I have an M6II, an M6, an M2 and all the EF-M lenses (two of the M15-45, actually, but only because it was cheaper than free in the M6II kit with the EVF). I’ll be using the M series for some time to come even absent any new models launching.
So we have established that you are bitter about big corporations after working for MSFT and AMZN. Not surprising as they are both near the top of the the greed spiral. And no, I am not a brand loyalist as I have Nikon, Panny, and Olympus as well, but I am also not one to be bitter about business decisions that have been made for logical reasons, even if I came out on the short end. I would note that you made a decision to dump Canon and go to Fuji while clearly recognizing that Fuji could easily shaft you in the future, so it seems to me that your decision process is no less self-serving than Canon's and that is not to say that either are "bad", but being bitter about one and proud of the other is unrealistic.
The 32mm and M6II specifically gave me hope that Canon went after the 'enthusiast' section of the EOS-M market. I'm fortunate enough to already have an R camera, but I don't know what camera can replace my M6II if it breaks. My original M still works, so I could use that for slower travel pics.
Again, the non-rich customer making a decision that is better and more realistic for their goals, both in terms of photography in this case and financially is not doing anything wrong, morally questionable or selfish by making brand decisions around those things. Our resources are considerably more finite than those of the companies we are purchasing from, and it's silly to try and invent some moral equivalence to the two actions.
The EF-M 32mm f/1.4 was my benchmark for a 50 mil equivalent crop sensor lens. When I moved to Fuji I was terribly disappointed by the 35mm f/1.4 and its supposed 'character'. Slow, low contrast and without a lot of detail I did not and still do not get the appeal. I'd rather use a vintage lens and get some actual character. But I have to say the new XF33mmF1.4 is the first 50 mil equivalent that I feel surpasses the EF-M 32mm. But it's nearly twice as expensive.
You observed bad behavior in a couple of companies that you worked for and peripherially a few others and have now made a judgement that all large companies behave exactly the same way. I suspect you know exactly nothing about how Canon or, for that matter, any other camera company operatesl and makes decisions. The source of your displeasure starts with the Ivy League colleges that preach the kind of greedy impersonal behaviour that you abhor to all their MBA students and so, yes, that behavior is widespread, but it does not infect every company in every indusrty. I cannot speak to how Canon makes decisions other than that I have a friend who worked for them for many years and they took very good care of him all the way to retirement.
I've literally worked alongside Canon engineers in my role at Microsoft (I worked on the ACPI v1.1 & 2.0 specifications which meant working with every company that made device drivers for Windows). The stories were the same. I doubt they treated their printer/scanner division customers and employees significantly different than their camera division. I'm finding it very weird that you keep imagining capitalism as practiced by corporations since the 70's is any different company to company. Or maybe you just haven't worked for major corps, I don't know. What I do know is that the few companies I ever worked with that seemed to have a different ethos ceased to exist, for instance DEC was a joy to work with, the DEC Alpha was a great platform and getting Windows 2000 working on it was fun. Great corporate culture from all I saw and heard. Of course they were bought out by Compaq, carved up into little chunks and sold off because that's what happens to companies that are not centered around rapacious capitalism and has been for about fifty years now. Literally every company I've ever interacted with in my career that had a positive corporate culture in terms of employees and community has either had management shakeup that 'fixed' that 'problem' or was bought out by a competitor or venture capitalist and stripped for parts. Every. Single. One.
Actually, the 7D II was a BIG camera and that was one of its strong points because it could handily swiing big lenses. I, too, once wished for an M5 replacement with a feature set similar to an R7, but in retrospect, what is the point of slapping a battery grip on a tiny camera to give it enough power and grip to handle obsolete long lenses or long M lenses (dream on) that wouldn't be significantly smaller than FF lenses. I did buy an R7 and it has a very nice balance between size and function. It has a big battery, and enough grip to handle long lenses. The M line was initially created at a time when mirrorless was in its infancy and was mostly trying to be a step up from P&S cameras, so the small size and small mount made sense. Over time, mirrorless evolved to be mainstream and more advanced features and and a more FF friendly mount were needed, hence the R line. It is worthy of note that the M mount is slighly larger than the Sony E-mount (also from the early days of APS-c mirrorless) and frankly the Sony bodies are more befitting of an APS-c camera than a FF camera so going forward they will be at a disadvantage for the high end, but for those wanting a small camera that occasionally uses big lenses, it works. Canon clearly needed a replacement for the 7D II and there is no question that it needed to support the new generation of lenses. Very few would have been happy to see replication of the R lenes in M with two incompatible lines. One can say Canon made a bad call when they conjured up the M line in the first place, but that is rethinking a nearly 15 year old decision. When Canon made the move to make the R forward looking, the end of M was written on the wall. Sony made the decision to keep their old design and only time will tell which was the better decison. If the FD to EF transition (which was even more painful) is any guide, Canon made the better long-term choice.
My DSLRs are all gone. I love my M kit, but there are features of the R series that DSLRs can't match. A couple of weeks ago I was shooting pictures at a school concert with my R3, and video with my Vixia HF G60. The switch to completely silent shooting with a MILC (a single lever push on my R3) is great in a quiet auditorium. Then another parent came up and shot nest to me with her 5DIII. While not the machine gun rattle I had on my 1D X, it was plenty loud and audible on the video recording even with the directional mic mounted on the video camera.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/no-canon-is-not-killing-its-other-mirrorless-cameras
Canon has been saying the same thing for years. It just means that keep selling it, not that the system is getting actual development attention.
As a canon M system user (all the lenses and several body’s) I recently bought a used RP with 50/1.8 & 16/2.8 plus a couple of canon EF adapters. Yes I do like it a lot, but it can’t possibly compete with my M stuff when we do family days out
Interesting. That’s the opposite to what I’ve found between 5DII & RP, where I’ve seen what I think is superior colour fidelity on the latter.
I leaning toward the R8 to replace my M6II. If at some point in time Canon has RF mount lenses equivalents for the 11-22, 22 and maybe the 32 and an EVF-less body, I'll consider those. But looking at what has been announced so far, no RF crop camera looks interesting to me, not to mention the lack of EF-M like lenses that match the EF-M lenses I use most.
The only reason I got a RP was to see for myself. I haven’t compared the files to my other full frame DSLR’s (5diii,6d, 6dii)
I wouldn't consider the R8 as a replacement for the M6II, for me. Mainly that's down to lenses – if I have the benefit of a FF sensor, I want the benefit of better lenses to go with it. The size of those lenses precludes portability. Yes, and R8 with the RF 24-50 is a relatively small/light package. But the R8 with the RF 24-105/4L is not. OTOH, if I'm compromising on the sensor for portability I'm ok compromising on lenses as well...thus the utility of the M6II kit for me.
