Canon officially announces the EOS M200

Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
It's plenty enough for most people to shoot portraits in one-shot AF. A posing subject is typically a non-moving subject, and this camera is not aimed at catwalk, event, or action shooters. Now, pets on the other hand, that's where continuous AF definitely comes in handy, but I don't think Canon eye AF handles animal eyes yet!
I have used it on the EOS R until it received the firmware update, and it was hopeless to use it like that until that point.
No matter how we are looking at it, simply a silly thing to take out and unwilling to give it back, just because it was released at a time, when they "forgot" to take out 24p in 1080p.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
Take out? When the M50 was released, no Canon camera had eye detection in servo AF.
Ok, left out.
But the point is, it is better designed than a 200D II or the M200, both of which have it (but at least 24p 1080p taken out), while that one won't, it is artificially limited just to have this many camera models in the first place, which is also not needed.
Of course all of this was laid out from the start by the marketing department, and if camera sales really do decrease, they will probably simplify it further in the coming years.
I just find it amusing, that people treat all of this with a warm welcome: more crippled = simpler, easier to use.
 
Upvote 0

josephandrews222

Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
Jul 12, 2013
608
1,845
65
Midwest United States
Is it though? I mean, you can get a SL3 and lens for a hundred dollars more. Similar specs and it comes with a viewfinder and EF lens compatibility without an adapter. Not saying this isn't a nice little camera, just that it might not warrant two full "incredibles." Different bodies for different users I guess.

Thanks for your response.

I own (and use regularly while mated to the Canon EF 100-400 II) a 5DIII. I love it. I will continue to use it, especially for backyard birds and the like. For this usage, the optical viewfinder is essential.

I also use that body with the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS; great low-light and IS to boot.

But the EF format is almost yesterday's news...especially for young people such as my daughters...who love their Ms.

For the vast majority of today's photography newbies, I am quite confident that the smaller-and-lighter M200 (with the 15-45) is a better purchase, and will get used more, than the SL3 (FYI: I almost bought an SL2) you've described.

A lot of canonrumors readers whine about an anti-Canon bias over at DPReview. Whether or not that is true, I'm not certain.

But I do believe an anti-M bias exists here at canonrumors...and a goodly number of the posts in this thread serve as Exhibit A!

Repeat after me: Canon's (non-cinema) camera future revolves around two letters: R.

And M.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

josephandrews222

Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
Jul 12, 2013
608
1,845
65
Midwest United States
Personally, I wish Canon would package the M200 with the much smaller and also cheaper EF-M 22 f/2 for say $499. Not a big fan of f/3.5-6.3 lenses...

I'm of two minds on this post. When the M (and I think the M2) were introduced, I think the kit lens was the EF-M 22. It is the lens that enabled my daughters to 'become' photographers. So I know what you're saying.

But I wonder if the general public might be more attracted to a package that includes 'a zoom lens!'. I think that's the bet Canon made.

Today, all of us have both (the 22 and the 15-45). I'm not sure which one my daughters use the most. I'll ask.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
Thanks for your response.

I own (and use regularly while mated to the Canon EF 100-400 II) a 5DIII. I love it. I will continue to use it, especially for backyard birds and the like. For this usage, the optical viewfinder is essential.

I also use that body with the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS; great low-light and IS to boot.

But the EF format is almost yesterday's news...especially for young people such as my daughters...who love their Ms.

For the vast majority of today's photography newbies, I am quite confident that the smaller-and-lighter M200 (with the 15-45) is a better purchase, and will get used more, than the SL3 (FYI: I almost bought an SL2) you've described.

A lot of canonrumors readers whine about an anti-Canon bias over at DPReview. Whether or not that is true, I'm not certain.

But I do believe an anti-M bias exists here at canonrumors...and a goodly number of the posts in this thread serve as Exhibit A!

Repeat after me: Canon's (non-cinema) camera future revolves around two letters: R.

And M.
YMMV. I have seen and read a great deal of praise here by forumites concerning the M series and it's glass. I have owned an M5 and loved the 22 myself. I think your summation that there is a negative bias here is unfounded.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
YMMV. I have seen and read a great deal of praise here by forumites concerning the M series and it's glass. I have owned an M5 and loved the 22 myself. I think your summation that there is a negative bias here is unfounded.
The negativity about the M system seems to have mostly to do with what lenses are and are not available in the EF-M mount. Some people are less happy than others.
 
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
Considering that I let the batteries corrode in my 580EXII, that probably includes me.

My reaction to alkaline batteries is somewhat similar to the reaction of a vampire to sunlight. I use Eneloop rechargeables in everything. Even when something comes with free batteries they are trashed and I load Eneloops.
 
Upvote 0