As someone who used and still has 3 working M bodies (M, M6, M6ii), I share my perspective on what Richard said about the inner politics of Canon with respect to the M line: I feel that Canon never realized the significance of the M line; it never showed full commitment either. I describe the M line as a somewhat more down-to-earth, more value-forward approach to the Fuji X series, with a more traditional sensor and arguably a much better touchscreen user experience. I've never owned a Fuji body, but the LCD worked great for me in EOS-M families; so much so that I rarely used either of the external EVF, which I had.

In developing RF lineup: I also think Canon started by releasing comparable full-frame R lenses; they were not the same but designed with a similar mindset: offering value, compactness, and good performance at relatively slower apertures: think of RF 28 F2.8 or RF 100-400, and even fixed aperture 600&800 f11. Such lenses are great entry points for someone looking to pick up a new system on a budget, but they're not what photographers dream of. Such lenses don't encourage you to change mounts or brands. That's what I think Nikon did well with super-teles: think of Z180-600 and Z800 f6.3 pf for a wildlife photographer. In the Canon world, I can think of the recent release of RF 45 f1.2 in that category! Offering such a fast aperture at a sub $500 price, although the stakes are much lower in that focal length (ie $500 vs $2K for fast 50mm compared to ~5-6K to ~15-18K for 800mm).

Back to M story: what is missing, in agreement with the discussion and adding my personal perspective:

• Body design and ergonomics- IMHO the canon sculpture design doesn't transform well to smaller bodies, and the minimal and sleek range-finder-style M-designs are rather preferred for compact cameras.
• As said several times in years: Ef-m 22, Ef-m 11-22, and Ef-m 32 f1.4 were all great glass and one of a kind.
• EF-M 55-200 allowed you to expand the focal length within the mount, but with compromises and durability issues.

What is not missed:

• I had a great experience with the earlier glass I purchased, but I had my EF-M 32 and EF-M 55-200 fail with almost no reason (sudden error codes). It didn't make sense to spend $300 for repairs, and I'd already moved on to a new platform. This was an indication of low QC - type of error resonates with electronics part and assembly issues.
• The limitation beyond that diameter, specifically for having more reach, EOS-M was great for wildlife videography, but never offered a native glass for that need; something like Fuji XF 100-400.

Planterz said:

Otherwise there'd be an odd gap for a camera to compete with the a6700 and whatever Fuji body (X-T5?) is in the same class.

Click to expand...

I really do wonder how much any of that matters. I remain unconvinced there is real 'competition' between brands at anything other than the entry level. Someone with a smartphone who wants to get 'a real camera' will be looking at different systems and comparing the ones they can afford. Mostly, they'll be looking to not spend more than they spent on their smartphone (the average price of a MILC shipped in 2025 is $714), which means they'll be comparing at the entry level. Once they make a choice, if they later decide to upgrade they will most likely be looking at the brand they already have so they can use the same lenses, etc.

I think the transition from DSLR to MILC is a somewhat different situation, where users with more gear were looking at switching not just bodies but lenses, too, and that led to more system switching (mainly from Nikon to Sony, based on the market data). That transition is still ongoing, meaning some higher-end MILC sales are to people replacing a DSLR.

Those of us engaged more on the gear side (e.g., the self-selected group of people who choose to follow rumors of upcoming cameras and lenses) and those who produce content for them (DPR, etc.) love to compare across brands. That drives a lot of discussion and more importantly ad views and clicks (i.e., revenue) but at the end of the day only a relatively small number of users with anything other than a body and a kit lens actually switch from one system to another.

I believe that the primary target market for cameras above the entry level are in-brand buyers, so Canon (in particular, as the dominant market leader) is looking to attract owners of older Canon cameras or 'lower' Canon cameras. For example, the R6III is spec'd to attract owners of 5- or 6-series DSLRs, owners of an R6 that's now 'getting old' and owners of an R7/R10 who are looking to go to FF. The situation is a bit different for Sony and Nikon, because they don't have something like 70% of the installed base using their brand so they have to try and poach Canon users with specs, price, or both.

ThomasTH said:

I especially like the first photo, which is minimalistic and kind of abstract.

Click to expand...

Same here.

mimbu said:

Viltrox is moving to a four-tier lens strategy, Air, EVO, Pro, Lab.

I don't think that's super likely. Viltrox is moving everything to their Air / EVO / PRO / LAB lineups. If they do start releasing RF-S lenses, I would expect them only to do so with their current gen lenses and not older ones. As they replace the older ones, those new lenses would then arrive for RF-S.

Click to expand...

they could simply switch the mechnical mount from the EF-M lenses and they would work.

With all the talk (hopefully true) of the R7 II becoming more "premium", I could see the R10 II taking the old R7's spot, as long as the specs are decent enough and it has IBIS. Otherwise there'd be an odd gap for a camera to compete with the a6700 and whatever Fuji body (X-T5?) is in the same class.

montyproductions said:

they should have put all the bells and whistles into the R1

Click to expand...

That's not been their approach to the 1-series for a long time, if it ever was. It's not had the highest MP count of the lineup for several generations. Foremost seems to be robustness and reliability in a set of professional situations, like sport.

Viltrox is moving to a four-tier lens strategy, Air, EVO, Pro, Lab.

Richard CR said:

Viltrox made 2 lenses for the EOS-M Mount, and if I were a betting man, I'd assume those would be the first ones to move over to the RF mount.

See full article...

Click to expand...

I don't think that's super likely. Viltrox is moving everything to their Air / EVO / PRO / LAB lineups. If they do start releasing RF-S lenses, I would expect them only to do so with their current gen lenses and not older ones. As they replace the older ones, those new lenses would then arrive for RF-S.

For an undefined reason, I think of the R3 as an experimental camera, a slot to incorporate new ideas that they want to try out in the buying public but not in huge quantities.

mimbu said:

Sigma isn't great at AF on the camera side of things, at least not so far.

I think the real change in L mount will come from Chinese makers. A number of them have already joined the L mount alliance. I'd guess the first Chinese L mount camera will come from DJI who has plenty of AF experience already from Hasselblad as well as their own drone-based systems. They're already a Sony customer for sensors so that seems likely to continue. Expect extremely competitive cameras from multiple Chinese manufacturers, at prices that considerably undercut the existing big brands.

Edit: DJI might even brand a FF camera with the Hassy name. That'd be pretty cool.

Click to expand...

While I do not disagree with what you are saying, 2 nitpickings:

1. Hasselblad is terrible at AF - take it from me, I've been using their cameras for quite a while... and
2. DJI actually already makes a FF camera with interchangeable lenses: it's the one mounted on their Inspire 3 drones. But so far their only branded H camera is the main one on the Mavic 3 / 4 drones. They do use Hassy's color science and lens design chops

David - Sydney said:

which is unfortunate but the internet meme has a lot of truth to it
View attachment 227100

Click to expand...

I don't know if I find it funny or sad... but quite true regardless, even if, realistically, no one is going to make a lot of money reselling photo gear

I hope a Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark III (or G1x APS C new issue) better, and available in Europe too.

ThomasTH said:

It loses quite a bit of DR when using the electronic shutter (although it uses 14 bit in ES mode).

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Click to expand...

There is a rumor that it does DGO in mechanical shutter mode.

David - Sydney said:

Canon/Nikon/Sony probably have more granular market segments (especially by region) but for me, there are 3 buyer categories:
1 Full time professionals whose primary business is photography ie selling images or run/gun hourly rates etc.
2 Professionals whose side hustle/part time business is photography or who needs camera gear to provide an income from other sources. They aren't fussed on brand, want simplicity and are cost conscious.
3 Everyone else who can afford some or a lot of camera gear from their disposable income and make no or minimum money from images.

Click to expand...

They are not so much buyer categories as marketing categories.
People buy whatever they want.

Exploreshootshare said:

Sounds very interesting! Could you please provide a link? I´d like to see some pics but I can't find any using google.

Click to expand...

See: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

Edit: A link to a pdf document (in Italian) which has specifications and lens diagram. The 300mm is in the second part of the document.

So now we need R7ii to maximise the RF APS-C lenses.

GMCPhotographics said:

The R5's 45mp sensor gives a score of 82 against the 5DSR's score of 79, the 5Ds with a score of 67.

Click to expand...

Have you personally compared the 5Dsr and 5DS for ‘resolution’ ? I have, and after adding just 0.2 of a pixel USM there is naff all difference. Makes me suspicious of the quoted scores of ‘79’ and ‘67’.
From a practical photography perspective I now see mp figures as native output size rather than resolution.

neuroanatomist said:

I can see a high-MP R5s coming along at some point. I can’t see Canon putting a high-MP sensor in a gripped body. Since they amalgamated the 1-series into a single body that was essentially the 1D with a FF sensor and evolved in a very non-1Ds way, the market has made a high MP gripped body less likely, not more likely.

Look at what Fuji did when they updated the GFX 100 to the MkII:
View attachment 227083

Click to expand...

By the same logic a ‘high resolution’ R3 ii may not be a gripped body, just new naming for what would essentially be an R5S

pet7pelt said:

Nothing beats beautiful bokeh these lenses produce, but you need to know with these telephotos where the best range for that exists when using them. I see far too many sports photographers today shooting 400 2.8s for field sports when they’d have much better images and background blur if the had used instead a 600 4.0. In the film days we called this “cropping in the camera”. Lens choice was critical for the correct aesthetic.

Click to expand...

The nice thing about Sony's a1 is that photographers can approximate a 600/4 when using a 400/2.8 in crop mode and still get 21mp images.

Of course a 400/2.8 with built in 1.4x TC (like what Nikon has) is an even better solution. I expect the next generations of 400/2.8 and 600/4 from both Canon and Sony will offer this as well. Will be quite disappointing if they don't!

Exploreshootshare said:

Sounds very interesting! Could you please provide a link? I´d like to see some pics but I can't find any using google.

Click to expand...

It was actually a 300/1.8L. If you google for that, you'll find a number of results.

CJaurelius said:

This was the last thing I was waiting for before I passed judgement on the A7V. More recently the increased sesnor speed has been coming at the expense of dynamic range. With the A7V having an increase in both speed and dynamic range I think this will be a pretty good seller.

Click to expand...

It loses quite a bit of DR when using the electronic shutter (although it uses 14 bit in ES mode).

I had the Nikkor 300 2.0 in the early 1980s. It was only made for a few years and was only manual focus. With its special included TC-14C 1.4x teleconverter it was actually sharper than the Nikkor 400 2.8 prime lens that came out about the same time. With the compatible 2x it wasn’t super sharp (pretty common for all 2x converters), but still very usable. Ironically, the 300 2.0 was also heavier than both the Nikkor 400 2.8 and 600 4.0. The 300 2.0 lens itself was very versatile, but obviously will still likely be pretty hefty even with today’s with modern construction techniques and materials.

Nothing beats beautiful bokeh these lenses produce, but you need to know with these telephotos where the best range for that exists when using them. I see far too many sports photographers today shooting 400 2.8s for field sports when they’d have much better images and background blur if the had used instead a 600 4.0. In the film days we called this “cropping in the camera”. Lens choice was critical for the correct aesthetic. A 300 2.0 I found was great for most indoor sports. With the 1.4x it was good for little league baseball or women’s softball, too. Again, not super great for football, soccer or baseball unless you were shooting closer action in relatively dark conditions

I truly hope Canon builds one. It’s been many years since photographers had such a useful tool. With today’s autofocus this would be a nice piece of kit.

Brown said:

If it was then they would have used a non-numerical name, like the R, Ra or the RP.

Click to expand...

Makes sense, but at the time the R3 was released the naming scheme with numbers was already in place. It would have been really, really awkward going back to non-numerical name such as RS (sports).

mimbu said:

Canon had an EF 300/2 many years ago, but it wasn't sold to the general public. There are a few photos around online. Interesting lens.

But price... Price is the big question. Probably above the $15k of a 600/4L as it would be a very niche product. $18k or so would not be surprising to me.

Click to expand...

Sounds very interesting! Could you please provide a link? I´d like to see some pics but I can't find any using google.