A higher end EOS M body is in the pipeline [CR1]

[SteveC]

I really want this "M7" / 7D III mirrorless camera from Canon, but it must be RF mount or it's no good to me.

Yes my glass is worth over 4 times the body, but that's how I roll

That is as it should be. But if you end up getting the R5 and using it in crop mode, your glass will still be worth more than the body.

 

[ozturert]

“greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.
Wouldn't be difficult...

 

[DogpackChris]

“greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.
Wouldn't be difficult...

Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.

 

[melgross]

FULL STOP.

Everyone? Speak for yourself, please.

Oh, you know what I meant. You don’t have. To get so stuffy about it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.

I dropped mine, well the wrist strap broke and it fell on a concrete airport floor (solid as can be) and in my attempt to catch it kicked it across the terminal. It hasn’t missed a beat, the 22mm f2 that was on it has a slight tight spot on the focus ring but that’s it.

 

[Ozarker]

A couple of years ago I retired the wife's Canon XSi. I replaced it with the Olympus E-M5 Mark II. How I wish I'd just got her a Canon M. The M4/3 Kool-aid didn't kill me, but the menus have left me sick. Since I almost never use the Olympus, it is extremely difficult for me to retain where things are found. The familiarity of Canon's menu system would be wonderful.

 

[Architect1776]

Having owned both EF FF and M cameras, I never once wanted to use a large EF lens on my M camera. M is meant for those looking for small and light. It might be a mistake, but I think not. If you want two very different sized systems, you will gladly get the right lenses for each system, in my opinion.

If you are aware of this. Too many consumers are not or do not fully understand. Like Nikon 5xxxx cameras could not use AF lenses so when the owner bought one they were screwed.

 

[ozturert]

Never had any durability issues with the M5. Mountain biked for ten days in Scotland with typical Scottish weather. Same period of time in Spain and Nepal.

M5 is good, but I was thinking about 7D level body.

 

[jolyonralph]

Excellent News.
I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange focal distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
My guess is that they will make one soon.

Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in.

And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.

It might be possible for a future M body to understand R protocols (and I'm sure the R protocols are just a more advanced version of the EF-M protocols anyway) but not now.

If you want to use RF glass you're going to need an R body.

 

[jolyonralph]

If you are aware of this. Too many consumers are not or do not fully understand. Like Nikon 5xxxx cameras could not use AF lenses so when the owner bought one they were screwed.

Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.

This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.

 

[Etienne]

Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in.

And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.

It might be possible for a future M body to understand R protocols (and I'm sure the R protocols are just a more advanced version of the EF-M protocols anyway) but not now.

If you want to use RF glass you're going to need an R body.

I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."

 

[koenkooi]

I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."

You can make an adapter if you put some glass in it, a hollow tube won't work due to the bayonet sizes and layout. Hold an RF lens in front of an M camera and you'll see why.

 

[jolyonralph]

I wish I could count how many times "engineers" on CR declared something impossible only to see Canon later do the "impossible."

Just because you really really want something doesn't mean it's possible

 

[andrei1989]

Impossible. There is a 2 mm clearance for an adaptor but the mount needs to extend 3mm into the adaptor to lock in.

And even if you figured out a way of doing this (which you can't) you hit the major problem that the M series cameras do not understand the RF electronic protocols. This is not something a firmware fix can change.

It might be possible for a future M body to understand R protocols (and I'm sure the R protocols are just a more advanced version of the EF-M protocols anyway) but not now.

If you want to use RF glass you're going to need an R body.

canon EF flange distance is 44mm
nikon F flange distance is 46.5mm
there are plenty of adapters for nikon lenses on canon cameras.
MECHANICALLY it's perfectly possible. putting electronics and electrical pins/contacts there is..problematic but certainly not impossible

 

[Etienne]

Just because you really really want something doesn't mean it's possible

Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that it's impossible.

 

[jolyonralph]

You can make an adapter if you put some glass in it, a hollow tube won't work due to the bayonet sizes and layout. Hold an RF lens in front of an M camera and you'll see why.

And there's absolutely zero point of an adapter with glass in it which will ruin the fine optical properties of any RF lens. They were acceptable back in the film days when you needed such an adaptor to get an FD lens to focus to infinity on an EOS body but not so much today.

I've got a speed-booseter for EF->EF-M and yes, it's quite fun and it is useful, but there are always prices to pay for throwing more glass in front of the lens.

So, it's possible Canon could do an RF->EF-M speed-booster type adaptor for a future M body, but Canon really don't like to create lenses or adaptors that physically can connect to older devices but don't work. They'd need a 2nd revision of the EF-M mount.

Perhaps RF-M ?

And that seems a lot of effort to go through just for the handful of people who want to use expensive RF glass on an EF-M body. I wouldn't waste my time developing it if I were Canon.

 

[jolyonralph]

canon EF flange distance is 44mm
nikon F flange distance is 46.5mm
there are plenty of adapters for nikon lenses on canon cameras.
MECHANICALLY it's perfectly possible. putting electronics and electrical pins/contacts there is..problematic but certainly not impossible

NIKON F is NARROWER than EF.

RF is WIDER than EF-M

So no, you are wrong.

 

[jolyonralph]

Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I can imagine a solution (already mentioned above), but NOT something that would fit into the 2mm that the original message talked about!

 

[Pape]

M7 ,EF- M 100-500mm f5,6 kit for 3000E, and nobody would want put expensive RF lenses to M

 

[Sibir Lupus]

Seeing as the M200 and M6 Mark II were released last year, its only natural for an M50 Mark II and M5 Mark II to be the next ones. The M6 Mark II moved up quite a bit in performance vs. the original M6 (which was an upgrade from the M3). As such, it seems Canon will be giving an "R5 like" treatment to the M line with the M5 Mark II. Features like 5-Axis IBIS, weather sealing, and duel card slots are all possible for the M5 Mark II, along with a bump in shoot-to-shoot performance.

To address the gap with EF-M and RF lenses, Canon may release an adapter along side the M5 Mark II to allow RF lenses to work on an M series camera. Granted, its been discussed heavily that a simple EF-M to RF adapter like the current EF-M to EF adapter is not physically possible due to the very small 2 mm difference between EF-M and RF mount flange distance. Though that doesn't rule out an EF-M to RF adapter with lenses elements to refocus RF lenses onto the smaller APS-C sensor from a further flange distance (sort of like current speadbooster adapters).

If Canon is to continue the M series cameras along side the RF series, then the mount gap needs to be addressed by Canon for this to make sense. Example: The RF 24-105 F/4 L lens is superior to the EF 24-105 F/4 L II lens. Does it make sense for an M series user to buy the EF version to adapt to there camera now, then have to sell off everything if/when they decide to go to a full frame RF camera? Yes, they could adapt that EF 24-105 F/4 L II lens to an RF camera, but does that really make sense? Wouldn't someone buying a lens as expensive as an L lens want the RF version with better performance and features?