# Patent: Lots of EF-M zoom optical formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 19, 2019)

> Canon continues to work away at EF-M lenses judging by this recent patent application. It looks like they’re working on improved optics for kit zoom lenses, sharper performance and less vignetting are on order.
> *EF-M Zoom Optical Formulas in Japan Patent Application 2019008235:*
> 
> EF-M 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2019)

The 15-130mm sounds interesting.


----------



## overniven (Jan 19, 2019)

..a 15-130mm would be a nice range for APS-C.


----------



## siegsAR (Jan 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 15-130mm sounds interesting.


Yes indeed. As of the moment, I have Tamron 16-300mm paired w/ the M50. Non-native but beast of a focal length as an all rounder. I might be tempted by the new lens. BUT if they come up with 15-200, it’d be gold. Tamron also have an EF-M 18-200mm, but my adapted setup is still my go to.


----------



## michi (Jan 19, 2019)

That 15-130 would be the perfect one lens solution. Hope it shows up, and soon. Although I would rather have a EF-M 15-85 f/3.2-3.5 for example.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 19, 2019)

Shame Canon only thinks in cheap, dark, plastic zooms for the system. I'm afraid that is all we going to ever get.


----------



## michi (Jan 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Shame Canon only thinks in cheap, dark, plastic zooms for the system. I'm afraid that is all we going to ever get.


I agree. I bet if they came out with a “L” set of EF-M lenses, they would be quite popular.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 19, 2019)

Presumably all of these 'new' lenses would have the EF-M 'standard' 61mm diameter...a 'limitation' that I feel is warranted as far as the original intent of the M-system is concerned (size and weight).

I do like the 18-150...had the 15-1XX existed I might've gone that route. The 18-150 is quite nice...for candids of my family while traveling. I suspect the 15-1XX would be nearly as nice, but with the wider angle would be preferred for an all-around lens.

I really do like on-the-go shots with the Ms--this one is with the M6 mated to the 11-22.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jan 19, 2019)

currently have the 15-85 on my M5...huge setup but much better than the 15-45 and i wouldn't give up the extra 3mm...should canon release a new kit lens that is either longer than 45mm or brighter i would give up the ef-s option..


----------



## Tangent (Jan 19, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Shame Canon only thinks in cheap, dark, plastic zooms for the system. I'm afraid that is all we going to ever get.



Let's give Canon some credit for the 32 1.4 ef-m. Hopefully more of that ilk coming as well.


----------



## michi (Jan 20, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> currently have the 15-85 on my M5...huge setup but much better than the 15-45 and i wouldn't give up the extra 3mm...should canon release a new kit lens that is either longer than 45mm or brighter i would give up the ef-s option..


The 15-85 is the only EF-S lens I kept. It’s the perfect walk around lens. But to me, it defeats the purpose of my M6 plus adapter plus that lens. Might as well take my SL1 with the 15-85 and no adapter, nearly same size and weight. Agreed, Canon needs a decent wide angle to light/mid telephoto lens in the EF-M lineup.


----------



## bdbender4 (Jan 20, 2019)

I've been using an M5 as my primary camera since it first came out. EF equipment gone. Large set of Fuji X gear gone.

"We're expecting a new M5 update soon" or something along those lines has been a constant refrain on the internet for a year now. And here it is - again?!

I also don't see any non-variable-aperture zooms. I do give Canon credit for the 32mm lens, I have it, and like it. But it's basically the only really good EF-M lens issued during the TWO YEARS since the M5 came out. The 22 and 11-22 are the other two good EF-M lenses IMHO, having also had some of the others. Otherwise use EF lenses on the adapter, which sort of defeats the whole purpose.

So: I just took a three week trip with my new Nikon Z6, and it works so well and takes such nice images with the 24-70 that the M5 has gone into storage. Does the Z6 seem a bit large and heavy compared to the M5? Sure, but not that bad, and not in the same league of large-and-heavy as going back to a 6D and 24-70L. (And, for me personally, the Z6 was instead of a Canon R, which IMHO is under-featured, over-priced, has strange throwback controls, and the 24-105 lens is large and heavy.)

Anyway, the M5 may or may not come out of storage again. And I am starting to have trouble caring any more if an updated model is coming.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jan 20, 2019)

guess Canon won’t be getting my money in 2019. I have no interest in any more slow, okay performing lenses.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Jan 20, 2019)

My 18-150 is optically lacking and I am not very happy with it. I once had a 18-135 for apps-c which was really good. 

I hope for a really great Allrounder and that Canon doesn’t give up on the M system.


----------



## Woody (Jan 20, 2019)

overniven said:


> ..a 15-130mm would be a nice range for APS-C.



If the 15-130 mm ever gets released, I hope it does not suffer the same flare issues as the 18-150 mm.


----------



## KristinnKr (Jan 20, 2019)

There definitely is room for a 15/16/17-45/50/55mm f2.8-4 in the Canon M lineup. To those that despair that it wouldn't be possible to do with a 61mm diameter, take a look at the Fuji f2.8-4 standard zoom. That lens has a 65mm diameter. And it was never engineered to specifically fit within a certain diameter, so presumably there is room to slim it down a little to fit within the prescribed Canon M diameter. Just look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DN and the Fuji 35mm f1.4. Both lenses have a 65mm diameter, and Canon was still able to make their 32mm f1.4 with 61mm diameter.

Also, lets not forget there have been Canon M patents for 15-45mm lenses with apertures f/1.8-3.5, f/2.0-4.0 and f/2.8-5.0.

So in summary, a relatively fast-aperture standard zoom is very possible from an engineering standpoint, it is a glaring omission in their current Canon M linupe, Canon has recently shown with the 32mm f1.4 that they do intent to introduce faster lenses to the lineup, and there have been patent applications for just this type of lens. In my opinion there is a ~80% chance such a lens will be unveiled in the next 2 years.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 20, 2019)

Since the M line appears to be selling well and there is no indication of its imminent demise, I find it curious that Sigma is not producing lenses for it.
From Canon I am still waiting for:

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

I wonder if Canon's concentration on developing RF lenses will impact M lens development, or are they separate design teams?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2019)

schmidtfilme said:


> My 18-150 is optically lacking and I am not very happy with it. I once had a 18-135 for apps-c which was really good.


EF-M lenses do have copy variation. Bryan’s (TDP) first copy of the M18-150 was terrible. I sent him images from mine, which is optically very good, he ordered another copy which was much better and that’s the one you see in his ISO 12233 shots. 

As a rule, when you buy a lens test it! Checking for decentering isn’t difficult, and it’s a common cause of poor IQ that results from rough handling during shipment. There is also variation out of the factory, less with L lenses, more with consumer lenses, and even more with inexpensive lenses like Samyang/Rokinon.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 20, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Shame Canon only thinks in cheap, dark, plastic zooms for the system. I'm afraid that is all we going to ever get.



That is what I and many others want.
Small and light has to be slow and with plastic.
Many L lenses are plastic in a lot of the lens.
I personally am very happy with the new lenses as I am planning on getting the new M camera if it is an M5 replacement.
That is what has me holding off.
If I want big and heavy I will stick with my L lenses and the 7D or get an R with big fast lenses. But this is great for a second handy camera.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 20, 2019)

KristinnKr said:


> There definitely is room for a 15/16/17-45/50/55mm f2.8-4 in the Canon M lineup. To those that despair that it wouldn't be possible to do with a 61mm diameter, take a look at the Fuji f2.8-4 standard zoom. That lens has a 65mm diameter. And it was never engineered to specifically fit within a certain diameter, so presumably there is room to slim it down a little to fit within the prescribed Canon M diameter. Just look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DN and the Fuji 35mm f1.4. Both lenses have a 65mm diameter, and Canon was still able to make their 32mm f1.4 with 61mm diameter.
> 
> Also, lets not forget there have been Canon M patents for 15-45mm lenses with apertures f/1.8-3.5, f/2.0-4.0 and f/2.8-5.0.
> 
> So in summary, a relatively fast-aperture standard zoom is very possible from an engineering standpoint, it is a glaring omission in their current Canon M linupe, Canon has recently shown with the 32mm f1.4 that they do intent to introduce faster lenses to the lineup, and there have been patent applications for just this type of lens. In my opinion there is a ~80% chance such a lens will be unveiled in the next 2 years.



Fast lenses are very easy for the M mount seeing as it is larger than the Sony e mount.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 20, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> That is what I and many others want.
> Small and light has to be slow and with plastic.
> Many L lenses are plastic in a lot of the lens.
> I personally am very happy with the new lenses as I am planning on getting the new M camera if it is an M5 replacement.
> ...



I am not saying make a 24-100 F2.8 with all metal construction.
Plastic build is fine if good quality plastic and at least a metal mount.

But:

The Fuji 18-55 2.8-F4 is 309g and very good build and image quality.
The Sony 16-70 F4 is 307g.

Neither is very expensive or heavy. Something like those 2 lenses could Canon build. 
Not kit lenses with plastic mounts and F6.3 aperture.


----------



## Ditboy (Jan 20, 2019)

Too bad there isn't a semi-fast f-stop in the bunch. I would really enjoy something like an equivalent of the 24-105 f4 for the M


----------



## Ditboy (Jan 20, 2019)

READ THE FORUMS CANON!


----------



## woodman411 (Jan 20, 2019)

Ditboy said:


> Too bad there isn't a semi-fast f-stop in the bunch. I would really enjoy something like an equivalent of the 24-105 f4 for the M



Out of curiosity, what is the fastest/smallest constant aperture zoom lens with at least 50mm of range, regardless of system?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 20, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> Out of curiosity, what is the fastest/smallest constant aperture zoom lens with at least 50mm of range, regardless of system?


Probably Sony 16-70 F4. Or the Olympus 12-40 F2.8. I think the Fuji 18-55 2.8--4 would also qualify when used at F4. All those lenses are pretty small and around 300g.


----------



## woodman411 (Jan 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Probably Sony 16-70 F4. Or the Olympus 12-40 F2.8. I think the Fuji 18-55 2.8--4 would also qualify when used at F4. All those lenses are pretty small and around 300g.



For a system as small as the M, I don't mind a little more weight if it means all-metal build quality. That said, the Sony 16-70 f/4 isn't too far away in size from the longer Canon R 24-105 f/4, 2-5/8 x 3" (66.6 x 75 mm) versus 3.29 x 4.22” (83.5 x 107.3mm), respectively. Canon could easily make this for M. They only made two high-end zooms for regular aps-c: the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 15-85 variable, so hopefully they'll do the same for M.


----------



## pj1974 (Jan 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF-M lenses do have copy variation. Bryan’s (TDP) first copy of the M18-150 was terrible. I sent him images from mine, which is optically very good, he ordered another copy which was much better and that’s the one you see in his ISO 12233 shots.
> 
> As a rule, when you buy a lens test it! Checking for decentering isn’t difficult, and it’s a common cause of poor IQ that results from rough handling during shipment. There is also variation out of the factory, less with L lenses, more with consumer lenses, and even more with inexpensive lenses like Samyang/Rokinon.



Precisely. I have owned multiple copies of the same model lenses, usually in part because the first copy was poor. I have also used multiple copies of same model lenses (e.g. borrowed from friends). I have seen first hand on several occasions that sample variety does exist, sometimes significantly. Usually less so with more expensive lenses, but even that is not an exact science / formula. 

Thankfully my current lenses that I rely on for critical sharpness, are good copies, and do not suffer from de-centering. My Canon EF-M 18-150mm is a sharp copy, as is my Canon EF-M 15-45mm, but I have seen poor copies in tests, and from other users. My EF and EF-S lenses likewise are good. I previously owned a 2nd hand copy of a 10-18mm which was significantly soft at the 10mm, but relatively ok at 18mm. My current copy is very sharp at 10mm, and suitable sharp at 18mm (at least just as sharp as the previous copy). As I use this lens mostly at 10mm, it was a no brainer to keep this one. 

My current most used L glass (Canon 70-300mm L and the 100mm f/2.8 macro IS) are both very consistent and sharp across the frame. Very happy with them, but I have used a 70-300mm L which was notably less sharp at 300mm than mine is.

Len Rental's tests (thanks Roger) of multiple samples of the same model lenses is really insightful. The most recent Canon lenses (including the 70-200mm F/4 IS II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 III are particularly good examples of close tolerances and good sample to sample consistency for image quality- i.e. sharpness, etc)

But back to the point - of the potential new EF-M lenses, yes I would really like a EF-M 15-150mm lens, especially if it can be maintained in approximately the same size factor as the existing 18-150mm - though I realise that's pushing the laws of physics quite a bit! I love the 15mm on the wide end, compared to 18mm. That's one reason why I use my 15-85mm on my 80D / 7D, etc. 

No need for 'fast glass' for all purpose / kit zooms, for the way I use EF-M lenses, with my M5. I prefer using primes for really fast glass, e.g. f2 and faster, when I need that.


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jan 21, 2019)

michi said:


> I agree. I bet if they came out with a “L” set of EF-M lenses, they would be quite popular.



they should make these lenses instead:

12-24mm 2.8
17-55mm 2.8
55-250mm 4 constant


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> they should make these lenses instead:
> 
> 12-24mm 2.8
> 17-55mm 2.8
> 55-250mm 4 constant


All of those would almost certainly be outside of the design parameters Canon appears to have chosen for the EF-M lineup.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 21, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am not saying make a 24-100 F2.8 with all metal construction.
> Plastic build is fine if good quality plastic and at least a metal mount.
> 
> But:
> ...



If Canon would put IBIS in the new M body that would allow for a smaller yet faster lens. That would be nice.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jan 21, 2019)

I really wish Canon would stop releasing 18mm zooms for crop sensor cameras. After using 15mm on APS-C, I can't go back. I love the 24mm equivalent.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 21, 2019)

The sensor in my G7X is 1", much smaller than APS-C, but the lens is 24-100 equivalent and at least 2 stops faster than any of the lenses being rumored. Canon has to do better, much better, with their M kit lenses.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Jan 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> EF-M lenses do have copy variation. Bryan’s (TDP) first copy of the M18-150 was terrible. I sent him images from mine, which is optically very good, he ordered another copy which was much better and that’s the one you see in his ISO 12233 shots.
> 
> As a rule, when you buy a lens test it! Checking for decentering isn’t difficult, and it’s a common cause of poor IQ that results from rough handling during shipment. There is also variation out of the factory, less with L lenses, more with consumer lenses, and even more with inexpensive lenses like Samyang/Rokinon.



Well the lens came with the kit. Maybe I should have returned the whole kit. Anyhow I would like to sell it and get a really good alrounder zoom instead.


----------



## JonSnow (Jan 21, 2019)

i am so happy i did not buy into the eos-m system.. all these slow a** lesens are so disappointing.

i would liked to stay in the canon system for aps-c (having the 5D MK4) but for aps-c canon has nothing i am interested in.

maybe if sigma would make lenses for eos-m.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Fast lenses are very easy for the M mount seeing as it is larger than the Sony e mount.



No they aren't, the M mount and Sony E mount are essentially identical in size. The only "advantage" is that Canon APS-C sensors have a smaller crop (1.6x vs 1.5x) which possibly gives more flexibility for M lenses, but also means that a 15mm gives a wider field of view on a Sony E lens than a Canon M.


----------



## michi (Jan 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> All of those would almost certainly be outside of the design parameters Canon appears to have chosen for the EF-M lineup.


But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 21, 2019)

michi said:


> But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.



I very much doubt that most M users would be willing or even interested in larger and heavier lenses. Canon no doubt has very detailed marketing analysis that indicates otherwise. The system is meant for those wanting a very small, very light and inexpensive system. That being said, with the introduction of the new R camera, it is unknown exactly how Canon will approach (or IF they will) those wanting a higher end APS-C system. Will their be larger M bodies? Will their be an APS-C R version? Or does Canon beleive that their is no future for high end APS-C? My guess is that all of these possibilites are on the table.

While some folks here have mentioned that they use larger lenses with adapter on their Ms, there are probably as many if not more folks (like me) that have tried and totally abandoned any attempt to out any EF or EF-S lens on an M. Even the M5 is totally uncomfortable with any wider, bigger or heavier lenses, in my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2019)

michi said:


> But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too.


Who are ‘all of us’? ‘We’ on this forum are meaningless and irrelevant as far as Canon’s customer base is concerned.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who are ‘all of us’? ‘We’ on this forum are meaningless and irrelevant as far as Canon’s customer base is concerned.


 As Moe Howard once said so succinctly: _"Speak for yourself."_


----------



## Quackator (Jan 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Who are ‘all of us’? ‘We’ on this forum are meaningless and irrelevant as far as Canon’s customer base is concerned.



Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.

So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
market, but certainly not irrelevant.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 22, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.
> 
> So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
> Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
> market, but certainly not irrelevant.



I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size. No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms. As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount. I believe that they will do so, but what do I know?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.
> 
> So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
> Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
> market, but certainly not irrelevant.


Yes, there is a market...thus, the M32/1.4. Fast aperture, metal mount, locking hood, excellent IQ. 

I just think any reference to ‘all of us’ wanting something is asinine.


----------



## KristinnKr (Jan 22, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> they should make these lenses instead:
> 
> 12-24mm 2.8
> 17-55mm 2.8
> 55-250mm 4 constant



A 55-250mm f4 would need an entrance pupil of 250mm/4= 62.5mm. It's not just "impossible", it's literally physically impossible to do without exceeding the 61mm Canon M lens diameter.



michi said:


> But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.



Why the obsession with constant aperture? As many have pointed out, it's probably impossible to make a f2.8 standard zoom within the 61mm lens diameter (diameter of existing APS-C f2.8 standard zooms: Canon 84mm, Nikon 86mm, Sigma 84mm). But the Fuji f2.8-4 lens is only 65mm in diameter, demonstrating that with some deliberate design choices such a lens can definitely be made within Canon M specs.



brad-man said:


> I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size. No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms. As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount. I believe that they will do so, but what do I know?



It isn't about the high-end. High-end means FF equivalent of f2.8 (meaning f1.8 for APS-C). It isn't even about the middle-end (meaning constant aperture f2.8 APS-C). It's about the low-but-not-lowest end. Honestly, ~3x f3.5-5.6 kit lenses are a sorry excuse for photographic equipment. Either you offer some truly versatile zoom range, or you offer larger aperture. Fuji already does the latter, with a f2.8-4 kit zoom, and there is no reason Canon can't offer the same for their M system.


----------



## Quackator (Jan 22, 2019)

brad-man said:


> I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size.



Uh.... the sinister hard coded brain link "mirrorless=small".

I bought into the M system because I wanted mirrorless, 
not because I wanted small.

Even the R is too small for my taste. And the dials are not where 
they should be. Kudos to Canon for trying something new, but....
Please give me back the 5D MkIV ergonomics.



brad-man said:


> No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably
> precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms.



I would have preferred them to make the filter threads all the 
same size. Couldn't care less for barrel diameter.



brad-man said:


> As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the
> higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount.



There is no hard reason why there is no proper fast glass 
in EF-M. It is simply deliberate market segmentation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2019)

Quackator said:


> Uh.... the sinister hard coded brain link "mirrorless=small".
> 
> I bought into the M system because I wanted mirrorless,
> not because I wanted small.
> ...


It’s not about what you want, it’s about Canon’s stated design priorities for the system. But because you personally want something different, Canon’s design choice is ‘sinister’? That smacks of solipsism. 

In any case, the only meaningful way for the market to tell a manufacturer they disagree with the design choices is to vote with their wallet. By buying into the M system, you helped tell Canon ‘good job on your small mirrorless cameras’. 

Personally, I bought into the M system for its small size, else I’d not have gone back to APS-C. Other than size (and the lack of need for AFMA), the M doesn’t offer any advantages over my 1D X. The fact that an M6 and 4 lenses takes up the same space as my 1D X + 24-70/2.8 is a major advantage.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 22, 2019)

Firstly, I haven't done my homework on this but am starting to sort things out. AlanF has pointed out how pleased he is with the Sony RX10 and I've checked specs and it seems to be amazing. I have no experience whatsoever with the M system but gather it is an alternative to this Sony and I might buy in for similar reasons to Neuro's. I want the best IQ possible with as much of the good performance I like about my Canon FF setup. Of course I understand there are major compromises, just like in FF I've struggled with compromises but overall am a happy camper.

So my question would be, does it make any sense for me at this point to consider an M, perhaps waiting on a newer model and lenses? Wildlife factors in but a lot of my desire relates to travel and compactness and general photography.

Jack


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 22, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Firstly, I haven't done my homework on this but am starting to sort things out. AlanF has pointed out how pleased he is with the Sony RX10 and I've checked specs and it seems to be amazing. I have no experience whatsoever with the M system but gather it is an alternative to this Sony and I might buy in for similar reasons to Neuro's. I want the best IQ possible with as much of the good performance I like about my Canon FF setup. Of course I understand there are major compromises, just like in FF I've struggled with compromises but overall am a happy camper.
> 
> So my question would be, does it make any sense for me at this point to consider an M, perhaps waiting on a newer model and lenses? Wildlife factors in but a lot of my desire relates to travel and compactness and general photography.
> 
> Jack


The Sony RX10 would seem to meet your needs better, including zoom to long focal length for wildlife and good tracking AF. Fairly compact considering no extra lenses to carry.


----------



## Quackator (Jan 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> But because you personally want something different, Canon’s design choice is ‘sinister’?



No, you got me wrong. 

Legions of marketing droids have battered the equation
"mirrorless = small" into people's brains.

Still, there is no inevitable reason why mirrorless must be small.
It is possible, but it is no must.

A mirrorless camera can be toolsized, not only toysized.

The marketing hype about small cameras gave us overheating 
problems, poor battery life and tiny buttons, while our hands 
remained the same size.

And still many people can't even imagine a mirrorless in a decent sized body.
THAT is the sinister part. Marketing damage.

There's no reason why a mirrorless camera can only come in small packages.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 22, 2019)

BeenThere, thanks for the comment. Have you used both?

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2019)

Quackator said:


> No, you got me wrong.
> 
> Legions of marketing droids have battered the equation
> "mirrorless = small" into people's brains.
> ...


Apologies, and totally agree. I certainly hope a future ‘pro EOS R’ is in something like a 5-series chassis...but I fear that I’m in for disappointment on that score.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jan 23, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apologies, and totally agree. I certainly hope a future ‘pro EOS R’ is in something like a 5-series chassis...but I fear that I’m in for disappointment on that score.



By then Panasonic will have their S series fullframe mirrorless on the market.
Apparantly Panasonics researches found that the equation "mirrorless = small" is not as true as the other manufactures wants us make to believe.

Frank


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 23, 2019)

Where is the
EF-M 20-80 f/4.0 and/or the
EF-M 15-60 f/4.0
?
Without IS would be o.k., because I think that Canon will add IBIS for new EOS M
cameras soon. Hopefully.


----------

