# EOS M related camera bodies coming in late August 2019 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 10, 2019)

> Not much has happened with the EOS M camera lineup since the very successful EOS M50 launched back in February of 2018. The advent of the EOS R system has put a certain cloud over the future of the EOS M system, but Canon executives continue to say they will invest in the system in the future, though they’ve never really committed to how long into the future we’ll see new EOS M products.
> We’re told that the EOS M camera lineup will be addressed in late August with a replacement for at least the EOS M5 and that the EOS M6 isn’t going to see a direct replacement. The source suggested the EOS M lineup will consist of 3 camera bodies in 2020, an EOS M500, EOS M50 and EOS M5 Mark II.
> The same source said 2 new EF-M lenses will arrive alongside the new camera body, though what those lenses are was unknown.
> This is [CR1], so take it with the needed grain of salt.



Continue reading...


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2019)

Here's what I'm hoping: (1) the 18-150 becomes a 15-150; (2) the M5-2 goes way upmarket and is a test bed for speed and focusing improvements destined for the RF Sport Camera. It is essentially the 7D2 replacement.

Also, there is a new Metabones speed booster for EF-to-EF-M. However, because the Canon crop factor is 1.6 instead of 1.5, the resulting crop factor is 1.15 instead of 1.07.





__





Metabones®






www.metabones.com


----------



## unfocused (May 10, 2019)

I get the sense that Canon is sending a message that whether it is full-frame or aps-c, or whether it is mirrorless or DSLR, they intend to be the dominant player in the market. Not conceding any territory to any competitor and not trying to arbitrarily shit customers to one format over another.


----------



## CaMeRa QuEsT (May 10, 2019)

Uhhh, let it be a 53mm f1.4, PLEASE, CANON, IF YOU'RE READING THIS, GIVE US A COMPACT, SHARP 53mm f1.4!


----------



## mb66energy (May 10, 2019)

CaMeRa QuEsT said:


> Uhhh, let it be a 53mm f1.4, PLEASE, CANON, IF YOU'RE READING THIS, GIVE US A COMPACT, SHARP 53mm f1.4!


This or a 64 mm f/1.8 with 1:2 macro and IS ...or both!


----------



## mb66energy (May 10, 2019)

Generally a win win situation for me: Thinking about a 2nd M50 body for a EF-M 32 - EF 70-200 IS combo. DPAF squeezes every bit of sharpness from both lenses and the M50 is a very responsive camera.

Whatever will be released, may bring the M50 prices down a little bit or might be a good companion to my existing M50 ...


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 10, 2019)

I love love LOVE the M cameras and lenses. I would like to see a new M5 Mark II that's very robust with a similar layout to what we have now and a slightly deeper grip for better ergonomics when adapting EF lenses. But a new pair of lenses sounds good. The system is missing an 85mm equivalent or even another pancake lens. I would personally like a 15mm f/1.4 pancake or slim lens or a solid telephoto that reaches at least 300mm.


----------



## Woody (May 10, 2019)

Ooooh... I'm excited about the EF-M lenses already.

I'll like to see an improved big zoom lens than the current EF-M 18-150 mm cos the latter is just too prone to flare.

The patents are already out for 
EF-M 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6
EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3
EF-M 18-130mm f/3.4-5.6
EF-M 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3
EF-M 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 
EF-M 8-15mm fisheye 
(See this and this).


----------



## eosuser1234 (May 10, 2019)

I would love to see a 400mm F5.6 EF-M for hiking and birding.


----------



## slclick (May 10, 2019)

One of the reasons I got rid of my M5 were the controls on the back. Far too easy to make a change unknowingly. Very customizable sure but in the end I was essentially turning off everything to make it work for me, not the kind of system I want to buy into. I hope the M52 addresses this because all other reasons, I liked the system, even with the Canon ML 'EARLY DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE' EVF (however it blew away the Oly Pen evf which was horribly contrasty)


----------



## andrei1989 (May 10, 2019)

please let there be a new kit lens starting at 15mm and going further than 45...70-90 would be enough but i don't like anything starting at 18 
also maybe something similar to the ef-s 55-250 stm..i keep looking for a used 70-200 f4 but that ef-s lens is so damn good and cheap i feel i'd lose getting the bigger L


----------



## Del Paso (May 10, 2019)

Please, Canon, where can I place a pre-order?
If the M 5II is a hi-MP camera, I'll use it for macro with EF and Leica lenses (no more cropping of FF picts, and yet, good depth of field).


----------



## SteveCheetham (May 10, 2019)

It's not rocket science to foresee that if the rumoured 32.5 APSC sensor will arrive in an 80D replacement, that soon after it will make it's way into the M form factor. Canon have done this historically and it makes sense to get the most out of costly sensor development by using it across as wide a range of cameras as possible. I also don't see the argument that the R series will replace or diminish the M series. It's one of Canon's biggest sellers particularly in Japan and has a very different appeal. If you're looking for a truly lightweight, easy to carry system then the M is it, my M5, 11-22, 15-45 and 55-200 weigh next to nothing and are a joy to use when walking around all day.


----------



## SaP34US (May 10, 2019)

What's the M500?


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2019)

eosuser1234 said:


> I would love to see a 400mm F5.6 EF-M for hiking and birding.


The size and weight of a 400mm lens tends to be dominated by the size and weight of the front elements. Also, the rearmost element of a long telephoto lens is usually deeply recessed so being in a mirrorless system doesn't gain much either. Therefore, there is not likely to be much difference between a 400 f/5.6 M, a 400 f/5.6 EF and 400 f/5.6 RF. You might as well buy the EF version and the EF-to-M adapter and start shooting.


----------



## -pekr- (May 11, 2019)

Canon - no retro m6 like body replacement, no tequila ....


----------



## slclick (May 11, 2019)

SaP34US said:


> What's the M500?


Potentially the newest entry level M series. Higher numbers= Lower end.


----------



## SaP34US (May 11, 2019)

Yes maybe it was mentioned along with M5 II and M50.


----------



## dcm (May 11, 2019)

As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2019)

dcm said:


> As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely...



Yes. Canon has never seen the need to offer EF-S lenses in local focal lengths. No reason why they would do so with EF-M.


----------



## vjlex (May 11, 2019)

Hopefully one of these will be the long awaited replacement for my M3. And wouldn't mind another f1.X lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2019)

dcm said:


> As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. *The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. * At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.


That’s like saying that because Canon doesn’t have production sensors larger than 35mm, thet can’t make a medium format camera. There aren’t currently EF-M lenses with a front element anywhere close to the 61mm diameter of the barrel because there large front elements aren’t needed based on current lens specs. Look at EF telephoto lenses, the front element is often only slightly smaller than the barrel (the extreme case of the 300/4 with a 75mm front element and a 77mm filter thread). An EF-M front element could easily be 55-58mm, so while that rules out a 400mm lens, there could be an EF-M 350mm f/6.3 or 300/5.6. 

There won’t be, at least as long as EF lenses are produced, because such lenses would be effectively the same size as EF versions. But in some future hypothetical world where there are only EF-M and RF lenses, since the latter can’t be practically adapted to the former mount, I could see an EF-M telephoto lens of 300mm or longer.


----------



## Pape (May 11, 2019)

dcm said:


> As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.


Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.


----------



## Baron_Karza (May 11, 2019)

Please add IBIS


----------



## FairlyKors (May 11, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I get the sense that Canon is sending a message that whether it is full-frame or aps-c, or whether it is mirrorless or DSLR, they intend to be the dominant player in the market. Not conceding any territory to any competitor and not trying to arbitrarily shit customers to one format over another.



How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.

I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?


----------



## -pekr- (May 11, 2019)

FairlyKors said:


> How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.
> 
> I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?



If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII). 

M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove that yet imo. 

On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....


----------



## -pekr- (May 11, 2019)

If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII).

M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove the dedication to the M yet imo.

On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....


----------



## mb66energy (May 11, 2019)

Pape said:


> Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
> If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
> Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
> Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.



Canon Can make wider front barrels - but they decided not to do so up to now. Olympus has to do that because they have no FF alternative in their current lens lineup.

As neuro said: The size advantage of EF-M for longer focal lengths is next to zero at the moment. And if you go solely M and use e.g. 1.4 35 + 2.8 100 macro + 5.6 400 just buy three EF2EF-M adaptors third party or original to combine these lenses e.g. with EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 32. The price of the adaptor is neglegible compared to the adaptors price.

With future lens or better glass type/glass manufacturing tech/diffractive optics there is a chance that we will see a 100mm long high IQ EF-M f/4 200 lens which would be a great thing but I am not shure that enough EF-M users are willing to pay 800 $ / EUR for such a lens.

For the moment I am really loving the M50 with the EF-M 32 welded on it. Depending on the real advantages (for my photographic style/applications) I will buy a 2nd body of one of the new M cameras or buy a 2nd M50 (maybe at 450 EUR after new bodies are released). This camera will take the EF 4.0 70-200 IS mk i which is a gorgous lens on APS-C or the 100mm f/2.0 / 100mm macro / 5.6 400 depending on my needs. One body for "standard" + one body for EF lenses.


----------



## Del Paso (May 11, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes. Canon has never seen the need to offer EF-S lenses in local focal lengths. No reason why they would do so with EF-M.


As long as you can adapt EF teles...


----------



## bf (May 11, 2019)

Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.


----------



## Del Paso (May 11, 2019)

bf said:


> Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.


People like me who positively hate having to look at the little screen  at the back of a camera, especially in sunshine.
I'll never understand how one can buy a camera without a viewfinder (like I bought that cute little Olympus Pen ).
Maybe I'm stupid (I certainly am), but I'm also unable to use live-view...in daylight.


----------



## canonnews (May 11, 2019)

Pape said:


> Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
> If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
> Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
> Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.



beats me but as others have commented on, every single EF-M lens is exactly the same barrel diameter. it stands to reason this is some internal design consideration that Canon has imposed on the lenses for the mount.

So while it would be nice to assume that they aren't self-constrained, it certainly feels like they are.

It would be an interesting question to ask Canon!


----------



## Etienne (May 11, 2019)

bf said:


> Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.



I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.

I will probably buy the M5 mark II no matter what improvements it has or lacks because I like these lenses so much: 

EF-M 11-22 IS
EF-M 22 f/2
EF-M 32 f/1.4

But I do hope they add the following:

IBIS
A top rate viewfinder
Fully articulated LCD
Good usable 4K 24p and 30p
1080p 120p

But as I said, I'll buy it as soon as its available anyway.


----------



## -pekr- (May 11, 2019)

Etienne said:


> I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.
> 
> I will probably buy the M5 mark II no matter what improvements it has or lacks because I like these lenses so much:
> 
> ...



You can buy an external viewfinder to the M6, though then you lose a hotshoe. There might be an advantage there - you might eventually use the new one with older camera. Well, in theory anyway ....


----------



## Hector1970 (May 11, 2019)

I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced


----------



## mensaf (May 11, 2019)

Damn shame, I sold everything but 7 LP-E12 batteries from my old M50 setup. I do wish I still had it every now and then because of the mic input, but the RX100 VI has done a great job replacing it for the most part.


----------



## BillB (May 11, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
> I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
> I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
> It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
> ...


The size cost and performance packages in the M system seem to have worked for a lot of people, either as a main system or as a lightweight travel option. It will only die out if the size cost and performances packages that the M system offers stop working for people.


----------



## Woody (May 12, 2019)

FairlyKors said:


> If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well.



Notice that you specifically choose to talk about the FF mirrorless sector, not mirrorless cameras as a whole. Guess you must have already figured out that Canon is doing very well in the APS-C mirrorless sector even though they launched into it much later than Olympus and Sony.

Allow me to repeat this for the umpteenth time:
"Canon — Initially a follower in film SLR, eventually a leader in autofocus SLR; then a follower in DSLR that again flipped to leader; then a follower in mirrorless which may be flipping to leader. Sense a pattern there? *Canon isn't generally the first mover, but when they move they move. I think that anyone who underestimates the EOS M and whatever full frame mirrorless Canon decides to produce needs to rethink their position.* I'd call Canon opportunistic and well managed. I wouldn't call them the innovator that's going to trigger the next changeover in camera designs by leading the way, but they are *quick to understand when that changeover is occurring*. *Follower that becomes a Winner*."
- http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/who-leads-who-follows-who.html


----------



## Rocky (May 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
> I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
> I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
> It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
> ...


small size, light weight, and reasonable price with good to excellent performance. That is the appeal of M. I move from 40D/20D combo to M and M2 combo a few years back. I have never looked back. Now I am using M50 and M2 combo, that is even better. My camera bag weighs about half as much as before. That alone is a big plus on a month long trip


----------



## mb66energy (May 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
> I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
> *I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.*
> It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
> ...


I see the M50+EF-M 32 as the "compact digital rangefinder" analogue to e.g. the minolta himatic series with the advantage of a 60x90mm image field at MFD. Hang that around your neck and you are an unsuspicious tourist with instant access to your camera. It plays very well with EF lenses for tele / macro / UWA at the moment.

While the EOS R/RP bodies are really expensive compared to the US (RP: 1700$, R: 2800$) I am not in the "grab-it-and-find-out" mood. But if a medium fast / high res / better video capabilitiy swiss knife EOS R enters the market I maybe are willing to use that for special jobs and the M50+EF-M 32 will stay for (1) walk around, (2) unsuspicious tourist cases and (3) standard focal length as 1st / 2nd body.


----------



## uri.raz (May 12, 2019)

Woody said:


> EF-M 8-15mm fisheye



I wonder why for two reasons:

1. You can mount the existing EF 8-15mm f/4L with an adapter.

2. You'll get diagonal fisheye, but not circular fisheye. Why not hope for an EF-M 5-10mm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I never understood the appeal of the M series.


Let me sum it up for you in 1,000 words.


----------



## canonnews (May 12, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I wonder why for two reasons:
> 
> 1. You can mount the existing EF 8-15mm f/4L with an adapter.
> 
> 2. You'll get diagonal fisheye, but not circular fisheye. Why not hope for an EF-M 5-10mm?


because it wasn't an 8-16. the patent we found for this, had a 5-10mm APS-C fisheye and an 8-16 full frame fisheye.


----------



## canonnews (May 12, 2019)

FairlyKors said:


> How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.
> 
> I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?



We discovered the RF/EF protocol patent app last year, with a publish date of 2016.

So we have good evidence that the RF system was in R&D way back in 2016, if not sooner. Initial R&D probably started to occur as far back as 2014-15.

A capable camera such as an EOS R most likely takes in order to 2-3 years to develop, even an RP takes a while to develop. Don't forgot not only do you have to design the electronics, you have to design, study, re-design, study more the ergonomic design especially of an entirely new camera, then you have to create the molds, design the assembly, do all the multi-lingual translations, manuals, certifications (which can take over a half a year right there), etc,etc,etc.

None of these decisions by Canon (nor Nikon) were done on a whim and a drop of a hat. That seems to be an ongoing internet myth being perpetuated.

Also we have no idea how well the EOS R,etc are selling. we have Japan marketshare numbers for a short period of time, however, the mirrorless full frame numbers in Japan in actual units are so small, there are statistically insignificant.


----------



## jeanluc (May 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me sum it up for you in 1,000 words.
> View attachment 184495


How do you like your RRS L bracket on your R? Especially regarding the flip screen?


----------



## espressino (May 12, 2019)

bf said:


> Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.


Bummer about the M6. I quite like that the viewfinder is optional, so depending on the situations the camera can be even more compact, or a tad more sunshine-friendly with the viewfinder attached. (Even though, perpetually: when you push and hold the "downward" or "info" button for over a second on the M6, as well as the higher range Powershots, the display will temporarily light up at the brightest setting. Works for some.)
Another reason why it's sad to see the M6 go is that IMHO design-wise the silver version was the only camera model where Canon offered a non-black version which didn't look just trashy (like the SL2 in white), and it also referenced the design of Canon's older rangefinder cameras. Unimportant perhaps but might cater to some buyer segments.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me sum it up for you in 1,000 words.
> View attachment 184495


Very well put!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2019)

jeanluc said:


> How do you like your RRS L bracket on your R? Especially regarding the flip screen?


Construction is the usual RRS high standard. Seems Canon put a little hole in the bottom of the R, and RRS put a pin in it so there’s no twist whatsoever. 

The LCD is constrained by the L-bracket. It can flip out only to ~175° with the display vertical. With the display horizontal (screen pointing up or down), it can flip out the full 180° (Into the gap in the upright), but in that position the display can only be rotated about ±30°. 

For my uses, I can live with the constraints and overall I like the bracket. I would have preferred the modular design where the upright is removable, though – love that on my 1D X bracket.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me sum it up for you in 1,000 words.
> View attachment 184495





A more relevant size comparison


----------



## koketso (May 13, 2019)

I assum it will be 


SaP34US said:


> What's the M500?


I assume it will be an M50 without the viewfinder. if it keeps the vari-angle touchscreen and same 24MP sensor then it will be an instant hit for vloggers and video shooters looking for a B cam with DPAF.


----------



## koenkooi (May 13, 2019)

koketso said:


> I assum it will be
> 
> I assume it will be an M50 without the viewfinder. if it keeps the vari-angle touchscreen and same 24MP sensor then it will be an instant hit for vloggers and video shooters looking for a B cam with DPAF.


In that case it will be the smallest, lightest and cheapest Canon camera with eye AF.


----------



## Kit. (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me sum it up for you in 1,000 words.


Now add G7X there.


----------



## bainsybike (May 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> A more relevant size comparison


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> A more relevant size comparison
> View attachment 184507
> View attachment 184507


Relevant if you take pictures without a lens attached to your camera. How has that been working out for you?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Now add G7X there.


Put an iPhone there, if sensor size and the ability to change lenses don’t matter to you. They matter to me.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Relevant if you take pictures without a lens attached to your camera. How has that been working out for you?


But that's the point. Canon could produce small lens for the EOS-RP like they do for the M and probably will do so.
As a user I'd have one less mount to worry about.
The M50 seems to have a strong following and it appears to get very positive comments here.
I didn't really see the attraction of it but I guess for me an Olympus is covering the equivalent and if the M50 had been out before I got the Olympus I'd be a very happy M50 owner too.
Canon wasn't looking too far ahead at the time but its a pity the M mount wasn't the same as what they chose for the R series. But its too late now. I just wouldn't have personal confidence Canon will keep supporting the M mount and its lens system when they can probably produce an R of a very similar size and small lens.
In the end Canon will decide based on profitability. If people keep buying M50's or equivalents it will survive away.


----------



## Kit. (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Put an iPhone there, if sensor size and the ability to change lenses don’t matter to you. They matter to me.


When sensor size matters to me, I prefer full frame cameras. When the ability to change lenses matters to me, I prefer big body cameras as well (TS-E 17 is kinda pointless on a crop camera, and if I carry a 100-400, camera being M-sized doesn't really help).

In addition, I think, you grossly underestimate the absolute aperture of a G7X lens.


----------



## bf (May 13, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> People like me who positively hate having to look at the little screen  at the back of a camera, especially in sunshine.
> I'll never understand how one can buy a camera without a viewfinder (like I bought that cute little Olympus Pen ).
> Maybe I'm stupid (I certainly am), but I'm also unable to use live-view...in daylight.


I have had the external EVF with M6; it came as a free gift from B&H but I have only used it a couple of times. I think the LCD in back of the camera is much larger and brighter than the little one in EVF. Then, there is also shooting remotely by your phone, which I used only a couple of times more than EVF. Also, shooting from hip that I do much more than EVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> But that's the point. Canon could produce small lens for the EOS-RP like they do for the M and probably will do so.


Perhaps they could...but they haven’t. But let me get this straight, you are basing your lack of understanding of the M system’s appeal on the current lack of some hypothetical future lenses Canon may or may not produce? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Even if Canon does come out with small lenses for the RF mount (slow, variable aperture zooms that have just decent optical quality), the system will still be substantially larger than the M line

More importantly, smaller RF lenses won’t detract from the other major reason for the appeal of the M system:





Next you’ll probably claim that Canon could make RF lenses and a FF MILC cheaper. Before doing so, you should consider the fact that the for the same price of the slow variable aperture, medium image quality EF 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM, I can buy an M6 + M15-45 kit. 

But it’s ok if you don’t understand the appeal, enough people do to make it one of the most popular MILC lines in the world, and the most popular mirrorless line in Japan.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2019)

Kit. said:


> When sensor size matters to me, I prefer full frame cameras. When the ability to change lenses matters to me, I prefer big body cameras as well (TS-E 17 is kinda pointless on a crop camera, and if I carry a 100-400, camera being M-sized doesn't really help).


That’s why there is an EOS R in the picture. Regardless, adding a point and shoot camera into the mix is seriously moving the goalposts for the comparison.


----------



## Kit. (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s why there is an EOS R in the picture. Regardless, adding a point and shoot camera into the mix is seriously moving the goalposts for the comparison.


But isn't it "moving the goalposts" in the same way as adding another crop-sensor camera with the same PowerShot user interface and an even slower (absolute aperture wise) lens?

I mean, really. I see no use for M-series that I couldn't cover with G-series (if I own a full frame body anyway), but G-series is actually pocketable and has much cheaper underwater cases.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Put an iPhone there, if sensor size and the ability to change lenses don’t matter to you. They matter to me.


Life is full of compromises. I own a G7x and seriously looked at an M5 before I bought it. The M5 isn't small enough to fit into my pocket but the G7x is.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps they could...but they haven’t. But let me get this straight, you are basing your lack of understanding of the M system’s appeal on the current lack of some hypothetical future lenses Canon may or may not produce? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
> 
> Even if Canon does come out with small lenses for the RF mount (slow, variable aperture zooms that have just decent optical quality), the system will still be substantially larger than the M line
> 
> ...


I don’t know at times why you get you knickers in a twist so easily to prove you are right. You seem to have a low tolerance threshold to other people’s ways of thinking. I think it detracts from your often insightful comments. You are totally entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t make other people stupid if they have a different opinion or a personal viewpoint. There is nothing guaranteed in business. Canon will act in accordance to the bottom line. They are happy to bring a new M now but it all depends if the success continues. They are limited in the M series to innovate on the camera or the lenses. Anyway maybe you are having a bad day and I hope it improves


----------



## barryreid (May 13, 2019)

I'm sad if Canon are dropping the M3/6 form factor. I absolutely love my M6 & EVF-DC1 combo, a light flippable EVF I can take off when I want a truly tiny but still capable camera.

esp. paired with the 22/2.


----------



## Pape (May 13, 2019)

i wonder if they could make mount what sinks 1,5cm when camera isnt used ,lens doesnt need to be on right flange distance when camera is on pocket. 1,5cm would help lot to fit M camera to pocket?


----------



## bf (May 13, 2019)

espressino said:


> Bummer about the M6. I quite like that the viewfinder is optional, so depending on the situations the camera can be even more compact, or a tad more sunshine-friendly with the viewfinder attached. (Even though, perpetually: when you push and hold the "downward" or "info" button for over a second on the M6, as well as the higher range Powershots, the display will temporarily light up at the brightest setting. Works for some.)
> Another reason why it's sad to see the M6 go is that IMHO design-wise the silver version was the only camera model where Canon offered a non-black version which didn't look just trashy (like the SL2 in white), and it also referenced the design of Canon's older rangefinder cameras. Unimportant perhaps but might cater to some buyer segments.


I agree! This is the only modern body with somewhat retro-rangefinder styling. I don't like the upper cuves of R and RP either. Fuji and Nikon have done a better job in the styling department. I wish RP is offered in M6 format!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I don’t know at times why you get you knickers in a twist so easily to prove you are right. You seem to have a low tolerance threshold to other people’s ways of thinking. I think it detracts from your often insightful comments. You are totally entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t make other people stupid if they have a different opinion or a personal viewpoint. There is nothing guaranteed in business. Canon will act in accordance to the bottom line. They are happy to bring a new M now but it all depends if the success continues. They are limited in the M series to innovate on the camera or the lenses. Anyway maybe you are having a bad day and I hope it improves


Of course you're welcome to your opinion. I guess my expectation that you could understand the fact a smaller system size would have appeal was simply too high. Apologies for that. Incidentally, I had a great day personally and professionally...but that doesn't give me the patience to suffer foolish comments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2019)

Kit. said:


> But isn't it "moving the goalposts" in the same way as adding another crop-sensor camera with the same PowerShot user interface and an even slower (absolute aperture wise) lens?
> 
> I mean, really. I see no use for M-series that I couldn't cover with G-series (if I own a full frame body anyway), but G-series is actually pocketable and has much cheaper underwater cases.


Given that the initial response was to someone who fails to see the appeal of the M series, how is discussing the M6 'moving the goalposts'? It's the whole point! I mean, really.

Personally, I see ample use for the M-series that I couldn't cover with the G-series. How ample? The M11-22 is my most-used EF-M lens, and across the M, M2 and M6 about 60% of my total images taken are in the 11-14mm focal length range, which is wider than the G-series' widest 24mm FFeq.


----------



## koenkooi (May 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given that the initial response was to someone who fails to see the appeal of the M series, how is discussing the M6 is 'moving the goalposts'? It's the whole point! I mean, really.
> 
> Personally, I see ample use for the M-series that I couldn't cover with the G-series. How ample? The M11-22 is my most-used EF-M lens, and across the M, M2 and M6 about 60% of my images are in the 11-14mm focal length range, which is wider than the G-series' widest 24mm FFeq.


And since I've only had one coffee this morning, I had to break out the calculator: 11-14mm on the M is about 18-22mm FFeq.

This year my most used lenses on the M are:


32mm f/1.4
22mm f/2
28mm f/3.5

The 32mm + eye AF + 10fps gets me an acceptable success rate when trying to take pictures of my 3 year old. Even better, it has a success rate when the 3 year old takes pictures of me


----------



## jolyonralph (May 14, 2019)

Hopefully we'll get a fast prime EF-M lens wider than 22mm


----------



## koenkooi (May 14, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Hopefully we'll get a fast prime EF-M lens wider than 22mm



How much wider are you looking for? 18, 15 or 11mm like the Canon zoom lenses or even wider like the 9mm zero-D Laowa lens?


----------



## -pekr- (May 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course you're welcome to your opinion. I guess my expectation that you could understand the fact a smaller system size would have appeal was simply too high. Apologies for that. Incidentally, I had a great day personally and professionally...but that doesn't give me the patience to suffer foolish comments.



Neuro, I am just curious about one thing and though we have two observatories and colleagues build own scopes, I am an IT guy, hence not able to think it thru properly - let's say Canon have DSLRs of various size, including the possibly smallest SL line. So let's suppose Canon can make even an RF cameras of various sizes. How big would be your mentioned 11-22 RF equivalent, given the mount size compared to M? Thanks ....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Neuro, I am just curious about one thing and though we have two observatories and colleagues build own scopes, I am an IT guy, hence not able to think it thru properly - let's say Canon have DSLRs of various size, including the possibly smallest SL line. So let's suppose Canon can make even an RF cameras of various sizes. How big would be your mentioned 11-22 RF equivalent, given the mount size compared to M? Thanks ....


Canon has patents for RF 16-35 and 15-35 f/4 lenses that are ~4“ long (not too much smaller than the EF version). If they went with a slow/variable aperture (e.g. f/3.5-6.3), I suspect it could be a bit smaller but not much, and the size savings would be primarily in diameter, not length.

For ultra/wide lenses, the size benefit of a smaller image circle (e.g. APS-C) substantially outweighs the benefit of a shorter flange distance.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 14, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> How much wider are you looking for? 18, 15 or 11mm like the Canon zoom lenses or even wider like the 9mm zero-D Laowa lens?



Something like a compact 14mm f/2.8 APS-C lens (so nothing like the full-frame versions) would be good. The 11-18 is a great lens to be fair, but it would be good to have something at least a tiny bit faster.


----------



## Kit. (May 14, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given that the initial response was to someone who fails to see the appeal of the M series, how is discussing the M6 'moving the goalposts'? It's the whole point! I mean, really.


In exactly the same way. It's a crop sensor "P&S" interface camera with (as shown) a lens slower than a G7X has.



neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I see ample use for the M-series that I couldn't cover with the G-series. How ample? The M11-22 is my most-used EF-M lens, and across the M, M2 and M6 about 60% of my total images taken are in the 11-14mm focal length range, which is wider than the G-series' widest 24mm FFeq.


I'm afraid I couldn't cover it with M-series as well. M11 (unshifted) is usually just not wide enough for me if I want to go wider than the 24 equivalent.


----------



## bf (May 14, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Something like a compact 14mm f/2.8 APS-C lens (so nothing like the full-frame versions) would be good. The 11-18 is a great lens to be fair, but it would be good to have something at least a tiny bit faster.


Rokinon has made such lenses for efm mount e.g. 12f2. Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.
Being said, I still mostly go with 11-22 as a versatile, cost effective, and extremely valuable lens.


----------



## flip314 (May 14, 2019)

bf said:


> Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.



That's not true, about 1/3 of the time you need to focus as closely as possible. The other 2/3 of the time you can focus at infinity  (or possibly some rough estimate of the hyperfocal distance)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2019)

Kit. said:


> In exactly the same way. It's a crop sensor "P&S" interface camera with (as shown) a lens slower than a G7X has.


Your statement is inane. One is an interchangeable lens camera, the other is a fixed lens camera. It’s a fundamental difference, ignoring that difference is asinine. 



Kit. said:


> I'm afraid I couldn't cover it with M-series as well. M11 (unshifted) is usually just not wide enough for me if I want to go wider than the 24 equivalent.


There’s a 9mm f/2.8 lens for EF-M. That’s the point of an _interchangeable_ lens camera. So you have a 11/12-24? I do enjoy my 11-24/4L on FF. 

Regardless, you stated the M doesn’t give you anything the G can’t, I disagreed because I use the 11-14mm range a lot. Your reply is that 11mm on APS-C isn’t wide enough for you...this, after (incorrectly) accusing me of moving the goalposts. 

Clear to me that you’re trolling here. No more food from me, I’m out.


----------



## Kit. (May 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your statement is inane. One is an interchangeable lens camera, the other is a fixed lens camera. It’s a fundamental difference, ignoring that difference is asinine.


Your statement is inane. Saying that I ignore that difference (exactly the difference that makes G-series preferable to me) is asinine.

G-series is pocketable, while M-series is not? _Thanks_ to the fixed-lens design.
G-series has cheap underwater housings, while M-series doesn't? _Thanks_ to the fixed-lens design.



neuroanatomist said:


> There’s a 9mm f/2.8 lens for EF-M. That’s the point of an _interchangeable_ lens camera. So you have a 11/12-24? I do enjoy my 11-24/4L on FF.


That's my point. If you already have an interchangeable FF lens camera, what a M-series adds to that and G-series doesn't?



neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, you stated the M doesn’t give you anything the G can’t, I disagreed because I use the 11-14mm range a lot. Your reply is that 11mm on APS-C isn’t wide enough for you...this, after (incorrectly) accusing me of moving the goalposts.


Actually, it were you who (incorrectly) accused me of moving the goalposts, while in fact it were you who was looking at the problem from the wrong angle.

What G-series gives me that my FF system cannot? Pocketability and the ability to use cheap underwater housing for the camera that I'm not afraid to ruin by putting it into a saltwater.

What M-series gives me that my FF system cannot? None of the above.

Were M your _only_ ILC system, you would have had a point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2019)

bf said:


> Rokinon has made such lenses for efm mount e.g. 12f2. Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.
> Being said, I still mostly go with 11-22 as a versatile, cost effective, and extremely valuable lens.


Agree on the M11-22. The Rokinon 12/2 for M is reportedly a great choice for astrophotography, not only based on specs but also on low coma (an aberration that Canon doesn’t seem to care much about mitigating in their lens designs).


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree on the M11-22. The Rokinon 12/2 for M is reportedly a great choice for astrophotography, not only based on specs but also on low coma (an aberration that Canon doesn’t seem to care much about mitigating in their lens designs).


The Samyang 8mm f/2.8 EF-M fit is an absolutely cracking lens if you like a fisheye (stereographic). From 3m to infinity it's in focus for an infinity setting.
The 11-22 is a useful all rounder and a fraction of the size of a 16-35 f/4.


----------



## bf (May 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The Samyang 8mm f/2.8 EF-M fit is an absolutely cracking lens if you like a fisheye (stereographic). From 3m to infinity it's in focus for an infinity setting.
> The 11-22 is a useful all rounder and a fraction of the size of a 16-35 f/4.


I agree. I have had this one since my original M and should've shared a few shots in the M forum. M was relatively slow in focus but with this lens all you needed was touching the screen and he shot was instaltly there without anyone's notice! Both these two lenses (12&8) are also among the best for astrophotography. I also love playing with spherical distortion with this lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2019)

bf said:


> Rokinon has made such lenses for efm mount e.g. 12f2. Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.



I certainly would want an autofocus lens, although I'm sure the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm is good.


----------



## pj1974 (May 17, 2019)

bf said:


> Rokinon has made such lenses for efm mount e.g. 12f2. Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.





jolyonralph said:


> I certainly would want an autofocus lens, although I'm sure the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm is good.



I have the Rokinon 12mm f/2 regularly mounted on my Canon M5. (For those who are not aware, the Rokinon is the same as the Samyang 12mm f/2, lens, just badged differently)

It is a very sharp lens, with great contrast levels (including micro-contrast). It is a joy to use due to its small size, good build quality and usable focus ring. It allows a really useful equivalent of "FF" 19mm field of view, which is great for many landscapes, architecture and more.

It is also a fantastic lens for astrophotography - with low coma and very good image quality, even towards the corners wide open at f/2. Actually, astrophotography is the main reason I bought this lens and entered the Canon EOS M market - buying an as new 'M5' here in Australia. My copy focuses at infinity just a fraction before the focus 'hard stop', so I have the process down pat for .

The M5's focus peaking makes critical manual focusing (MF) - at less than infinity - quite user friendly. Would I like and use accurate and fairly speedy AF? Yes, sure... all the other lenses I own (EF, EF-S, EF-M etc) are auto focus. But I can certainly live with this lens being MF! 

I look forward to what Canon will be providing in their next EOS-M line-up / models. The EOS M50 presents an exciting indication of what may be in the EOS M5mkII (or other similar models). In the meantime, I enjoy taking photos with my Canon DSLRs and my mirrorless M5 body, with the various lenses I have for them.

Regards

PJ


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has patents for RF 16-35 and 15-35 f/4 lenses that are ~4“ long (not too much smaller than the EF version). If they went with a slow/variable aperture (e.g. f/3.5-6.3), I suspect it could be a bit smaller but not much, and the size savings would be primarily in diameter, not length.
> 
> For ultra/wide lenses, the size benefit of a smaller image circle (e.g. APS-C) substantially outweighs the benefit of a shorter flange distance.


...and now a patent for an RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 that’s also ~4” long. 

Still waiting for evidence to support the claims of some on this forum that the RF mount will allow dramatically smaller lenses.


----------



## Pape (May 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...and now a patent for an RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 that’s also ~4” long.
> 
> Still waiting for evidence to support the claims of some on this forum that the RF mount will allow dramatically smaller lenses.


Tube could be smaller on front end but its stronger and cheaper use simple one piece tube.
All RF lenses are 2cm longer unless difraction elements.
But they use opposite lense to make it longer so can fit all too many lense in.


----------



## koenkooi (May 17, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> I certainly would want an autofocus lens, although I'm sure the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm is good.



I would settle for a lens with electronic aperture control at those focal lengths.


----------



## scottsworld (Jun 5, 2019)

Here is my dilemma/question... by Oct-Nov 2019 I need to buy a new camera (old one is dead, + going on European holiday for Xmas). Factors that impact my decision on which one to buy are:- 

Prefer light/compact EOS for travelling without need for giant camera bag.
Can't afford to buy a new camera every few years, so this one should last.
Tempted by EOS *RP *(but can't really afford it when I factor in lenses)
Considering *M50*, (variangle screen for selfies - travel alone etc)
Main use is for photography, not being the next youTube Vlog star!
If I buy M50 now, benefit from EOFY sales (Australia), & parents going overseas (can get 10% GST refunded in July)
Scared of the rumours about a 'new M' camera this year, which I'd kick myself for not waiting for.
Or I just buy an M-*lense *now (on sale, + 10% GST refund in July), and wait for new M body?

Thoughts? 

Trolls: please be funny/witty. 

(Current gear from my 550D days: an old Tamron 70-200mm lense that slides when tipped. 1 Canon 'nifty 50' lense.)


----------



## andrei1989 (Jun 5, 2019)

scottsworld said:


> Tempted by EOS *RP *(but can't really afford it when I factor in lenses)



the 24-240 should come out soon as well

the RP with the new 24-240 should be a complete combo and not cost more than 2000-2200$


----------



## scottsworld (Jun 5, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> the 24-240 should come out soon as well
> 
> the RP with the new 24-240 should be a complete combo and not cost more than 2000-2200$


The RP body is A$1751 (USD 1,222) on sale here in Australia now (no lenses no adapter). If you’re guessing USD above, that’s a massive A$2890+


----------

