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

[Michael Clark]

I finally saw an M50 in the real world this weekend, for the first time. A friend of mine has an M50 he uses for his youtube channel. I couldn't believe how tiny it was! I finally see the point, which I clearly couldn't put together from spec sheets on the internet. And none of the local stores ever had one for me to put my hands on.

I'm thinking it would be nice to grab one, to take with places where photography isn't the main objective. So my daughter's soccer games, vacations, trips to the zoo would stay with the DSLR where i want the advantages of that lens kit and the weight/bulk is justified, but an M series could go in the pocket to the museum, or other outings where we may want snapshots of ourselves or random things we see. The DSLR stays home on those trips now because we don't want to carry it for little perceived use, and an M Series would give more creative control than a cell phone.

Just have to convince the wife.....M50 isn't that pricey.....


Brian

BINGO!

 

[Michael Clark]

It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S AND EF-M.

Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.

It is a pity that the rumors/leaks/plants don't give us a timeline for how quickly Canon will end R&D for EF.

RF is the way of the future.

RF is also a derivative of the EF mount. More so than the EF-M, in fact.

 

[Michael Clark]

It seems like most of the aggravation comes from people who want a 7D equivalent either in the M mount or the R mount. Some people are agnostic about the mount (me). Others are hell bent on an RF mount. Much of this comes from people who, in my mind, think that what Canon currently offers in the M mount somehow makes it impossible for them to offer anything else.

For example, just because the current M cameras are small, they think that a 7D replacement in the M mount has to be small. I find that ridiculous. The 7D wasn't constrained by the size of Rebels, why would an M7 be constrained by previous M bodies?

Also, people act like whatever Canon has offered in M mount lenses in the past means they can't offer different lenses in the future. Again, I find that silly.

Another point of contention is pricing. People seem to think they will get an R mount 7D replacement at a significantly lower price point than either the R6 or R5. I have my doubts.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Canon will want to repeat the confusion of the past by offering APS-C bodies in the RF mount. I think they may very well be over the idea of a high end APS-C body in their full frame mount. Suggesting that really upsets some folks.

Finally, there is just a lot of uncertainty about the future path of Canon ILCs. Some folks love to stir things up with "EF is dead comments" or with "the M line is going to be killed off" comments, regardless of whether or not such comments are relevant.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between hoping for an RF mount successor to the 7D Mark II because it seems to fit the needs of the vast majority of current 7D Mark II users (who often also use FF bodies and EF lenses) more than a potential M7 would and being hellbent that Canon must offer such a camera.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying anything in the EOS M system has to be small and saying Canon will most likely choose to keep everything in the EOS M system small.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying Canon can't offer anything larger in the EOS M system and saying that by all previous indications Canon most likely won't offer anything larger in the EOS M system.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between being disappointed if Canon does not offer some kind of 7D replacement in the RF mount and being really upset if Canon does not offer some kind of high end APS-C body in the RF mount.

In other words, there's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between what you keep arguing against and what many current 7D Mark II users are actually saying.

 

[Michael Clark]

They're all larger than the RF mount's throat diameter, so who cares?

But not all, or even most, M bodies are tall enough to accomodate the RF throat diameter. So obviously those who might be attracted to the EOS M series based on its compact size do care!

 

[Michael Clark]

Why "rarely useful"? If people are going to complain that few EF-S lenses were ever made, that was the answer--grab an EF lens and use it!

In fact the 7D has an EF-S mount and EF big whites got used (and continue to get used) a lot on it.

Or much cheaper "little whites" like an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III ($1,900) get used instead of a much pricier Big White like an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II ($6,100) for the same reach on a FF body in low light action sports situations.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Meh, not very exciting (if true)

 

[Michael Clark]

I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C. I think this expectation is outmoded in 2020 which is especially true when you look at the R6 specs. An APS-C R7 could happen but I doubt it because the R6 is too good at it's current price point. The R6 compares very favorably to a lot of high end cameras including cameras in Canon's own lineup. I'm sure a lot of people have noticed that it's very much a competitor to an A9 II for almost half the price. If Canon did an R7 would it be 32MP? Probably. That would put it in a weird spot in terms of market expectations. How do you price an R7 with the same capabilities of an R6 but with a higher megapixel sensor? Would it be the same price? If so, people will throw fits. IMO the R7 is a losing proposition for Canon if it has to be cheaper than the R6, and I don't think the market will like the R7 at the same price as the R6, and they certainly won't like an R7 with reduced capabilities vs the R6... Ultimately the question becomes, why do an R7 at all? APS-C vs FF, you'll actually get more detail at higher ISO's with a FF camera so the advantage of APS-C having more pixels on subject is kind of erased unless you always shoot at really low ISO's. With the new RF600 and RF800 it's looking like high ISO performance is the future for Canon cameras. Plus, many people shoot wildlife with the 1Dx series and do great with it.

Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.

The R6 has no more pixel density than an 8 MP APS-C sensor. It is most definitely not a 7D replacement.

Maybe the R5 is, with pixel density equal to a 17.6MP APS-C sensor and frame rates equal to the R6.

If the future R5s comes to fruition with an 80MP or so sensor, which gives 32MP in an APS-C size crop, then if it can maintain 12-14 fps or so with a mechanical shutter then it would be the closest thing in what appears to be Canon's future RF roadmap.

 

[akramography]

If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!

 

[koenkooi]

If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!

If I take a picture of one of these, does that I mean I have shot clog?

 

[Michael Clark]

What I meant was why did Canon make a mount that was incompatible with their FF mirrorless system ?
Makes no sense as surely they were already planning the R system

Two different systems marketed to two different types of buyers.

Most people who buy a camera, even an ILC, never buy more lenses than what they bought at the same time as the camera body. That's where the EOS M is aimed. It's never been meant to be a "starter" camera for someone with aspirations of "moving up" in the future.

 

[Antono Refa]

But not all, or even most, M bodies are not tall enough to accomodate the RF throat diameter. So obviously those who might be attracted to the EOS M series based on its compact size do care!

You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.

 

[Chig]

Wouldn't the 32MP APS-C sensor from the 90D/M6 Mark II or a 32MP or so downsized version of the upcoming 80MP or so FF 5Ds be even better and give even more reach? 17MP is not even the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II.

20mp on the 7D ii’s 6 year old sensor will perform much worse than a 17mp version of the new R5 sensor especially with a low pass or no AA filter.
The 7D ii performance in low light is pretty terrible for instance and I’m sure the R5 in crop mode would be vastly superior and I’d love to buy an R5 but it’s very expensive
If canon priced the R7 at the same or slightly less than the R6 and with similar features I’d buy it for sure.

 

[Chig]

The R6 has no more pixel density than an 8 MP APS-C sensor. It is most definitely not a 7D replacement.

Maybe the R5 is, with pixel density equal to a 17.6MP APS-C sensor and frame rates equal to the R6.

If the future R5s comes to fruition with an 80MP or so sensor, which gives 32MP in an APS-C size crop, then if it can maintain 12-14 fps or so with a mechanical shutter then it would be the closest thing in what appears to be Canon's future RF roadmap.

I’d buy an R7 with similar features to the R6 and downsized 17mp sensor for the same price as the R6 as it would give me all I need for high performance Birds in Flight camera at a price I can afford.
7D ii buyers didn’t buy FF because we can’t afford it as the 7D ii was better than the equivalent 5D for what we wanted

 

[Philip V]

Yep agreed. The core are the women and Asian, and probably simply down to the size of the camera and how it fits.

I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.

 

[Chig]

I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.

I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8

 

[blackcoffee17]

You're comparing EF-M lenses to the kinds of lenses basement dwelling forum warriors who have never actually seen them salivate over. That's not how the vast majority of buyers of EOS M cameras are comparing them. They're comparing them to similarly sized lenses from Fuji and Sony, and they're comparing them on price.

I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
- a bit sharper and with better quality control
- improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality

I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4

 

[jolyonralph]

It is now clear that Canon is in the process of ending all EF based product lines. That means EF, EF-S AND EF-M.

Simply put, EF is too slow for modern cameras.

It is a pity that the rumors/leaks/plants don't give us a timeline for how quickly Canon will end R&D for EF.

RF is the way of the future.

EF-M is essentially 'RF MINI'. It's based on modern electronic protocols and is not in any way a simple EF variant as EF-S is.

So I totally agree, EF and EF-S lenses have had their day and there are unlikely to be any significant new products announced - however the millions of professionals using EF lenses every day would probably argue with your point that they are 'too slow for modern cameras', indeed some EF lenses work far better adapted on the RF mount than they did on the original DSLR bodies (eg EF 85mm f/1.2)

I've been using the EF 100-400 L IS II on my EOS R and it's a joy to use. I'm sure the focus with the RF 100-500 will be faster, but I can't imagine it would be THAT much faster that it would be worth me upgrading.

Anyway. The point of this reply is that you shouldn't discount EF-M. It's certainly not dead.

 

[jolyonralph]

I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8

Remember most camera users don't use long heavy lenses. An M body with a compact lens is a great travel tool.

 

[Stu_bert]

I'm a grown Asian male, and the grip of the M50 is just perfect for my tiny hands. So I hope Canon will not discontinue the M series.

Thank you. I was trying to delicately avoid offending anyone... I have an M6II. About an inch deeper and a grip maybe half an inch deeper would be nice...

 

[Stu_bert]

I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?

As in the Sigma? I have it, just not had much chance to play with it as the R5 came