IBIS is likely coming to the EOS M lineup [CR2]

[Joules]

I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?

It is about having a system without compromises.

In EF-M, they can make truly small, compact crop lenses. They couldn't be so small in RF, due to the much wider throat. The current lenses are essentially just as wide as the mount and if you never have helt one in your hands I highly recommend trying them. I was shocked to see how small they really are, compared to the impression I got from pictures.

Also, this way, we don't need to get into the messy boundary between high end APS-C and low end FF lenses, where equivalency makes for some redundant designs. They don't need to make a 17-55 mm 2.8 when you can just buy a 24-105 mm 4.0 L. With the RP showing that Canon can approach APS-C body pricing already, and future sales numbers likely reducing fixed cost per unit further, I find it easy to think of APS-C as something that is only needed for very compact cameras and lenses now. And the EF-M mount is just perfect for that.

 

[Sharlin]

I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses,

The vast majority of Canon shooters are not going to have any RF lenses in a few years, or possibly ever. Why would they? They don't want a large and expensive R body or large and expensive RF lenses for it. The RF mount is too large to fit truly compact cameras and lenses like the M series. Canon probably sells dozens of M's for every R sold. Absolutely no sense to kill it off.

 

[Baron_Karza]

I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?

simple:

1. size
size of body
size of lenses
size of complete system

2. more sales
#1 selling Canon mirrorless camera
people who want 2 systems (1- portable/travel; 2- high quality FF) now will buy for 2 systems

 

[ashmadux]

M5

IBIS

Same sensor as my M6ii

Better battery life

Day 1 purchase.

SAME m6mkii with ibis.....amazing

At this point its all the M series is missing after eye af and 4k DPAF was added.

Were almost there, cmon canon!

 

[bhf3737]

I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?

The physics does not change: lens based stabilization is always superior for longer focal lengths.
But product development strategies may change, due to having more in-camera processing power and further exploration of consumer video market. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Andy Westwood]

I love my EOS M5 and would buy the M50 II if they put IBIS and the new improved AF something like the R6

That would make a great crop sensor compact camera

 

[scottw]

IBIS in EF-M would be great. I'd expect it to happen with a flagship model rather than the M50 replacement due to the M6 Mark II unless they augment the M50's ergonomic design a bit more.

Before the M6 Mark II came out I was also thinking EF-M might end, but as things have progressed I think it makes sense to keep them seperate and keep EF-M going. At the very least M200 style bodies which are the original purpose of the system, but with the success of the M50 maybe Canon got the message that there is a market for more in EF-M. With the release of the RP and R6 I don't see much space for APS-C in RF. Having APS-C lenses in RF also would muddy the waters, IMO.

I'd definitely consider a higher-end EF-M camera to replace the M5 I use for the photo side of things. I use a pair of M50 bodies for mostly video that I wouldn't mind dedicating to filming stations if I pick up something new. I'd personally like a mini R6 styled camera in EF-M mount and might consider an M6 Mark II for video once it drops in price a lot. I don't think I'd buy an M50 Mark II upon release if it doesn't have custom modes like the M5/M6.

Even now with the Sigma primes and such EF-M is sufficient for what I do, but there are a few focal lengths I'd like that don't exist natively like a ~12mm prime with IS that can work with IBIS and a f/4 telephoto lens.

 

[jam05]

Oh wow. Had in mind purchasing an M6mkII as travel camera. Now what? Is this coming in 2021. May still wind up getting it since I wont be doing much travel for quite some time.

 

[idahobill]

No suprise that Canon is behind the system. The M50 changed everything for the M-series's future by becoming the best selling mirrorless camera among all brands.

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?

Because it's compact and it sells way more than the RF mount cameras right now.

Your APS-C lenses in the past weren't compatible with full frame DSLRs when you upgraded, so nothing really new here. EF-M mount is here to stay because it's a different market to the R. I use both systems and have never once thought "I wish I could use my EF-M lenses on my R body!"

 

[mb66energy]

And the form factor, it's extremely comfortable in the hand especially with the Smallrig cage available for it.

Same here but until now without some cage - Smallrig is more or less on my list if I do more video, good to hear that is well suitted for the M.

 

[josephandrews222]

...anybody (and I mean anybody!) who is surprised that Canon is in with the M format for the long haul hasn't been paying attention (at least to my posts!).

Two letters matter for Canon's future customers thinking about replacing their DSLRs: R. And M.

 

[ReflexVE]

Same here but until now without some cage - Smallrig is more or less on my list if I do more video, good to hear that is well suitted for the M.

I'm not doing any video at this time, I wanted the physical protection and the easy mount point for my monopod. By chance it turns out it's a rally nice extension to the physical grip on the right side as well.

The initial revision was apparently easy to loosen as it was designed for the M5, the second revision, which I have, seems to stay firmly in place and hasn't loosened up in the few months since I got it. If I have one complaint though it's that the wifi button is partially blocked by it. I can still press it but it requires a little effort.

 

[i_SH]

Waiting for Canon EOS M7 with LP-E6NH battery and lenses 9-18/4, 18-45/2, 45-90/2 and with black (!) 90-450/4-7. 1!

 

[RMac]

An ef-m 32mm f1.4 on and IBIS body would be a fantastic little on-the-go hybrid shooting combo. I love that lens but the lack of stabilization means it doesn't get use for video unless I have it on a tripod.

As a travel/hiking/casual-around-the-house camera I love the M5 aside from the lack of stabilization, 1/4000 max shutter speed, and inability to specify manual exposure settings in its timelapse video mode.

 

[Kane Clements]

I don't think the availability of M mount lenses is such big issue. I have kept my 22 mm and Sigma 56 mm. The rest of the time I shoot with an EF-S 15-85 IS USM and EF 70-300 IS USM II via a £25 adaptor.

The current M50 is a pocket powerhouse and a revision with IBIS and a few other improvements will keep attracting buyers. The availability of glass in three ranges makes it a compelling purchase if you want the form factor.

 

[Andy Westwood]

Nobody really talks about this Camera but the EOS M200 is a little cracker

If they ever update this camera and add a tilt twisty screen rather than a flip out one, it really would be the perfect ultra-compact APS-C Camera especially paired with the EF-M 22 f/2

 

[ReflexVE]

Nobody really talks about this Camera but the EOS M200 is a little cracker

If they ever update this camera and add a tilt twisty screen rather than a flip out one, it really would be the perfect ultra-compact APS-C Camera especially paired with the EF-M 22 f/2

My partner uses the M100 I got her so we could share lenses and completely concurs.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

M50 mark II with IBIS in combo with 32mm 1.4, or sigma´s 1.4 trio will easily compete to full frame, as latest APS-C sensor from Canon is more than sufficient now.

 

[Stuart]

I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?

Canon once said Lens IS was typically better overall than Body IS. Though they now say the combined IS is better again. It seems that way with some 1-2s handheld exposed on the R5/6.