800 to €250 and the firmware with the improved AF had been released. I'm really glad that I bought it, the M+22mm was so much easier to bring along everywhere compared to the 7D + 24-105.



I bought a new EOS M with 18-55mm lens bundle on Amazon (overseas bundle) for $318 in October of 2013, replacing my heavily used Powershot G9. I then nabbed the EF-M 22mm lens for $99 at around that same time. It was light-years ahead of my G9, and was my first ILC. I still remember going to events where everyone else taking photos was using a DSLR, and here I was getting great, high quality shots from something I could almost fit into a large pants pocket .


----------



## SteveC (Aug 31, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> I still remember going to events where everyone else taking photos was using a DSLR, and here I was getting great, high quality shots from something I could almost fit into a large pants pocket .



This can't be true, because everyone knows the M series sucks so badly it should just be discontinued.

(Yes, _sarcasm_).


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 31, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Too complex for me, here’s the DPR thread and both the article link and Olympus links are in there...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I get the theoretical limit on stops, but I’m saying there are other improvements they can make to IBIS besides extending the exposure time. One example would be compensating for more dramatic movement of the camera than they can now — filming video from inside a moving vehicle on a rough road, etc.


----------



## analoggrotto (Sep 1, 2020)

hazydave said:


> Much like M43, the EOS M line sells very well, and yet, pundits keep wishing it away for some reason. Canon never intended M to be a professional system. That seems to bother people.
> 
> And no, you can't put an M lens on an RF body, but you could never put an EF-S lens on an EF body either. Sure, you could put EF lenses on EF-S bodies, but that was only rarely useful. And you can still put EF or EF-S on M or RF.



There are obvious advantages to specializing each system. The RF with it's huge majestic lenses, and M on the smaller end. As a compromise, and RF to M speed booster would be nice.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

PerKr said:


> I find it odd that a decision to kill the EF-M mount would escape from Canon HQ and make it to a rumor site. And things like "cheap" EVF and overheating 1080p? Sounds more like something cooked up by Sony fanboys than a credible rumor. As long as they make money from it and don't need to do more R&D than this, they will probably keep EF-M.
> 
> that said, it does make sense to add an APS-C RF model at some point to be able to offer a lower cost model.



Any APS-C RF mount camera will not be a lower cost model. Canon seems firmly committed to making entry level into the RF system a FF model that can compete on price with others' entry level APS-C models. Any APS-C model in the RF line will be an advanced specialist model like the 7D Mark II or 90D, not like a Rebel.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On a limited budget, the less one must pay for a body that does what one needs, the more one has left to spend on lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Rocky said:


> I am wondering how many people that wants to kill the M line and want a APS-C RF mount camera have ever used a M camera???



Probably about the same number as those who have never used a 7-series camera and keep telling 7-series users why the R6, R5, or M7 will work just as well for them as an R7 would...


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Durf said:


> The M Series creates to good of a cash flow for Canon in my opinion for them to just kill it off, especially as soon as next year (2021)....
> Canon's actions and what we see with our own eyes can be used as a guide; it looks like they are killing off certain lines of DSLR's such as the 5D's, 7D's, quite possibly the 6D's. It also looks like the 90D may be the last of the **D series. We may actually be seeing the 1DXiii being the last of it's line.
> We don't hear much of the Rebel Series being spoke about....
> We do hear a few new lenses and camera's soon to be released for the M Series and right out of Canon's mouth they have said the RF mount is their main focus.
> Looks to me they are phasing out the middle ground and will in a few years just have the budget friendly M Mount or the outrageously expensive RF Mount to choose from.




Cheaper non-L RF lenses are coming. Some are already on the market.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 1, 2020)

hazydave said:


> It is a line for consumers. Not pros. Why does that seem to aggrevate folks? Canon did no better with the EF-S lineup.


It only aggravates elitist snobs, which, unfortunately, are on forums in abundance.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I get the theoretical limit on stops, but I’m saying there are other improvements they can make to IBIS besides extending the exposure time. One example would be compensating for more dramatic movement of the camera than they can now — filming video from inside a moving vehicle on a rough road, etc.



Ok I see now what you are suggesting but I don’t think that sort of complex image stabilisation will not go inside a camera for now. Complex car rigs are employed to achieve that sort of movement, no? Funny enough I got to see one being filmed in Alabama Hills, Sierra Nevada, California many years ago.

IBIS and IS are for small movements caused by hand holding, are they not?

Canon could consider the edge cases around super resolution or perhaps aligning stacked shots in low light, but I think IBIS / IS might have another 1 / 1.5 stops before it gets complex and costly. I agree CIPA IBIS is like their battery tests, not reflected necessarily in real world tests. I guess Canon will refine what is already a great first version and no doubt there will be a race to achieve 10 stops CIPA IBIS which translates to 6 in the real world!


----------



## brad-man (Sep 1, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> It only aggravates elitist snobs, which, unfortunately, are on forums in abundance.


I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 1, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?



I'll need to ask my assistant to ask my Butler, but they are both in the west wing and I'm in the west wing relaxing in my sauna and enjoying my massage. Now hit post (no I was asking you to hit post, not type that part out...gimme!!)


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Nice little list? Maybe.... The 15-45 is ok but weak, the 55-200 is mediocre, the 18-150 just ok for the price, all full plastic-fantastic.



You're comparing EF-M lenses to the kinds of lenses basement dwelling forum warriors who have never actually seen them salivate over. That's not how the vast majority of buyers of EOS M cameras are comparing them. They're comparing them to similarly sized lenses from Fuji and Sony, and they're comparing them on price.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Shove a 32MP APS-C sensor in a R body with a good set of the stills features from the R5/6 and then what was the point of the r6? Unless you price it more than the r6, but then would the high end 7d ii users go for it?
> 
> Shove the same sensor in a r body with the 90d feature set and perhaps R style Af, then you might convince 90d users to migrate. Canon already have stats from the 90d vs the m6 ii, and it would be interesting to know that split, but for ergonomics and market size, I would guess the existing m users chose a better m and DSLR chose the 90d and not many people changed camps. Love to know if any 7d ii users went with the 90d. Not many...



Historically, the advanced APS-C 7D (2009) and 7D Mark II (2014), which are superior in every way except sensor size, have sold for less than the entry level FF 6D (2012) and 6D Mark II (2017).

An APS-C R7 would almost certainly sell for less than a FF R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> Already own 2 big white lenses which I bought second hand the EF400 f/5.6 and the EF300 f/2.8 non is and i really dislike the ergonomics of dinky little M mount cameras so if Canon wants me (And all the 7D ii owners)to buy a new body they need to offer something we want like an RF aps-c with say a downsized 17mp version of the R5 sensor





Chig said:


> If I could afford it I’d buy the R5 which is the best wildlife camera ever made but second best for me is a aps-c R7 with a downsized 17mp R5 sensor to give more reach (like the R5 has in crop mode) but a bit more affordable



Wouldn't the 32MP APS-C sensor from the 90D/M6 Mark II or a 32MP or so downsized version of the upcoming 80MP or so FF 5Ds be even better and give even more reach? 17MP is not even the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> So . EOS M replacemant RF-S with utrawide could be possible.
> 
> How are RF-S pancake lens with elements backwards "into mount" excluded? Canon has mentioned before, that it is willing to put elements "backwards, into mount".



EOS M and the market is is aimed at is not about large aperture, ultra-wide angle lenses in any way, shape, or form. There's no need for that type of lens in the market to which they're aiming and selling the EOS M. Thus, no need for a larger throat diameter that makes it more difficult to make the bodies and lenses as compact as possible, which is one of the primary features of the entire system!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I finally saw an M50 in the real world this weekend, for the first time. A friend of mine has an M50 he uses for his youtube channel. I couldn't believe how tiny it was! I finally see the point, which I clearly couldn't put together from spec sheets on the internet. And none of the local stores ever had one for me to put my hands on.
> 
> I'm thinking it would be nice to grab one, to take with places where photography isn't the main objective. So my daughter's soccer games, vacations, trips to the zoo would stay with the DSLR where i want the advantages of that lens kit and the weight/bulk is justified, but an M series could go in the pocket to the museum, or other outings where we may want snapshots of ourselves or random things we see. The DSLR stays home on those trips now because we don't want to carry it for little perceived use, and an M Series would give more creative control than a cell phone.
> 
> ...



BINGO!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

dilbert said:


> It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.
> 
> Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.
> 
> ...



RF is also a derivative of the EF mount. More so than the EF-M, in fact.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

unfocused said:


> It seems like most of the aggravation comes from people who want a 7D equivalent either in the M mount or the R mount. Some people are agnostic about the mount (me). Others are hell bent on an RF mount. Much of this comes from people who, in my mind, think that what Canon currently offers in the M mount somehow makes it impossible for them to offer anything else.
> 
> For example, just because the current M cameras are small, they think that a 7D replacement in the M mount has to be small. I find that ridiculous. The 7D wasn't constrained by the size of Rebels, why would an M7 be constrained by previous M bodies?
> 
> ...



There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between _*hoping for an RF mount successor to the 7D Mark II*_ because it seems to fit the needs of the vast majority of current 7D Mark II users (who often also use FF bodies and EF lenses) more than a potential M7 would and *being hellbent that Canon must offer such a camera*.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying anything in the EOS M system _*has*_ to be small and saying Canon _*will most likely choose*_ to keep everything in the EOS M system small.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying Canon *can't* offer anything larger in the EOS M system and saying that by all previous indications Canon *most likely won't* offer anything larger in the EOS M system.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between being *disappointed* if Canon does not offer some kind of 7D replacement in the RF mount and being _*really upset*_ if Canon does not offer some kind of high end APS-C body in the RF mount.

In other words, there's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between *what you keep arguing against* and *what many current 7D Mark II users are actually saying*.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> They're all larger than the RF mount's throat diameter, so who cares?



But not all, or even most, M bodies are tall enough to accomodate the RF throat diameter. So obviously those who might be attracted to the EOS M series based on its compact size do care!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Why "rarely useful"? If people are going to complain that few EF-S lenses were ever made, that was the answer--grab an EF lens and use it!
> 
> In fact the 7D has an EF-S mount and EF big whites got used (and continue to get used) a lot on it.



Or much cheaper "little whites" like an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III ($1,900) get used instead of a much pricier Big White like an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II ($6,100) for the same reach on a FF body in low light action sports situations.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 1, 2020)

Meh, not very exciting (if true)


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

shawn said:


> I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C. I think this expectation is outmoded in 2020 which is especially true when you look at the R6 specs. An APS-C R7 could happen but I doubt it because the R6 is too good at it's current price point. The R6 compares very favorably to a lot of high end cameras including cameras in Canon's own lineup. I'm sure a lot of people have noticed that it's very much a competitor to an A9 II for almost half the price. If Canon did an R7 would it be 32MP? Probably. That would put it in a weird spot in terms of market expectations. How do you price an R7 with the same capabilities of an R6 but with a higher megapixel sensor? Would it be the same price? If so, people will throw fits. IMO the R7 is a losing proposition for Canon if it has to be cheaper than the R6, and I don't think the market will like the R7 at the same price as the R6, and they certainly won't like an R7 with reduced capabilities vs the R6... Ultimately the question becomes, why do an R7 at all? APS-C vs FF, you'll actually get more detail at higher ISO's with a FF camera so the advantage of APS-C having more pixels on subject is kind of erased unless you always shoot at really low ISO's. With the new RF600 and RF800 it's looking like high ISO performance is the future for Canon cameras. Plus, many people shoot wildlife with the 1Dx series and do great with it.
> 
> Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.



The R6 has no more pixel density than an 8 MP APS-C sensor. It is most definitely not a 7D replacement. 

Maybe the R5 is, with pixel density equal to a 17.6MP APS-C sensor and frame rates equal to the R6.

If the future R5s comes to fruition with an 80MP or so sensor, which gives 32MP in an APS-C size crop, then if it can maintain 12-14 fps or so with a mechanical shutter then it would be the closest thing in what appears to be Canon's future RF roadmap.


----------



## akramography (Sep 1, 2020)

If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2020)

akramography said:


> If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!



If I take a picture of one of these, does that I mean I have shot clog?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> What I meant was why did Canon make a mount that was incompatible with their FF mirrorless system ?
> Makes no sense as surely they were already planning the R system



Two different systems marketed to two different types of buyers.

Most people who buy a camera, even an ILC, never buy more lenses than what they bought at the same time as the camera body. That's where the EOS M is aimed. It's never been meant to be a "starter" camera for someone with aspirations of "moving up" in the future.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> But not all, or even most, M bodies are not tall enough to accomodate the RF throat diameter. So obviously those who might be attracted to the EOS M series based on its compact size do care!



You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Wouldn't the 32MP APS-C sensor from the 90D/M6 Mark II or a 32MP or so downsized version of the upcoming 80MP or so FF 5Ds be even better and give even more reach? 17MP is not even the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II.


20mp on the 7D ii’s 6 year old sensor will perform much worse than a 17mp version of the new R5 sensor especially with a low pass or no AA filter. 
The 7D ii  performance in low light is pretty terrible for instance and I’m sure the R5 in crop mode would be vastly superior and I’d love to buy an R5 but it’s very expensive 
If canon priced the R7 at the same or slightly less than the R6 and with similar features I’d buy it for sure.


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The R6 has no more pixel density than an 8 MP APS-C sensor. It is most definitely not a 7D replacement.
> 
> Maybe the R5 is, with pixel density equal to a 17.6MP APS-C sensor and frame rates equal to the R6.
> 
> If the future R5s comes to fruition with an 80MP or so sensor, which gives 32MP in an APS-C size crop, then if it can maintain 12-14 fps or so with a mechanical shutter then it would be the closest thing in what appears to be Canon's future RF roadmap.


I’d buy an R7 with similar features to the R6 and downsized 17mp sensor for the same price as the R6 as it would give me all I need for high performance Birds in Flight camera at a price I can afford.
7D ii buyers didn’t buy FF because we can’t afford it as the 7D ii was better than the equivalent 5D for what we wanted


----------



## Philip V (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Yep agreed. The core are the women and Asian, and probably simply down to the size of the camera and how it fits.



I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2020)

Philip V said:


> I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.


I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You're comparing EF-M lenses to the kinds of lenses basement dwelling forum warriors who have never actually seen them salivate over. That's not how the vast majority of buyers of EOS M cameras are comparing them. They're comparing them to similarly sized lenses from Fuji and Sony, and they're comparing them on price.



I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
- a bit sharper and with better quality control
- improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality

I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 1, 2020)

dilbert said:


> It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S *AND* EF-M.
> 
> Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.
> 
> ...



EF-M is essentially 'RF MINI'. It's based on modern electronic protocols and is not in any way a simple EF variant as EF-S is.

So I totally agree, EF and EF-S lenses have had their day and there are unlikely to be any significant new products announced - however the millions of professionals using EF lenses every day would probably argue with your point that they are 'too slow for modern cameras', indeed some EF lenses work far better adapted on the RF mount than they did on the original DSLR bodies (eg EF 85mm f/1.2)

I've been using the EF 100-400 L IS II on my EOS R and it's a joy to use. I'm sure the focus with the RF 100-500 will be faster, but I can't imagine it would be THAT much faster that it would be worth me upgrading.

Anyway. The point of this reply is that you shouldn't discount EF-M. It's certainly not dead.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8


Remember most camera users don't use long heavy lenses. An M body with a compact lens is a great travel tool.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

Philip V said:


> I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.



Thank you. I was trying to delicately avoid offending anyone... I have an M6II. About an inch deeper and a grip maybe half an inch deeper would be nice...


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?



As in the Sigma? I have it, just not had much chance to play with it as the R5 came


----------



## brad-man (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> As in the Sigma? I have it, just not had much chance to play with it as the R5 came


I've had my eye on the Sigma, but I would prefer to stay native. Also, due to the interchangeability of the mount, I think it's a bit larger and heavier than it needs to be. I have the EF-M 32 and would like a 16 at the same quality.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Historically, the advanced APS-C 7D (2009) and 7D Mark II (2014), which are superior in every way except sensor size, have sold for less than the entry level FF 6D (2012) and 6D Mark II (2017).
> 
> An APS-C R7 would almost certainly sell for less than a FF R6.



Yes I agree Michael re EF, but I think the closest to the 6D is the R. The R6 is more action oriented with it's focus and fps etc. I think someone else mentioned in another thread, that a 600mm f/11 with a R6 would be a good alternative to the 7D if you can accept the MFD and restrictions on lighting. As you're likely to have maybe a EF 100-400mm already then you get the reach when you need it, or the zoom and quality when you don't. I had the 7D, never the MK II, but I did more landscapes so I accepted the FF compromise and sold the 7D.

Now someone will do the maths and show me a 400mm on a 7D II sensor gives more pixels on subject than a R6 with a 600mm lens , and with a 1.4x tele well there is no comparison.

But I think a R7 and the R6 would be really close in capabilities other than the sensor. Would Canon offer another action oriented APS-C sensor R that close to the release of the FF R6? I can't make up my mind.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I've had my eye on the Sigma, but I would prefer to stay native. Also, due to the interchangeability of the mount, I think it's a bit larger and heavier than it needs to be. I have the EF-M 32 and would like a 16 at the same quality.



Fair enough!

I just thought it was unlikely Canon would go there, especially now Sigma has. The Sigma's are heavier and yes I am sure some of that is due to the mounts, but also the construction is different materials. Don't get me wrong, the Canon's offer a nice balance, and if you take a little bit of effort to protect them then I think they will last a long time. 

Maybe Canon is going to shake up the M mount, and the M6 II was like the R and the RP - enough to keep you hooked while the R5/R6 come and now the M7...


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8



Yep I am with you there. Someone else posted that they were happy with the M6 II and a 400mm f/2.8 iirc, and I was amazed. I need the 100-400mm on a monopod to handhold it with the M6 II for any period of time - the balance for me is not good. Put the same lens on a larger body and that balance is restored such that I can just hold the body when I am walking with the lens pointing down..... 

If I am in a hide or something, well then I would not care and would happily the m6 / 100-400mm combo.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
> - a bit sharper and with better quality control
> - improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality
> 
> I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4



If you want weather sealing could you consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS II? Ignoring price.
Or the 55-250mm IS STM is better than the 55-200mm based on the reviews I saw.

I did toy with the 70-200mm especially with the possibility of using it on the M6 II and any FF when I didnt want to lug the 100-400mm, but as I got a new 55-250 IS STM for only 130 squid, then I decided to control my GAS (a bit!)


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Sep 1, 2020)

Why is the price of a potential R7 so important for some. Below R6, same as R6 or slighlty above R6. I can't imagine that this would be a show stopper for people who want the R7 instead of a M7. I speak of 7D/7DII owners who also have a FF Camera and one or more of the big whites that cost easily 2-5 times as much as a potential R7. When one says a price below the R6 price would enable one to invest in lenses rather than the body what kind of lens could this be when we speak of a price deifference of maybe 400$ to 600& (between below-R6 and above-R6 price). The most interesting lense will be quality L RF lenses maybe even replacements for the EF big whites. Than these ~500$ are peanuts. Other people that will be fine with a M7 want this camera to be cheap as it will be unlikely they use the big whites on their M7.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> If you want weather sealing could you consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS II? Ignoring price.
> Or the 55-250mm IS STM is better than the 55-200mm based on the reviews I saw.
> 
> I did toy with the 70-200mm especially with the possibility of using it on the M6 II and any FF when I didnt want to lug the 100-400mm, but as I got a new 55-250 IS STM for only 130 squid, then I decided to control my GAS (a bit!)



How is the 70-200 on the M6II? And which version?

I'm looking to buy the 70-200 IS but it's 800g, compared to 200g for the 55-200. Add the adapter and you are at 1kg almost.
Would be nice to have a compromise, something like Fuji's 55-200 or Sony's 70-350 which both weight around 500g. The Fuji is also very sharp and a stop brighter.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

akramography said:


> If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!



I'm sure there are many who want a GoPro sized camera that can do everything an Arri can do, too. Doesn't mean they are going to get it, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> I’d buy an R7 with similar features to the R6 and downsized 17mp sensor for the same price as the R6 as it would give me all I need for high performance Birds in Flight camera at a price I can afford.
> 7D ii buyers didn’t buy FF because we can’t afford it as the 7D ii was better than the equivalent 5D for what we wanted



Speak for yourself. I owned a 5D Mark II before my first 7D. I owned a 5D Mark III before my 7D Mark II. Both are tools for different jobs. Most 7D Mark II owners I know also own FF cameras.

What is too expensive for many of us is a $6,000-$8,000 lens needed with a FF camera to get the same reach at f/2.8 under the dim lights in youth and high school stadiums and gyms when a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 will do almost as well with a high density APS-C camera. For those of us who need to make more than we spend shooting youth/high school sports it's the only feasible way to stay in the black or green, rather than in the red.

That application also demands durability. My 7D Mark II has more shutter actuations than my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV _combined, _even though the 5D Mark III is older than my 7D Mark II. The two FF cameras are my primary bodies except for my "long" body when shooting sports. But that's where the shutter clicks add up the fastest, and in all kinds of weather.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8



The EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not a Great White. The EF 300mm f/2.8 is right on that line.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> How is the 70-200 on the M6II? And which version?
> 
> I'm looking to buy the 70-200 IS but it's 800g, compared to 200g for the 55-200. Add the adapter and you are at 1kg almost.
> Would be nice to have a compromise, something like Fuji's 55-200 or Sony's 70-350 which both weight around 500g. The Fuji is also very sharp and a stop brighter.



Sorry, maybe I misled. 

I have a f/4 mark 1 at home. I have a 100-400 mk 2 here. I nearly considered the 70-200 f/4 mk 2 to replace my mark 1, but got the ef-s 55-250 Is stm instead.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
> - a bit sharper and with better quality control
> - improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality
> 
> I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4



*You're comparing EF-M lenses to the kinds of lenses basement dwelling forum warriors who have never actually seen them salivate over. That's not how the vast majority of buyers of EOS M cameras are comparing them. They're comparing them to similarly sized lenses from Fuji and Sony, and they're comparing them on price. *


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not a Great White. The EF 300mm f/2.8 is right on that line.



Ah now that’s piqued my interest. TDP includes the 200mm f2 and 300mm in a 2015 article in the list

Canon themselves say their larger telephoto lenses which is where they first applied the white coating to prevent overheating (their quote, not mine). They also say the name first coined was Big White


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Yes I agree Michael re EF, but I think the closest to the 6D is the R. The R6 is more action oriented with it's focus and fps etc. I think someone else mentioned in another thread, that a 600mm f/11 with a R6 would be a good alternative to the 7D if you can accept the MFD and restrictions on lighting. As you're likely to have maybe a EF 100-400mm already then you get the reach when you need it, or the zoom and quality when you don't. I had the 7D, never the MK II, but I did more landscapes so I accepted the FF compromise and sold the 7D.
> 
> Now someone will do the maths and show me a 400mm on a 7D II sensor gives more pixels on subject than a R6 with a 600mm lens , and with a 1.4x tele well there is no comparison.
> 
> But I think a R7 and the R6 would be really close in capabilities other than the sensor. Would Canon offer another action oriented APS-C sensor R that close to the release of the FF R6? I can't make up my mind.



Anything narrower than f/2.8 is a no go when shooting youth/high school/small college sports under lights. A 100-400/4.5-6.3 is useless for that. At f/2.8 we're already using ISO 3200 or higher just to get 1/800 to 1/1000. Before flicker reduction, which times the shutter release at the peak of the lights' cycle, we were only getting 1/500 at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 at most stadiums/ballparks.

The attraction of a camera like the 7D Mark II when we already own FF 5-series bodies is that a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 on a high density APS-C sensor will give us the same reach for field sports as a $6,000 EF 300/2.8 L IS II will on a FF body. That's the difference between breaking even/making money and spending more than we make doing that kind of shooting. It doesn't hurt that we're also putting obscenely high shutter counts on a $1,700 body with a 200,000 shutter rating instead of a $3,500 body with a 150,000 shutter rating. Some of us do wear them out and need to replace them before the next "improved" model comes out.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Ah now that’s piqued my interest. TDP includes the 200mm f2 and 300mm in a 2015 article in the list
> 
> Canon themselves say their larger telephoto lenses which is where they first applied the white coating to prevent overheating (their quote, not mine). They also say the name first coined was Big White



Call them "Big Whites" if it makes you feel better. I don't consider my 70-200/2.8 a Big White, nor anything else shorter than 300-400mm with f/2.8 or equivalent entrance pupil (500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6, etc.).


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.



10mm is 12% of the height of the M50, and that includes the viewfinder hump. That's significant to someone looking for a compact, lightweight body.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
> - a bit sharper and with better quality control
> - improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality[..]



Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> Thank you. I was trying to delicately avoid offending anyone... I have an M6II. About an inch deeper and a grip maybe half an inch deeper would be nice...



I really like the EG-E1 'grip' on my RP. It gives it just enough extra height to work for my hand. And if my wife brings it, it comes off really easily. Something like that for the M6II would be great. The Smallrig L-bracket for the M6II improves things, but it doesn't taper in at the bottom, making my pinky feel like it's being pushed out.
But that's for when I use the 180L on the M6II, for all EF-M lenses the body alone works great.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

Chig said:


> 20mp on the 7D ii’s 6 year old sensor will perform much worse than a 17mp version of the new R5 sensor especially with a low pass or no AA filter.
> The 7D ii performance in low light is pretty terrible for instance and I’m sure the R5 in crop mode would be vastly superior and I’d love to buy an R5 but it’s very expensive
> If canon priced the R7 at the same or slightly less than the R6 and with similar features I’d buy it for sure.



Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?













But the age and performance of the 2014 7D Mark II is beside the point.

The existing 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is better than the 7D Mark II in similar lighting. Presumably a 32MP version of the roughly 80MP sensor expected in the predicted R5s would be even better than that.

This would be a more significant improvement over the 7D Mark II than a 17.8MP APS-C version of the FF 45MP sensor found in the R5.

Many of us who want a 7D Mark II replacement would be perfectly happy with an R7 that uses the existing 32MP sensor found in the 90D/M6 Mark II combined with the DiG!C X processing pipeline and an APS-C version of the 500,000 cycle shutter in the R5 (or even the 300,000 rated shutter of the R6) in a magnesium alloy body with weather sealing comparable to the R5.

Just for comparative purposes, the 2014 $1,799 7D Mark II had a 200,000 cycle rated shutter at the same time the 2012 $3,499 5D Mark III and the 2016 $3,499 5D Mark IV had shutter ratings of 150,000.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between _*hoping for an RF mount successor to the 7D Mark II*_ because it seems to fit the needs of the vast majority of current 7D Mark II users (who often also use FF bodies and EF lenses) more than a potential M7 would and *being hellbent that Canon must offer such a camera*.
> 
> There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying anything in the EOS M system _*has*_ to be small and saying Canon _*will most likely choose*_ to keep everything in the EOS M system small.
> 
> ...


Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?



Of course not, if you were you wouldn't want it as an EF-M.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 1, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.



Intensity? There's not a single exclamation point in the entire previous comment to which you're responding!!!!!

Intensity? There's not a single word in ALL CAPS in the previous comment.

What I see is you PROJECTING intensity into any comment with which you disagree!!!!!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.



It's huge enough, and he was indeed talking about the bodies...go read what you replied to.

I reported earlier taking the body cap for my R6 and placing it on my M50 and M6-II. It's actually very close to the same as the height of the M6, and on the M50, it would only fit by impinging on the viewfinder hump. Both of those bodies would more than likely have to be bulked up at least a little bit to accommodate an RF throat.


----------



## dilbert (Sep 1, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> And what technical analysis has been done to state that EF is "to slow for modern cameras"?



The EF protocol is a synchronous single-bit bus. I think I've even seen it mentioned that it is as slow as 9600bps on some lenses. That really limits your ability to use autofocus on moving objets.

As to who did the technical analysis or what was done - Canon did it. If you read enough of the original press releases and documentation when the R series was introduced, you'll find Canon mentioning that EF is now (or was) holding Canon back in lens development.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Remember most camera users don't use long heavy lenses. An M body with a compact lens is a great travel tool.



My most common "casual" camera is the M6-II with the Tamron 18-200 (native mount) lens, which many have had trouble with but has never given me any. It's a bit fatter than the Canon standard diameter (filter threat is 62mm) but covers a LOT of ground, use-wise. Which is why I think the utility of the series could be greatly increased if Canon would just bend a bit on that lens diameter. It's still pretty compact (by enthusiast standards, not by point and shoot standards) even with that lens on it. Not pocketable, but light. And of course nothing stops one from putting on the 22 mm pancake (which is on my M-50 right now) and stuffing it into a pocket.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not claiming that the average EF-M buyer would give a damn about an 18-200 lens, I'm talking more about people like us. IMHO it's a great walking-around setup.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It's huge enough



I disagree, but to each his own.



SteveC said:


> and he was indeed talking about the bodies...go read what you replied to.



I know he was talking about bodies. He replied to a post of mine about lenses. Go ahead, read what he replied to.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 1, 2020)

shawn said:


> I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C....
> 
> Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.


If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera. The R5 with it's animal eye focus together with the new 600mm and 800mm are amazing combination for birding. I believe that Canon knows the market and will not bother trying to create a true mirrorless replacement for the 7D as the above mentioned combination will suffice and generate volume for the R5.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I know he was talking about bodies. He replied to a post of mine about lenses. Go ahead, read what he replied to.



Fair enough, I misconstrued what you were driving at here--I thought you were accusing him of making a lens comment when he was making a body comment.




Antono Refa said:


> I disagree, but to each his own.



Disagree? With what? I pointed out the RF mount has a diameter nearly equal to the height of an M6-II and M50 (excepting viewfinder hump). Are you claiming that's not true?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> My most common "casual" camera is the M6-II with the Tamron 18-200 (native mount) lens, which many have had trouble with but has never given me any. It's a bit fatter than the Canon standard diameter (filter threat is 62mm) but covers a LOT of ground, use-wise. Which is why I think the utility of the series could be greatly increased if Canon would just bend a bit on that lens diameter. It's still pretty compact (by enthusiast standards, not by point and shoot standards) even with that lens on it. Not pocketable, but light. And of course nothing stops one from putting on the 22 mm pancake (which is on my M-50 right now) and stuffing it into a pocket.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: I'm not claiming that the average EF-M buyer would give a damn about an 18-200 lens, I'm talking more about people like us. IMHO it's a great walking-around setup.



Agree. There's definitely room in the EF-M lineup for some more upmarket zooms. Fuji can do compact light 2.8-4 zooms, so I'm sure Canon could too if they wanted. But even a EF-M 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS could be a winner if as good or better than the EF-S lens.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 1, 2020)

nchoh said:


> If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera.


High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

stevelee said:


> High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.



The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 1, 2020)

stevelee said:


> High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.



For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option. So either way, I don't think that the 7D will be replaced with a mirrorless offering.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2020)

nchoh said:


> For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option...


I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.



Yeah, I've seen the same thing, and it's just ridiculous to claim EITHER the R6 or 1DXIII as a replacement for the 7D. The R5, as far as I know, would fill the role wonderfully, once in hand...but getting to that point is expensive. I suppose if one wanted a full frame AND a 7D replacement in one package, the R5 might make some sense, and might be cheaper than some other full frame plus a (still mythic) R7 put together. But the R6? No way. 1D? Just as inadequate in that key parameter, at three times the price!!! (What a bargain!)

No, I'm not knocking those cameras as cameras, but they cannot do the job of a 7D. Again, hammer versus screwdriver. 7D users are looking for a hammer; the world's best screwdriver won't do the job.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> ...I suppose if one wanted a full frame AND a 7D replacement in one package, the R5 might make some sense, and might be cheaper than some other full frame plus a (still mythic) R7 put together...



That is probably where I am headed. For sports shooting I really needed (well maybe more wanted) the 1Dx III which replaced my 1Dx II. But, when the R5 comes down in price, I am seriously considering it as a replacement for both the 5D IV and 7D II.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.



Both of those lenses have metal mounts.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 1, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Both of those lenses have metal mounts.



I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.


The plastic ‘spacers‘ are designed breakaways. If you are unlucky enough to drop a camera with a lens on it that ‘spacer’ is a designed in weak spot that breaks in the hope of preventing more serious damage in the lens, kind of like a cars crumple zone.

Ask me how I know!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
> I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm



Leave it locked in a hot car for a few days and come back to us next week.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Disagree? With what? I pointed out the RF mount has a diameter nearly equal to the height of an M6-II and M50 (excepting viewfinder hump). Are you claiming that's not true?



I agree those are the camera & mount sizes.

I disagree with the opinion that making EOS-M cameras 10mm taller is a big deal.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 1, 2020)

I like your photos



Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?
> 
> View attachment 192552
> 
> ...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
> I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm



The 18-55 is also metal mount. I'm sure plastic mount lasts but i've seen broken plastic lens mount before. It's just gives more quality feel.
The 18-150 costs almost £500 new and you get a cheap plastic mount. While metal mount would be 2g heavier and cost $1 more.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I disagree with the opinion that making EOS-M cameras 10mm taller is a big deal.



I never said that, though others might have. I did infer, mistakenly, that you thought it could go on without a size change, and that I would--and did--disagree with.


----------



## Chig (Sep 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?
> 
> View attachment 192552
> 
> ...





Michael Clark said:


> Speak for yourself. I owned a 5D Mark II before my first 7D. I owned a 5D Mark III before my 7D Mark II. Both are tools for different jobs. Most 7D Mark II owners I know also own FF cameras.
> 
> What is too expensive for many of us is a $6,000-$8,000 lens needed with a FF camera to get the same reach at f/2.8 under the dim lights in youth and high school stadiums and gyms when a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 will do almost as well with a high density APS-C camera. For those of us who need to make more than we spend shooting youth/high school sports it's the only feasible way to stay in the black or green, rather than in the red.
> 
> That application also demands durability. My 7D Mark II has more shutter actuations than my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV _combined, _even though the 5D Mark III is older than my 7D Mark II. The two FF cameras are my primary bodies except for my "long" body when shooting sports. But that's where the shutter clicks add up the fastest, and in all kinds of weather.


Yep , I’d be happy with an R7 which is exactly the same as the R6 except for an aps-c sensor and I’d buy it at the same price as the R6 but if Canon priced it a bit lower then even better 
Also could use a speed booster adapter for wide angle EF lenses for when you don’t need the extra reach


----------



## stevelee (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.


I like birds. We have a lot of Cardinals here, so they show up well and are lovely. They are even more obvious and seem more numerous when it snows. I take shots of them occasionally at the bird feeders next door. I once did a time-lapse video of them in a tree near my deck. The woods north of my house begin a few feet from the deck. My bedroom and family room each has three large windows facing the woods, and the breakfast area has one large window and a glass door to the porch and deck facing that way. I saw a male cardinal out the window a few moments ago.

I have photographed hummingbirds in flight. I rarely see them any other way. Exception:




I really don't understand the passion I see here for photographing birds in flight. I'm not beyond enjoying some of the photos, but I can't see devoting significant time and effort to making them. I'm not begrudging the people who do. I would imagine a lot of the fun is in the challenge. I can see how if one had no other knowledge of photography except from this board, that one might think that shooting birds in flight is the main use for cameras, and that should be the prime consideration in camera and lens design. OTOH, I can't think of anyone I've ever met in person, and I know a fair number of photography enthusiasts, who are into BIF photography.


----------



## slclick (Sep 2, 2020)

The M thread is inundated with RF posts, the RF thread is flooded with M posts. This place, sheesh.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 2, 2020)

Hummingbirds. My favorite bird.
Amazing how they can maneuver and even stay in the same location in mid air. 
Their wings move so fast.
They are so small and light. 
Amazing to see them photographed in flight.




stevelee said:


> I like birds. We have a lot of Cardinals here, so they show up well and are lovely. They are even more obvious and seem more numerous when it snows. I take shots of them occasionally at the bird feeders next door. I once did a time-lapse video of them in a tree near my deck. The woods north of my house begin a few feet from the deck. My bedroom and family room each has three large windows facing the woods, and the breakfast area has one large window and a glass door to the porch and deck facing that way. I saw a male cardinal out the window a few moments ago.
> 
> I have photographed hummingbirds in flight. I rarely see them any other way. Exception:
> 
> ...


----------



## akramography (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm sure there are many who want a GoPro sized camera that can do everything an Arri can do, too. Doesn't mean they are going to get it, though.


There are already APS-C size cameras in the market with IBIS and a log profile . . . it's not that wild of an idea


----------



## stevelee (Sep 2, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Hummingbirds. My favorite bird.
> Amazing how they can maneuver and even stay in the same location in mid air.
> Their wings move so fast.
> They are so small and light.
> Amazing to see them photographed in flight.


This is the only shot I got of that bird in flight. The shutter speed was 1/320, which was too fast to get the wings as a good blur, and too slow to stop the wings. I don't even know whether that is possible with an ordinary camera.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 18-55 is also metal mount. I'm sure plastic mount lasts but i've seen broken plastic lens mount before. It's just gives more quality feel.
> The 18-150 costs almost £500 new and you get a cheap plastic mount. While metal mount would be 2g heavier and cost $1 more.


I have used that 18-150 to death. mount still looks like new.

Frankly I think it's much adu over nothing.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

dilbert said:


> The EF protocol is a synchronous single-bit bus. I think I've even seen it mentioned that it is as slow as 9600bps on some lenses. That really limits your ability to use autofocus on moving objets.


no it doesn't
the instruction set for moving a lens to a location is a few bytes of data.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> 10mm is 12% of the height of the M50, and that includes the viewfinder hump. That's significant to someone looking for a compact, lightweight body.


there's also mount volume to consider. if you made the bodies approximately the same size the RF mount just simply takes up more volume inside of the camera, making less room for shutter, electronics and whatnot.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I agree those are the camera & mount sizes.
> 
> I disagree with the opinion that making EOS-M cameras 10mm taller is a big deal.


that's because you're not Canon.

Canon makes a REALLY big deal over a few mm's in size difference.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

nchoh said:


> If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera. The R5 with it's animal eye focus together with the new 600mm and 800mm are amazing combination for birding. I believe that Canon knows the market and will not bother trying to create a true mirrorless replacement for the 7D as the above mentioned combination will suffice and generate volume for the R5.



A lot of sports/action photographers on a budget (think youth, high school, and even small college) also use the 7D Mark II. Under lights or in dim gyms f/2.8 is pretty much mandatory.

There's a big difference between a 7D Mark II ($1,799) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ($2,399) = $4,198 and a 1D X Mark II ($5,999) + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II ($6,100) = $12,098 to get the same reach for field sports under the lights. Plus, with a 300/2.8 you still need a 70-200/2.8 or similar lens on another body for when the action gets closer! Sure, there's a difference in IQ, but it's "good enough" for that segment and makes staying in the black or even making a little bit, instead of spending more than one makes, possible. Lesser APS-C cameras don't hold up to the pounding and wear out much sooner or fall victim to weather much easier.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Call them "Big Whites" if it makes you feel better. I don't consider my 70-200/2.8 a Big White, nor anything else shorter than 300-400mm with f/2.8 or equivalent entrance pupil (500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6, etc.).



It just piqued my interest into whether the name was something Canon had coined and what was the definition Michael. I meant no offence...


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.



Yeah, most youth/high school/small college sports shooters spend all of their free time editing, posting, and promoting images in an attempt to make as much as they spend on it. LOL.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Anything narrower than f/2.8 is a no go when shooting youth/high school/small college sports under lights. A 100-400/4.5-6.3 is useless for that. At f/2.8 we're already using ISO 3200 or higher just to get 1/800 to 1/1000. Before flicker reduction, which times the shutter release at the peak of the lights' cycle, we were only getting 1/500 at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 at most stadiums/ballparks.
> 
> The attraction of a camera like the 7D Mark II when we already own FF 5-series bodies is that a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 on a high density APS-C sensor will give us the same reach for field sports as a $6,000 EF 300/2.8 L IS II will on a FF body. That's the difference between breaking even/making money and spending more than we make doing that kind of shooting. It doesn't hurt that we're also putting obscenely high shutter counts on a $1,700 body with a 200,000 shutter rating instead of a $3,500 body with a 150,000 shutter rating. Some of us do wear them out and need to replace them before the next "improved" model comes out.



Yep valid points, thanks


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

nchoh said:


> For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option. So either way, I don't think that the 7D will be replaced with a mirrorless offering.



As has already been said here several times, the R6 cropped to APS-C is less than 8MP. The R6 is not the answer. Maybe the R5 is, or even a potential R5s if it can maintain the frame rate needed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Both of those lenses have metal mounts.



But the metal ring you are calling the "mount" is not attached to metal posts inside the lenses. They are screwed to "engineering plastic".


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Leave it locked in a hot car for a few days and come back to us next week.



Leave anything locked in a hot car around where I live and you won't have to worry about the plastic, you better hope you have good theft insurance!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> I like your photos



Thank you. Thank'ya'vera'much!


----------



## dilbert (Sep 2, 2020)

canonnews said:


> no it doesn't
> the instruction set for moving a lens to a location is a few bytes of data.



Yes and it takes time for those bytes to be sent, processed, etc. That is part of very real limitations on the being able to keep a lens focused with real-time moving targets.

If the "synchronous" also implies simplex operation, where a lens can either send or receive data but not do both, then there a set points in the communications cycle when that can happen.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon makes a REALLY big deal over a few mm's in size difference.



Canon makes a big deal over what would increase its bottom line. Apparently EOS-M makes more money being 10mm smaller than having RF mount. Nothing wrong about that, same as nothing wrong about me buying a 5DmkIV or R5. As I wrote, its a matter of personal preferences, opinions, etc.


----------



## Psamathe (Sep 2, 2020)

I can see there is a cost to having lots of different ranges particularly where those ranges compete against each other. But to what extent do the R and M ranges compete against each other?

For me they are "competitive". Any camera is a compromise and in my case I do nature and travel photography (where M better for travel and R better for nature). APS-C is fine for me.

If the new R6 had 30+ megapixels I'd probably have ordered one. I love my 100-400L lens and I can seeing that being more "practical" on an R series. But for travel an M series would be far better (with an EVF) and struggle with the 100-400L for less frequent travel use.

Rumours about lines being "killed-off" have a big impact on my choices. Everything becomes redundant over time but one consideration with camera gear is 2nd hand value and whilst I might have the M-series lenses I want, 2nd hand value if the line is discontinued makes it less valuable (particularly for anybody wanting different M-series lenses to those I have).

It all becomes amazingly complex (for me) as you might get into costs for retailers stocking a wider range - will retailers be holding low stocks where there are more ranges (frequently "out-of-stock") - which might further limit sales.

Ian


----------



## Psamathe (Sep 2, 2020)

One question about mounts and M and R series:
There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?

I appreciate using R series lenses on M bodies might less than ideal (R diameters being significantly larger) but same or worse would presumably apply to EF lenses on an M body with the available adapter.

(I only have a Canon APS-C DSLR so I' ready to upgrade but have no experience of the R nor M series bodies nor lenses)

Ian


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 2, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> One question about mounts and M and R series:
> There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?
> [..]



Only if there's glass in the adapter, without glass you can't create a 2mm thick adapter where all the bajonet lugs fit.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> One question about mounts and M and R series:
> There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?
> 
> I appreciate using R series lenses on M bodies might less than ideal (R diameters being significantly larger) but same or worse would presumably apply to EF lenses on an M body with the available adapter.
> ...



I'll elaborate on koenkooi's reply. The EF-M and RF lenses sit at very similar distances from the focal plane, but both are quite different from the EF distance to the focal plane. So the EF -> M adapter and EF -> R adapters can (optically) be empty tubes that just space the lens, so that the EF lens sits as far away from the sensor as it would on an EF camera.

But the difference between EF-M and RF is two milimeters, and one can't construct a tube that short and have the flanges on it, the flanges would interfere with each other.

One *could* create an adapter (in either direction, though I imagine R->M would be more desirable) that used optics to alter the necessary difference, but as far as I know, no one has done this or even begun to do it.


----------



## Psamathe (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> .....
> One *could* create an adapter (in either direction, though I imagine R->M would be more desirable) that used optics to alter the necessary difference, but as far as I know, no one has done this or even begun to do it.


For me, an adapter with glass is not a "problem". I appreciate there would likely be some quality loss but a big functionality gain. I'd be far happier with a Canon manufactured adapter as I'd have more confidence in communications. I assume there would need to be some software support as well so I assume/guess Canon would be doing it anyway.

(If I didn't say it (confused) it is an R (lens)->M (body) that I was asking about (as EF-M is already available).

Ian


----------

