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

[addola]

I personally want a retro-style camera, like the Fujifilm X-T4, but with EF-M mount.

The EOS M needs more lenses. Maybe fast wide lenses for vloggig since the system is small & compact for that purpose!

 

[ReflexVE]

I mostly agree. When coupled with the M5 and M6 (ii) it makes for a fun, small, light, and surprisingly powerful system. That being said, the EOS M lineup is lagging behind the competition. Canon needs to update the M5 with a modern sensor, DPAF 2, IBIS, an articulated screen and competitive video specs.

On another note: anyone suggesting that it is a good idea to use full frame lenses on small EOS M style bodies, must not have much experience doing this in practice. The crop factor, the size and the weight of full frame lenses offer a quick reality check. In my experience (and paradoxically) only full frame long lenses have lots of practical value on an EOS M style body, due to the crop factor. The EF 70-300L adapted to my EOS M5, gives me a whole lot of reach, but at the same time the system becomes painfully unbalanced.

I am currently using the EF f/1.4 50mm with the Viltrox speedbooster and a ND filter. I believe that is full frame and so far it's a tough call between that and the Sigma 16mm for my favorite and most used lenses (both are always in my bag).

Are you just referring to longer zooms? For smaller primes it does not seem to be a problem.

 

[ReflexVE]

I bought the M5 a few years back, and love it. It's notably more compact than any of my DSLRs. With the 15-45mm or 22mm prime, I can slip it in a very small pocket or part of a bag.

Having said that, I also do have the 18-150mm and it's a great lens. Optically better than any of Canon EF-S 18-135mm lenses (there are 3 of them). But yes, it makes the whole package a bit longer than the shorter lenses obviously.
However, for a single lens option with some reach, it works really well. And yes, I find it covers 90% of the shots that a 15-45mm and 55-200mm will do. (The extra 50mm between 150mm and 200mm is not that noticable.. and 24MP or 32MP images crop quite well).

I also have the Rokinon (Samyang) EF-M 12mm f/2 lens, and I use that for astro photography or as an UWA option too (it's a really good lens and amazingly compact for what it is) So at times I go out with those 2 lenses, the 12mm f/2 and 18-150mm. But for a 1 lens option, I go with the 18-150mm most often, or the 15-45mm when I need a truly compact zoom. Interestingly, my copy of the 15-45mm is very sharp.. I think some early adopters got poor copies, but I have owned 2 and both were very good in terms of resolution, colour rendition, etc).

Regarding the original theme of this post, I am very much looking forward to Canon putting IBIS in a future EF-M camera... it would breath even more life into my Rokinon 12mm f/2 as well as my Canon 22mm f/2 prime (another great lens).

Cheers

PJ

Thank you for this feedback. Right now the only use I'm getting out of my zoom is at protests where I capture the faces of facists/nazis for later identification. I don't need 200mm for that, which is why I was asking. The 150 is likely just as useful, although I'm not sure if I can get enough money selling off my 55-200 & 15-45 to cover it or not.

Also I didn't notice any issues with the 15-45mm but I'm not an expert and maybe I didn't know what to look for. I just almost never use it.

 

[ReflexVE]

Sure. I am mostly a zoom shooter that uses primes to fill in specific niches. But, that is with L glass where the zooms have gotten so good. I am not saying we need "L" EFm zooms, although that would be nice, but something in the EFs 15-85 or EFs 17-55 IQ caliber range would be nice. Currently, I do like the 11-22, and 28 macro. Maybe I should pick up the primes you mention, but I prefer zooms.

That said, the 18-150 is one I do not have, but I know others that use it for exactly what you propose, I have heard it is good, but still in the same general level as the other EFm zooms.

I actually have invested a fair amount into the M-ecosystem (5 lenses, M6 II, EVFs, etc). It is good Canon is going to continue it. It has become my primary video set up and I even use it on the 500 f/4 (it does great, but not with TCs). I would absolutely consider buying a new "M1" type of camera, but before I invest more, I really would like to see some better zoom lenses. Maybe I could shift over to prime, but would prefer to have a kit based on good zooms and a few primes to fill specific needs, similar to my FF gear.

The 11-22 is the one zoom I have a lot of interest in, if I did start doing video that seems to be the most relevant. Plus it's not giant like the Sigma.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

That was the old guard, I think Canon leadership retired and the new leadership says put in whatever competes with Sony. I think it is also possible Canon just didn't have the computing power to run IS and DPAF and had to buy time to improve their HW.

None of that is in evidence.

The fact is that in-lens stabilisation is better - in particular where long lenses are concerned: this has been proven time and again - but IBIS brings stabilisation to lenses that didn't previously have it; and - when done right - can add more stabilisation to lenses with IS.

But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

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.

The M6 Mk II is a great little camera - it'd be a great travel camera, IBIS or not.

 

[herein2020]

None of that is in evidence.

The fact is that in-lens stabilisation is better - in particular where long lenses are concerned: this has been proven time and again - but IBIS brings stabilisation to lenses that didn't previously have it; and - when done right - can add more stabilisation to lenses with IS.

But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.

Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.

There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).

Canon U.S.A. Announces the Retirement of Eliott Peck, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Imaging Technologies and Communications Group

/PRNewswire/ -- Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that Mr. Eliott Peck, the company's executive vice president and...

www.prnewswire.com

Canon Newsroom | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Welcome to the Canon Newsroom where you can find all the Press Releases from Canon U.S.A., Inc. including news about upcoming product releases.

www.usa.canon.com

Canon's Toyotsugu Kuwamura to Retire

In a recent letter to Canon partners, Canon U.S.A. Chairman and CEO Joe Adachi announced the retirement of Toyotsugu Kuwamura, Executive VP and GM, Business Imaging Solutions Group (BISG), Canon U.S.A., after more than 38 years with the company.

www.piworld.com

 

[SteveC]

Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.

There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).

Canon U.S.A. Announces the Retirement of Eliott Peck, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Imaging Technologies and Communications Group

/PRNewswire/ -- Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that Mr. Eliott Peck, the company's executive vice president and...

www.prnewswire.com

Canon Newsroom | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Welcome to the Canon Newsroom where you can find all the Press Releases from Canon U.S.A., Inc. including news about upcoming product releases.

www.usa.canon.com

Canon's Toyotsugu Kuwamura to Retire

In a recent letter to Canon partners, Canon U.S.A. Chairman and CEO Joe Adachi announced the retirement of Toyotsugu Kuwamura, Executive VP and GM, Business Imaging Solutions Group (BISG), Canon U.S.A., after more than 38 years with the company.

www.piworld.com

It's possible that they were trying to tune it to do it right. If their IBIS turns out to be superior to others, then it will have been worth the wait. But following such a strategy (if indeed that was what they were doing) can be a huge marketing risk before it finally comes to market as people could decide that someone else's IBIS is better than no IBIS at all.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers

Which isn't what you said at all.

And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.

Overall, Sony is catching up with Canon, not vice versa.

There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility

It was a pointless, finger-in-the-air speculation - you might as well have speculated that it was for religious reasons. There is nothing out there to even hint at the idea of Canon not being able to build the processing power to drive IBIS and DPAF.

whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner.

Nope, I said no such thing. I said it was rational for Canon to embrace IBIS. That's not the same at all as saying that doing so earlier would have been irrational. In fact I said nothing specific about the timing:

But the market (not just Sony - in fact by many accounts, Sony's IBIS isn't very good) has moved to IBIS in a big way, so Canon is taking a perfectly rational step of embracing a technology which sells cameras.

Canon is a very canny reader of the market: that they've had IBIS technology for a while is beyond debate - plenty of Canon patents to that effect - so the reason for them moving in this direction now because it's the right time in marketing terms makes a damn' sight more sense than an imagined lack of computing power or old staff being replaced by younger staff.

Since when does that change the culture of a Japanese company anyway? Canon must have been through several generations of new management by now, but they've remained culturally conservative (according to some) throughout.

IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).

You opinion is worth as much - and as little - as mine here. But the facts are that Canon has had IBIS technology to hand for some time, that it is a rapidly developing market which Canon doubtless understands very well; and that Canon knows its business better than we do.

It makes perfect sense for Canon to have waited until there's no question of the perceived value to photographers of IBIS, before committing. That's just Canon's way of working, sometimes.

And - again - Canon isn't playing market catch-up here. They still sell more cameras than anyone else, and now they'll sell even more.

 

[ReflexVE]

I am referring to that which is representative of the average EF or RF lens.

The EF f/1.4 50mm is one of the smaller EF lenses and is not representative of the size and weight of the average EF or RF lens (especially not the premium lenses).

That's fair, and as someone not using zooms for much it's not an issue I'd run into. Honestly I wonder if a compact system will make much sense though, any really long zoom is going to be a big lens regardless of the smaller attachment point.

 

[nchoh]

What im missing is a nice telephoto zoom which is smaller and lighter than an 70-200 F4 and does not need an adaptor. But just as sharp. Not the current mediocre 50-200.
Make it 50-150 and F4 or F4.5 for smaller size and weight but don't compromise in image quality.

I have a EFS 55-250 and it is a stellar lens. I have read reviews that either say the 55-200 is on par or better than the 55-250, so you copy may just be a bad one.
For comparison, I also have the Sigma 18-35 and although it is more of a portraiture lens, comparatively speaking, my 55-250 is just as good.

Along the same vein, my copy of the EFS 10-18 is just crap. Because it is a WA lens, I never used it much and by the time I realized it was bad, it was too late to exchange it. Quite sure you have a bad copy of the 55-200.

 

[Fast351]

Don't have a crystal ball nor Canon's internal company roadmap, but...wouldn't be surprised to see a crop-sensor RF mount camera for the 7D class of users IN ADDITION TO maintaining the EOS M system for entry-level, compact mirrorless options.

That would be my guess too. I don't think they'll even bother coming out with R-S lenses either. The R7 has a small (but vocal ) crowd. That crowd is just fine with more expensive lenses since they don't buy the 7D for the cheaper EF-S lenses. They want it for the longer reach of the crop sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

Just let M die ;p!

not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).

Canons M line has/had a heavy slow development... no IBIS until now, slow lenses etc.
Want to see a m6II with dual card, nice weather sealing in a aps-c pro body WITH evf in body!

They just need to add a few lenses, especially higher quality zooms. Basically all the zooms they have are dark, fully plastic and just ok optically, with the 11-22 being the only exception.
And the M6 should have had a corner EVF.

I am basically obsessed with the M-series cameras. I would love to see a serious M5 Mark II hit the market along with a fixed aperture zoom that still covers the 24mm equivalent...may be a chance to add weather sealing on a lens/body combo and bring out a sealed adapter? For the love of GOD, give us a better buffer on the M6 Mark II if it can be optimized in firmware...but make it a priority on the M5 Mark II.

You totally ignore the market the M system is aimed at. Canon understands this market, which has made the EF-M system the best selling mirrorless camera system on planet Earth. They're not going to kill off the ILC system that is currently making them the most money any more than they would have killed off the entry level Rebel series a decade ago.

The EOS M system is not aimed at anyone who will be "heavily invested" in any lens system.

The EOS M system is not aimed at anyone who might be more than casually interested in the EOS R system.

The EOS M system is not aimed at "Photographers", either professional or enthusiast semi-pros or enthusiast amateurs.

The EOS M system is aimed at "non-Photographers" who want a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera with one or two (or maybe even three for the most extreme buyer) compact, lightweight, and affordable lenses no more or no less than 61mm in diameter that is easy to carry with them to family events, holidays/vacations, etc.

The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."

 

[Michael Clark]

Actually there is evidence that Canon has had multiple recent leadership turnovers. And the "Market" has been telling Canon that they they need to reach feature parity with Sony if they want to be competitive and part of reaching feature parity is by adding IBIS.

There is no evidence either way whether Canon had the computing power needed to run IBIS and DPAF which is why I stated it was a possibility whereas you make it sound like Canon waited this long just because it would have been irrational to do so sooner. IMO Canon should have had IBIS long before this unless they were technically limited or had reliability concerns (which is also a form of technical limitation).

Canon U.S.A. Announces the Retirement of Eliott Peck, Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Imaging Technologies and Communications Group

/PRNewswire/ -- Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that Mr. Eliott Peck, the company's executive vice president and...

www.prnewswire.com

Canon Newsroom | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Welcome to the Canon Newsroom where you can find all the Press Releases from Canon U.S.A., Inc. including news about upcoming product releases.

www.usa.canon.com

Canon's Toyotsugu Kuwamura to Retire

In a recent letter to Canon partners, Canon U.S.A. Chairman and CEO Joe Adachi announced the retirement of Toyotsugu Kuwamura, Executive VP and GM, Business Imaging Solutions Group (BISG), Canon U.S.A., after more than 38 years with the company.

www.piworld.com

What happens at Canon USA has very little to do with design decisions made in Japan, particularly for the EOS M system that is a worldwide best seller everywhere except North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe.

Canon USA is primarily a marketing arm of Canon, not a design driver.

 

[Philip V]

You totally ignore the market the M system is aimed at. Canon understands this market, which has made the EF-M system the best selling mirrorless camera system on planet Earth. They're not going to kill off the ILC system that is currently making them the most money any more than they would have killed off the entry level Rebel series a decade ago.

The EOS M system is not aimed at anyone who will be "heavily invested" in any lens system.

The EOS M system is not aimed at anyone who might be more than casually interested in the EOS R system.

The EOS M system is not aimed at "Photographers", either professional or enthusiast semi-pros or enthusiast amateurs.

The EOS M system is aimed at "non-Photographers" who want a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera with one or two (or maybe even three for the most extreme buyer) compact, lightweight, and affordable lenses no more or no less than 61mm in diameter that is easy to carry with them to family events, holidays/vacations, etc.

The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."

What happens at Canon USA has very little to do with design decisions made in Japan, particularly for the EOS M system that is a worldwide best seller everywhere except North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe.

Canon USA is primarily a marketing arm of Canon, not a design driver.

This and this. You put the words right out of my mouth.

I can't believe how some just don't get that majority of EOS M buyers will not upgrade to EOS R primarily due to size and price. And majority of EOS M buyers will be happy with the kit lens and maybe a portrait lens (nifty fifty or the EF-M 32mm will do).

Though I myself will be happy with a bigger but higher IQ and faster zoom lens for travel. Maybe 15-55mm f4 or even f3.5-4.5

 

[ReflexVE]

I would tend to concur. Unless someone starts paying me to take photos (and I'm nowhere near that skill level), there is little chance I'd ever end up with an R. Not because it wouldn't be nice to tool around with. Not because I couldn't afford it if I chose to spend money that way. But because it just can't be justified for a non-pro. It adds weight, size, cost and complexity that would reduce the fun I'm having. Not because it's a bad system, but because I'm not there yet, and probably won't get there until someone is willing to pay me to do this work.

That said, Canon has done a damn good job not *hampering* the line. I can use pro lenses if I want to, for instance. Most features are not gimped or restricted. The CPU's and sensors are among Canon's best. They are still fully accessorizable.

I think it's a very good balance and I'm glad it's been successful.

 

[Joules]

The EOS M is a camera system for the masses, not for the photographic "elite."

That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.

The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.

There is no upgrade path the RF, but there still should be an upgrade path within the system towards slightly higher end bodies and lenses. And the number may not be substantial, but there are users who buy the M system as a small compliment to their FF ILC. And as long as the system has a good standing with enthusiasts, they can push more casual people around them into EF-M by way of word of mouth.

The thing I wonder the most about is if Canon will dare to go outside of their lens diameter restriction. Maybe to release a set of slightly wider lenses that are marketed like 'crop L lenses'. They probably won't and focus on bringing down the cost of FF bodies instead. But at this point things are changing, and I don't think we have been given a proper impression of where Canon is planning to go with the future.

 

[BryanS]

That is absolutely true. But I think there is a part aimed at enthusiasts too.

The 32 mm 1.4 and M6 II releases strike me as Canon emphasising that EF-M can also deliver top end quality. The way they launched it, in parallel to the 90D, they did market the M6 II as somewhat of a '90D light'. I think if and when the M5 successor is coming, they'll expand upon that aspect.

There is no upgrade path the RF, but there still should be an upgrade path within the system towards slightly higher end bodies and lenses. And the number may not be substantial, but there are users who buy the M system as a small compliment to their FF ILC. And as long as the system has a good standing with enthusiasts, they can push more casual people around them into EF-M by way of word of mouth.

The thing I wonder the most about is if Canon will dare to go outside of their lens diameter restriction. Maybe to release a set of slightly wider lenses that are marketed like 'crop L lenses'. They probably won't and focus on bringing down the cost of FF bodies instead. But at this point things are changing, and I don't think we have been given a proper impression of where Canon is planning to go with the future.

My thoughts exactly. I consider myself an enthusiast and really enjoy the M system. A few years ago I left Canon for Fuji and just recently came back to Canon and the M system. At the time I felt that mirrorless was going nowhere with Canon. Now they've shown me that they are much more serious and now I feel (and hope) that Canon is going to expand on the system to keep their existing base and grow it as well.

 

[Etienne]

Agree on this. Looking at pricing, there's a sweet spot for a sub 1k flagship APS-C mirrorless, and something at around the 6-700 mark that uses that glass and perhaps one or two other new lenses. Tons of life in the system yet, and if marketed properly a useful feeder into their RF full frame system.

I'm not sure that the M is much of a feeder for Full Frame, but as a little system on its own, I really like it. I'd buy the "pro" M model even if just to park the 32 f/1.4 on it permanently. And I have brought the M6 with two lenses alone on trips: just the 11-22 IS for wide and day time and the 32 f/1.4 for shallow DOF and low light shots. That tiny package delivers great shots from a trip.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The EOS M system is not aimed at "Photographers", either professional or enthusiast semi-pros or enthusiast amateurs.

Canon would disagree, just check https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-m5/ or https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-m5 or https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...ameras/mirrorless/eos-m5-ef-m-18-150mm-is-stm

It is aimed at enthusiasts. Also it's obvious just by looking at the feature set: interchangeable lenses, raw shooting, advanced menus, advanced external ports.