Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]

[LSXPhotog]

Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.

I don't see how that would be possible when each system's communication is based on EOS.

 

[brad-man]

I'm all in for an M5 mkII by whatever Canon chooses to call it, but dual cards is antithetical to the M concept. Just give us a few more quick primes and an f/4 constant standard zoom and I'm good...

 

[nchoh]

Is this 61mm rule official? I really hope they break it and release some bigger lenses.

I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.

 

[melgross]

Sounds good. People who want Canon to discontinue this line for an “R” mount APS-C don’t understand why Canon kneels upgrading the cameras and continues to make new lenses for it. It’s pretty simp,e, as I keep telling them. This is a very popular camera line. Why should Canon abandon it for something else?

 

[jolyonralph]

I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.

The 61mm isn't a hard rule, it's a design & marketing decision based on the EOS M market so far. A higher-end M body would bring demand for better lenses that might be bigger and heavier than before. They'd still be lighter and smaller than full-frame equivalents though.

Something like an 15-55 f/2.8 IS, or even a lightweight 18-55 f/2.8-4 IS higher-end kit lens would be sensible.

 

[jam05]

I'm debating about switching to Fuji right now from the M system. I currently have 4-M5's and over 20 lenses I use with them. This camera, M7, if it is as currently rumored, would be the only thing that might stop me. Dual slot is a must for me for my next camera. But there is still the problem with lenses. Yes, the 32mm 1.4 is one of the secrets of the Canon world, but it is still mainly a plastic lens. Will it hold up over the years? I would definitely add the Sigma 16 & 56, which I already want. But sadly, I still see the EOS M line being dropped when the EF line is discontinued unless Canon introduces some kind of a speedbooster converter to allow RF lenses to be used on the EF-M bodies. I've used Canon for over 40 years, but my needs have changed and Fuji seems to be the better fit right now. October was when I was planning on the switch, so let's see what you got Canon!

The M6 Mk II is the camera right now with Vloggers

 

[blackcoffee17]

I am not sure but sure looks like it. The small lenses and bodies are a design language. For example, the EF-M 55-200 is taken from the EF-S 55-250. Same optical formula, but shrunk down to fit in with the other M lenses.

Not sure about the 50-200. The 55-250 STM is super sharp and i have yet to see a similar image from the EF-M lens.
Every time i check samples it just disappoints me. It's ok but that sharpness and contrast is not there.

 

[nchoh]

Not sure about the 50-200. The 55-250 STM is super sharp and i have yet to see a similar image from the EF-M lens.
Every time i check samples it just disappoints me. It's ok but that sharpness and contrast is not there.

Nice to know. I have been using the 55-250 mm on my M5. Yes, it's super sharp and pulls in amazing images. I have seen reviews that say the 55-200 is on par or better. Maybe it's a manufacturing issue? In any case, I'll stick to the 55-250 STM.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

Not going to happen because existing EF-M mount cameras can't talk the RF protocols. They'd need to produce a new mount (RF-M?) that was capable of taking adapted RF lenses and existing EF-M lenses. But I can't see there being a big enough market for this to make it worthwhile.

Are there specifications on the RF mount connectors and the protocols used to talk with RF lenses? Visually, the RF mount has the original 8 connection points from the EF mount, plus the additional 4. And if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the EF to RF adapter use those 8 connection points to communicate with adapted EF lenses? If that's the case, wouldn't it also be possible that RF lenses are using those same 8 connection points for basic lenses functions (aperture, auto-focus, lens info, etc)? I know there's a ton to look at here if that sort of thing can be dissected and looked into. But from a visual standpoint, there may be more backwards compatibility in the RF mount then Canon has showed us so far.

 

[Max TT]

Sounds good. People who want Canon to discontinue this line for an “R” mount APS-C don’t understand why Canon kneels upgrading the cameras and continues to make new lenses for it. It’s pretty simp,e, as I keep telling them. This is a very popular camera line. Why should Canon abandon it for something else?

Very true, anytime someone who is new to photography and is buying their first camera ask for my advice... M50 is my go to response

 

[tataylino]

I am still waiting for the EF-M equivalent of EF 50mm STM. I hope this will be the next lens and with about same price range.

 

[SteveC]

Have you considered that the vast majority of buyers of the M system maybe buying into the M system because of the nice neat little lens in the collection?

I have considered that.

But the people who'd buy this camera won't care. And neither would the people who like the 61mm form factor, either--none of those is going away! In fact, if they want to produce a whole raft more of lenses whose main feature is 61mm diameter, more power to them, but that shouldn't stop them from occasionally producing something bigger.

I hope they go to a situation where lots of lenses are consistently 61mm in diameter, but there are a few "advanced" lenses such as long zooms, or wide aperture primes 50mm and greater, that are a bit wider.

 

[SteveC]

M7 or M5 Mark II, its just a name . I guess Canon feels it's more then just an evolutionary successor to the M5, but why not call it the M1 then (like the 1DX)? And yes, I know there was already an original M(1).

The "obvious" reason is it's to be the mirrorless successor to the 7D.

 

[Bob Howland]

I am still waiting for the EF-M equivalent of EF 50mm STM. I hope this will be the next lens and with about same price range.

I think the 32 f/1.4 M will have to suffice. It's more expensive but reportedly very sharp.

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

M7 with all the wishlist improvements over a M6 II?

Day 1 preorder. I *really* like my M6 II and if the M7 really will have IBIS, dual card slots and improved body and enhanced AF - that's exactly what I want. The images I get from that 32m sensor are great so yes please!

Be icing if they come up with a way to adapt RF to EF-M but I wont be holding my breath. EF glass and the adaptor work well

 

[vjlex]

If the R5 has "overheating problems" in video, will the M7 have even bigger problems, presumably being a smaller body? (I have an R5 in order but will probably use it almost exclusively for still.)

Smaller sensor, smaller readout I imagine. I think a lot of people concerned about the R5's heating issues aren't really taking into consideration just how much data is being moved at very high speeds.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

The "obvious" reason is it's to be the mirrorless successor to the 7D.

If that is the case, then will there still be an M5 Mark II? Or is the M6 Mark II taking its place permanently, as some of the old rumors suggested?

 

[SteveC]

If that is the case, then will there still be an M5 Mark II? Or is the M6 Mark II taking its place permanently, as some of the old rumors suggested?

I suspect this is also the M5 Mark II under a different name. But that's pure speculation on my part (and yes I wanted an M5 Mark II--I finally just gave up and bought the M6 mark II).

 

[PhotoGenerous]

This is the news that I needed. With a couple RF lenses in hand and no body, I was this close to picking up a Fuji x100V or at least upgrading from the M6 to the Mark II. Now I can banish both ideas and just wait it out for the news to come out.

IBIS would be great, all the new AF tracking stuff is what I want. I love the two card slots (and don't understand the one comment saying that a second card slot of all things would be against the M design philosophy.)

Otherwise, like several people have mentioned, an equivalent to the EF-S 15-55 2.8 would be nice.

There are only three lenses that get love, the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 32mm. (And occasionally the 28 macro.) A good standard zoom, some longer primes are what's needed. If Canon is going to push this as a 7D replacement, maybe something in the telephoto end will come out first since people want it for more reach.

 

[blackcoffee17]

This is the news that I needed. With a couple RF lenses in hand and no body, I was this close to picking up a Fuji x100V or at least upgrading from the M6 to the Mark II. Now I can banish both ideas and just wait it out for the news to come out.

IBIS would be great, all the new AF tracking stuff is what I want. I love the two card slots (and don't understand the one comment saying that a second card slot of all things would be against the M design philosophy.)

Otherwise, like several people have mentioned, an equivalent to the EF-S 15-55 2.8 would be nice.

There are only three lenses that get love, the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 32mm. (And occasionally the 28 macro.) A good standard zoom, some longer primes are what's needed. If Canon is going to push this as a 7D replacement, maybe something in the telephoto end will come out first since people want it for more reach.

Sadly it cannot be a 7D replacement while the longest M focal length is 200mm at 6.3 with a plastic mount.