Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]

[Stu_bert]

I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.

But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.

It’s a possibility, I can’t deny that, but let’s delve a little bit more

People who only have M lenses and the eos-m bodies, why does Canon think if they forced them to upgrade would stay with Canon? That’s a brave move at best, but very foolish. You’ve alienated people and their current kit is their only connection to Canon. Some may be foolish enough to upgrade, but I see a lot of people deciding to show Canon where they can stick their suggestions and swap to another brand. Especially as this is their only connection to Canon. And I can see a lot of those other brands falling over themselves to offer trade ins and marketing to those people who have just been abandoned by Canon.

People who may have some m glass but supplement it with ef-s or ef lenses. More difficult decisions. Canon knows they will not buy any rf glass and they’re not expanding the ef or ef-s range, but there is still chance of them buying more ef and ef-s glass or m glass, and future bodies. If Canon wants them to move, offer a trade in to move to R system and see how many take it up. Or do a survey and see if they would, except that would also get out to the media if they did. So maybe just when they announce the death, they offer a free rf-ef converter and a trade in to a new APS-C R body. This same body could attract the mid range DSLR users.

To me, for this second camp, I would have not ever introduced the m6 ii last year. And I don’t think Canon makes these sorts of decisions on a yearly basis. Adjust plans? Sure. But I think when they released the m6 ii they already had the next 2-3 years mapped out. If you want to kill a line, stop developing bodies. If you want to encourage the enthusiast to move, only develop the entry level and midrange bodies.

I think worst case might be the latter. They stop developing higher end m bodies, but not the entry and mid level stuff for vloggers. They can point to the m6 ii as their best enthusiast model but then see how many of those move to an r based aps-c. No need to kill the line.

I understand that many people find the M too small, but I would suggest that smaller bodies appeal more to women - and they’re more discreet and easy to carry. Plus vloggers who do it on the move I think are less likely to be happy with an r and an rf lens. You’re hand holding these and lighter / compact is better.

Me personally, I think i would either buy a second m6 ii and keep the system for the life of it, with all the new lenses i just bought, or I would sell the lot and go Fuji. I’d keep my r5 and all that ecosystem as I’ve long accepted they are separate bar the ef lenses. But I would also inform Canon direct at my disappointment.

 

[PhotoGenerous]

I am also skeptical of killing off the line, however, since no one who thinks it's going to happen ever actually gives any reasons beyond they don't personally like the format (if that), let me speculate why it might happen.

If Canon's research shows that the Rebel line does a good job of getting people to eventually buy full frame cameras and lenses while the EOS-M line isn't getting that same kind of traction, and they replace it with an RF-S line, then it could possibly make sense.

But maybe more importantly, if you combine that with the fact that while they gained market share, it's a percentage gain of a shrinking market, and if they have projections showing them how much that specific market is going to shrink as new smartphones keep getting released now with multiple lenses and always advancing camera software, maybe it's not worth it for them to keep pursuing the line, because they're actually losing a particular demographic because of smartphones. The EOS-M line may even be considered too "saturated," or at least certainly much more so than the RF line which is positioned for explosive growth (But I know nothing about that really and how it's doing in the Asian market as mentioned by others), so it may be worth it to them to just put all the resources there in the RF basket.

They don't have to stop making the current EOS-M cameras anytime soon. They can still have those manufactured and sold to keep hold of the portion they have for the next few years as the market continues to shrink. They just might stop developing new ones.

(I think I may have just convinced myself from thinking there's no way it's going to happen to I guess I can see it possibly happening but still have hope it's not true.)

It's too bad though. I was hoping for an M6 Mark III with IBIS and eye-autofocus. If it's killed off, I was already starting to look at Fuji cameras during this long wait for the R5. If/when it happens, I expect that's where I'll look to for my next compact option whenever I feel like it's time to part with my M6 Mark I.

 

[Stu_bert]

I am also skeptical of killing off the line, however, since no one who thinks it's going to happen ever actually gives any reasons beyond they don't personally like the format (if that), let me speculate why it might happen.

If Canon's research shows that the Rebel line does a good job of getting people to eventually buy full frame cameras and lenses while the EOS-M line isn't getting that same kind of traction, and the EOS-M line isn't giving them the same launching pad, and they replace it with an RF-S line, then it could possibly make sense. And they re

But maybe more importantly, if you combine that with the fact that while they gained market share, it's a percentage gain of a shrinking market, and if they have projections showing them how much that specific market is going to shrink as new smartphones keep getting released now with multiple lenses and always advancing camera software, maybe it's not worth it for them to keep pursuing the line, because they're actually losing a particular demographic because of smartphones. The EOS-M line may even be considered too "saturated," or at least certainly much more so than the RF line which is positioned for explosive growth (But I know nothing about that really and how it's doing in the Asian market as mentioned by others), so it may be worth it to them to just put all the resources there.

They don't have to stop making the current EOS-M cameras anytime soon. They can still have those manufactured and sold to keep hold of the portion for the next few years as the market continues to shrink. They just might stop developing new ones.

(I think I may have just convinced myself from thinking there's no way it's going to happen to I guess I can see it possibly happening but still have hope it's not true.)

It's too bad though. I was hoping for an M6 Mark III with IBIS and eye-autofocus. If it's killed off, I was already starting to look at Fuji cameras during this long wait for the R5. If/when it happens, I expect that's where I'll look to for my next compact option whenever I feel like it's time to part with my M6 Mark I.

Guess we posted at roughly the same time with some similarities.

I think unless they consider moving those resources to the r / rf line gives them more profit, then I can’t see them killing it while it still makes a profit.

 

[Franklyok]

To me it made no sense to have interchangable lens in smaller camera body.

Will canon follow Sony A7C style with pancake lens?

Anything smaller like G1 mark 2 would be eaten by mobilephone market.

 

[Franklyok]

Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor.

The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.

1) pan cake lens
2) if sigma and sony ( upcoming A7c ) can do small ff bodies so can canon...

 

[Richard CR]

Great to see the EOS M will be killed off in favour of RF if this is true. They never really were comitted to it with the most pathetic lens line-up imaginable after nearly 8 years.

I have taken well over 150,000 photos with that pathetic lens lineup without issues.

Talent > gear.

 

[Richard CR]

What do you suppose the possibilities are of them discontinuing it in some markets where it hasn't done that well?

There's no markets it isn't selling well that is just the problem.
it's actually outselling by a vast margin other cameras in north america even given some sales figures that were shared with me, and that was probably the last major market it wasn't selling well in.

 

[Richard CR]

I agree with the consensus that these rumors sound like mere forum reverberations.

But to those who think Canon wouldn't kill the M line because it's a best-seller, I'd just say that Canon may find that it can make more net profit by forcing people in that market to buy a very small full frame R-line camera like the RP. People who buy the RP typically would have access to glass that gives Canon 100's of dollars of margin, versus 10's of dollars of margin. Their market research may (or may not) indicate that they could get a majority of current M buyers to buy into the RF system, creating bigger margins and also creating much better development and manufacturing efficiencies. They may surmise that having a system that sits between your phone and an RP is a bit of a nether world. I'm not saying any of these conditions are true. I don't know. But it is very possible.

yeah, that's a good theory but it really doesn't happen that much.
if you are going to force everyone to buy a completely new kit, they simply will look at other options as well. which would be Sony and Fuji.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have taken well over 150,000 photos with that pathetic lens lineup without issues.

Talent > gear.

talent ≠ gear
gear ≠ talent
talent > gear
talent + gear > talent

 

[mb66energy]

The EF-M 32 1.4 is out about two years now and I bought it days after release. This lens with 14 sheets of glass is a commitment to the M system. I bought it not only for the M50 but to use it maybe the next 10 or 20 years - it is light, has a high aperture, good close focus range of 1:4 (~60 x 90 mm field of view!) and excellent image quality. This with IBIS and full sensor 4k makes a tiny package for tight situations which might be good enough for professional cine productions.

Cancelling the M system shortly after introducing that lens while others might be released soon? I just do not believe that.

 

[scottw]

I do wonder what percentage of EF-M users would even consider a full-frame camera. Let's say an M200 styled camera in RF mount would cost $550 with a lens. Is that enough of a difference for the person to not consider the RP at $1300 with a FF lens? Would people that have any interest in FF consider an APS-C starter when their kit lens and camera don't get them there? Sure they could buy this M200 with an RF 35mm f1.8, but that combo is getting close to the RP plus kit lens price. I can't see many beginners starting with a 35mm prime even though they might benefit from it. Back in the DSLR days, there was more of a reason to start in APS-C. Not until the Nikon D600 did FF really start to drop in price (I switched from Pentax to the D600 so I could try FF).

I could see Canon trying to follow Nikon for better or worse. I tried the Z50 and it is a decent camera, but it has a lot of drawbacks and will for a long time based on their lens roadmap. The current Z-mount FF lenses aren't amazing focal length combinations for a crop camera. It's totally possible Canon is willing to drop EF-M out of stubbornness.

What benefit is there to APS-C cameras in a FF mount? I guess maybe a sports focused camera if Canon had a fast and recent lower resolution APS-C sensor to source. Besides that, Canon already has RF pretty covered from $999 full-frame to high resolution with the R5. I wouldn't expect them to handle it any better than EF-S. I'm seeing 19 EF-S lenses on B&H right now with 4 of them have an aperture f/2.8 or faster.

Full-frame is a lot more accessible now than it was. I see the benefit of APS-C in the potential size of the lenses and to a lesser degree the size of the cameras (the RP is pretty small, so much so I prefer it with the grip extension). Okay, I guess people really want an 80D or 7D in RF, buy why? What would those as RF, updated to current tech, really get you over what current RF FF cameras that exist?

Fujifilm shows what dedicated APS-C can look like and it makes the most sense to me as the path of that sensor size, though maybe Fujifilm's APS-C will die out eventually... who knows. How much pricing room does Canon have in RF for APS-C? We'd probably see a bigger M200 styled camera. Maybe the sports camera if a sensor exists. What else? An M6 II with RF mount? The rest of it seems covered by current FF cameras. Right now the only recent APS-C sensor we know of is the 32mp one.

 

[Joules]

Sounds like complete BS to me.

Why dedicate R&D to a new M flag ship camera if the market situation were so dire that even a product line with low investment and high sales numbers like EF-M can't be maintained? If things were looking so bad, it would make more sense to put this effort into an RF mount equivalent. We've seen that Canon is (probably) fine with killing a product in development once it doesn't sit with their future plans anyway (RIP 5D V).

In any case: 12 FPS without AF at over 1500 $? lol. This rumor is BS. Quick reminder that the 1000 $ M6 II does 14 FPS mechanical with AF (yes, speed priority. Still, it has AF) and 30 FPS in the electronic shutter 18 MP crop mode, still with AF.

Also,why even bother with lenses like the 600 mm and especially the 800 mm f/11 lenses. If you can instead get more reach at lower costs by going with an upcoming RF APS-C camera and a brighter lens. They specifically serve the market for low budget FF reach there. To me, that makes the most sense if there will be no APS-C alternatives in RF mount and so they go for focal length rather than pixel density.

 

[LensFungus]

I like my M50 and I like the general idea of the small and cheap M-system. Having said that there are two things to consider:

1. Yes, the M50 and M100 are/were worldwide bestsellers but the M6 II and the M200 never got the same reputation. If the M50 II just becomes a mediocre seller, Canon gets one more reason to pay - again - less attention to the M-system.
2. Yes, Nikon's APS-C camera Nikon Z50 share one mount with the fullframe cameras. The fullframe Z lenses have excellent quality and while they are now not really cheap, pixelpeepers don't have to worry if these lenses are good enough for the APS-C cameras compared to the M6 II 32mp situation. I don't care but some people do. Their first two APS-C lenses are a bit fat but Nikon managed it to keep them very small because they made them collapsible like the popular Canon EF-M 11-22mm.
Now comes the problem. According to Sonyalpharumors Sony plans to release a new line of "compact" fullframe lenses (which obviously can be attached to their APS-C A6x00 cameras). There is no detailed information so far but the word "compact" is enough because in my opinion it will translate to "cheap" and cheap fullframe is able to attack sales of APS-C from Canon EF-M lenses and Fujifilm.
One of the reasons for people to not enter the fullframe world were the expensive fullframe lenses. That's where Canon was able to shine with their older lenses like EF 50mm 1.4, EF 85mm 1.8 etc. but Sony might be planning something similar. What's missing is a cheap fullframe camera by Sony. Yes, they have the old A7 II and the A7 III will continue to become cheaper but they lack a more modern camera like the Canon EOS RP or the Nikon Z5. However a cheap and modern fullframe camera by Sony is only a matter of time.

 

[Bahrd]

CR1 seems awfully generous, to be honest.

I have an impression our host, @Canon Rumors Guy, is slightly biased against M...

 

[Richard CR]

I like my M50 and I like the general idea of the small and cheap M-system. Having said that there are two things to consider:

1. Yes, the M50 and M100 are/were worldwide bestsellers but the M6 II and the M200 never got the same reputation. If the M50 II just becomes a mediocre seller, Canon gets one more reason to pay - again - less attention to the M-system.

Same with every other brand though, the top sellers are the low end to midrange bodies.

2. Yes, Nikon's APS-C camera Nikon Z50 share one mount with the fullframe cameras. The fullframe Z lenses have excellent quality and while they are now not really cheap, pixelpeepers don't have to worry if these lenses are good enough for the APS-C cameras compared to the M6 II 32mp situation. I don't care but some people do. Their first two APS-C lenses are a bit fat but Nikon managed it to keep them very small because they made them collapsible like the popular Canon EF-M 11-22mm.

Alot of if's .. Z50 isnt' selling that well btw.

Now comes the problem. According to Sonyalpharumors Sony plans to release a new line of "compact" fullframe lenses (which obviously can be attached to their APS-C A6x00 cameras). There is no detailed information so far but the word "compact" is enough because in my opinion it will translate to "cheap" and cheap fullframe is able to attack sales of APS-C from Canon EF-M lenses and Fujifilm.

it doesn't. cheap full frame will still not replace APS-C. Sony rarely makes good and cheap.

there still is a reason to have a dedicated small sensor ILC camera.

 

[SteveC]

There's no markets it isn't selling well that is just the problem.
it's actually outselling by a vast margin other cameras in north america even given some sales figures that were shared with me, and that was probably the last major market it wasn't selling well in.

Fair enough, I was under the impression it wasn't selling well in North America. If I was wrong about that, so much the better.

Anecdotally, a few days before r5 day, I watched someone buy an M6 at the brick and mortar. Not an M6-II, an olde model one.

 

[Stu_bert]

I have an impression our host, @Canon Rumors Guy, is slightly biased against M...

Ha ha, we are all biased towards the gear we own

 

[Kane Clements]

Looking at the price, if this is body only, by the time a lens is added the price is knocking on the door of the Fuji X-T4 which is king of the hill as far as APS-C at the moment.

Whilst it will have the Canon label it won't be as well made and won't have the X-T 4 feature set.

The M-Series have sold well because a lot of casual shooters want a compact camera that is good enough at an affordable price point from a brand with good name recognition.

I haven't read anything on this site that gives me confidence in Canon coming up any time soon with something between that segment and the the FF R range to meet the needs of enthusiasts, semi-pros and pros who need a crop option. Though I have a hat and I'm prepared to eat it if I'm proved wrong.

That vacuum in the range is probably why speculation is running rife.

Personally I couldn't be bothered to wait for whatever Canon decides to serve up and went out and bought an X-T4. I've had it just over a week and I've been surprised at just how capable it is. I was planning to keep my RP and a couple of lenses. I've come round to thinking I don't need to.

 

[Mark3794]

Rumor is wrong btw " 12fps serial shooting, without AF active " the M6 mark II already does 14 fps with full autofocus so...

 

[Traveler]

IMO it would make sense to kill APSC system completely and focus on FF R cameras only. FF sensors can be cheap and fast with current technology so there’s no need for smaller sensors.
The task for Canon is to create a low end FF camera that is as cheap as APSC cameras but doesn’t cannibalize higher models; and create cheap FF lenses for that. For example a FF 28-90mm f/9 would be as compact as 18-55 f/5.6 for APSC, providing equal results (angle, DOF, noise performance).

It would allow much smoother transition for beginners to move towards high end cameras and lenses. It seems like the DSLR way brings more money to manufacturers (buy APSC first and then spend your money again for FF cameras and lenses) but in many cases it holds people back because the transition is a pain therefore it takes a decade for some people to move to FF.