And why are they even posting here!! If you have no skin in the game, and don't intend to ever have...I don't care what you think. Go post on an R5 thread and rant about overheating.
Upvote
0
Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
This raises an interesting point, since I am pretty sure that most buyers of cameras with interchangeable lenses skew much older than the average consumer, probably by several decades. Maybe Canon has done the research and figured out that they need to reduce the weight and size of their cameras for their aging customer base.
Upvote
0
A bit specialist perhaps but I love my M5 as an underwater camera, with a cheap housing its been great for travel, wide angle and macro is great, my only gripe is the housing cant take the EF-S 60mm.
A bit academic at the moment but one day I might get to use it again.
A bit academic at the moment but one day I might get to use it again.
Upvote
0
Nice little list? Maybe.... The 15-45 is ok but weak, the 55-200 is mediocre, the 18-150 just ok for the price, all full plastic-fantastic.
Upvote
0
I would have bought into the M system decades ago had it been available (as I did with my Fuji's) just to have something small and light with good IQ for those times I couldn't/didn't want to carry/travel with a “serious” system, which I also had and have as well.
Upvote
0
another point which i raise often is the reduction of carry on especially in Asian carriers. 5 and 7kg are the norm in most discount airlines (and even some non discount ones), and while some offer upgrades, others do not.
Upvote
0
indeed and same here, that's why i'm struggling with the justification of moving to the RF system, because right now even with the M I sit at 6.8kg .. the only way I can reduce it further is to carry the camera gear on me, which is IMO not optimum.
Upvote
0
I agree - I can't see them doing this, it's one of their best selling cameras and it's easy to pick up and use...it's a great starter / travel / vlog whatever camera for those who aren't too serious about photography. My friend has one and I can see the appeal. He returned his a6400 for the m100 (he is a newbie so tghe a6400 was too much for him)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MOAR IBIS
Except there is a view that the earth’s rotation limits the max ibis to 6.5 stops and hence why Olympus and others never went further unless you do some really clever stuff. I posted a link to that article in another thread or you can google for it
Upvote
0
My impression is that from Canon’s perspective, the 90D is the closest to a 7D2 replacement we will likely see any time soon, unless it is the 1DX III.
Upvote
0
actually I was thinking the entire specifications were typed up by a deranged sony user.
Upvote
0
As you read on you will see I came to that conclusion, without saying so in so many words.
Upvote
0
Short version: This rumour is just a confusion grenade, along with talk of a higher end M. Canon will not publicly cease dev of M next year.
Longer version
The challenge that Canon has is what to do with their APS-C DSLR range. I think that is why any rumours about eos M or FF R makes the APS-C users question are they next? And that’s from the entry level bodies costing what? 400-500 dollars, up to the enthusiast/pro body costing maybe 1800.
They’ve tried to appease share holders by focusing on the more lucrative segments, including Cine ranges. And they offer an up market compact range the eos-m and powershot to try and reduce defection to smartphones where size and weight and good enough are the criteria. For the Powershot / m ranges I do wonder if they should consolidate those lines, and offer 1” sensors in an M body with a fixed zoom lens to lower their costs, but that’s a slight diversion.
Many people don’t want smaller, don’t want FF (cost perhaps or reach), but Canon can’t lower their costs by standardising on mirrorless as they’ve not got something there. And I think these “disagreements” will continue because there isn’t any upsell that appeals to the APS-C camp. If there was, then I think some of the people posting here wouldn’t bother as they know where they’re going or they’re already there.
As per my earlier post and other contributions, if Canon correctly do their finance and can tell if the M is making a profit, then it will continue. Market share is of course important to keep investors quiet although I doubt they see any breakdown to individual lines. So the M might just maintain market share more than profit.
And for the M enthusiasts who want a bit more well there are some 3rd party lenses or attach an EF or EFs. Canon may not develop any more new EF lenses, but nor are they going to stop manufacturing popular lenses so long as people keep buying them, for whatever camera, Canon or not. But the enthusiast are the smaller of the m segment.
I can’t see Canon supporting a 3rd mount.
A R style body with an M mount - I see that as bad as an rf-s.
I also don’t see Canon wanting to develop too many lower cost EFS / RFS style lenses simply as the volume is shrinking, and will stabilise higher than film days but no where near the hay day of DSLR. Plus with their 1-2 lenses is the upsell more likely a new body than another lens?
Shove a 32MP APS-C sensor in a R body with a good set of the stills features from the R5/6 and then what was the point of the r6? Unless you price it more than the r6, but then would the high end 7d ii users go for it?
Shove the same sensor in a r body with the 90d feature set and perhaps R style Af, then you might convince 90d users to migrate. Canon already have stats from the 90d vs the m6 ii, and it would be interesting to know that split, but for ergonomics and market size, I would guess the existing m users chose a better m and DSLR chose the 90d and not many people changed camps. Love to know if any 7d ii users went with the 90d. Not many...
Similarly, put their previous generation of 24mp in the r for the lower end.
Heck bundle in the ef-rf adapter. If they only have 1-2 lenses no biggie, the only upgrade you might get them on is a new body in any case.
Back to this fake news
There was enough noise when Canon said they were focusing on RF and not EF albeit most reasonable people would expect it sooner or later. Dropping the M series and M lenses by saying no more development and nothing to migrate some of your kit to? Nah, far more noise even though the market is smaller. If Canon want to do this, they will just stop developing any lenses (and despite views, I think they will iterate m lenses every so often to keep up with competitors, and once the existing inventory is cleared and dev costs are recovered).
They could just say market forces dictate what they develop and when if they wanted to try and nudge M owners but I don’t see it.
I’m just puzzled by any high end M atm. I wonder if something is being lost in translation somewhere?
I am sure the m6 ii has better margin than other m, but why would you supersede it in 12 months? If it sold well, no need to iterate yet. If it didn’t sell, then would a higher end version sell or would it indicate most m users aren’t interested?
I think Canon is doing something cause they need to attract aps-c. That’s not an m7. And an m7 isn’t warranted by most people who just bought the m6 ii.
Longer version
The challenge that Canon has is what to do with their APS-C DSLR range. I think that is why any rumours about eos M or FF R makes the APS-C users question are they next? And that’s from the entry level bodies costing what? 400-500 dollars, up to the enthusiast/pro body costing maybe 1800.
They’ve tried to appease share holders by focusing on the more lucrative segments, including Cine ranges. And they offer an up market compact range the eos-m and powershot to try and reduce defection to smartphones where size and weight and good enough are the criteria. For the Powershot / m ranges I do wonder if they should consolidate those lines, and offer 1” sensors in an M body with a fixed zoom lens to lower their costs, but that’s a slight diversion.
Many people don’t want smaller, don’t want FF (cost perhaps or reach), but Canon can’t lower their costs by standardising on mirrorless as they’ve not got something there. And I think these “disagreements” will continue because there isn’t any upsell that appeals to the APS-C camp. If there was, then I think some of the people posting here wouldn’t bother as they know where they’re going or they’re already there.
As per my earlier post and other contributions, if Canon correctly do their finance and can tell if the M is making a profit, then it will continue. Market share is of course important to keep investors quiet although I doubt they see any breakdown to individual lines. So the M might just maintain market share more than profit.
And for the M enthusiasts who want a bit more well there are some 3rd party lenses or attach an EF or EFs. Canon may not develop any more new EF lenses, but nor are they going to stop manufacturing popular lenses so long as people keep buying them, for whatever camera, Canon or not. But the enthusiast are the smaller of the m segment.
I can’t see Canon supporting a 3rd mount.
A R style body with an M mount - I see that as bad as an rf-s.
I also don’t see Canon wanting to develop too many lower cost EFS / RFS style lenses simply as the volume is shrinking, and will stabilise higher than film days but no where near the hay day of DSLR. Plus with their 1-2 lenses is the upsell more likely a new body than another lens?
Shove a 32MP APS-C sensor in a R body with a good set of the stills features from the R5/6 and then what was the point of the r6? Unless you price it more than the r6, but then would the high end 7d ii users go for it?
Shove the same sensor in a r body with the 90d feature set and perhaps R style Af, then you might convince 90d users to migrate. Canon already have stats from the 90d vs the m6 ii, and it would be interesting to know that split, but for ergonomics and market size, I would guess the existing m users chose a better m and DSLR chose the 90d and not many people changed camps. Love to know if any 7d ii users went with the 90d. Not many...
Similarly, put their previous generation of 24mp in the r for the lower end.
Heck bundle in the ef-rf adapter. If they only have 1-2 lenses no biggie, the only upgrade you might get them on is a new body in any case.
Back to this fake news
There was enough noise when Canon said they were focusing on RF and not EF albeit most reasonable people would expect it sooner or later. Dropping the M series and M lenses by saying no more development and nothing to migrate some of your kit to? Nah, far more noise even though the market is smaller. If Canon want to do this, they will just stop developing any lenses (and despite views, I think they will iterate m lenses every so often to keep up with competitors, and once the existing inventory is cleared and dev costs are recovered).
They could just say market forces dictate what they develop and when if they wanted to try and nudge M owners but I don’t see it.
I’m just puzzled by any high end M atm. I wonder if something is being lost in translation somewhere?
I am sure the m6 ii has better margin than other m, but why would you supersede it in 12 months? If it sold well, no need to iterate yet. If it didn’t sell, then would a higher end version sell or would it indicate most m users aren’t interested?
I think Canon is doing something cause they need to attract aps-c. That’s not an m7. And an m7 isn’t warranted by most people who just bought the m6 ii.
Upvote
0
And let's face it, the 1DX III doesn't even attempt to be equivalent, no reach to speak of. Not saying it's inferior, it just doesn't do the same job; it'd be like claiming a screwdriver is superior (or inferior) to a hammer.
Upvote
0
If the EOS M line had a better line of Canon lenses and a flagship camera with a built in EVF that was weather sealed it would be almost perfect!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
