Further talk about the fate of the EOS M system

[SteveC]

To be fair, that's a pretty bad analogy. Your 2013 Ford Focus came with an attached engine. If you bought the body thinking that you would be able to pick from a range of engines in the future, you might be a little bit annoyed.

Yes, the analogy would be closer to describing a point and shoot line being discontinued.

 

[Stu_bert]

EXACTLY! The M system is popular because of the size. And if Canon can create a uniform lens mount system across ALL lines AND still make subcompact, M sized RF mount APSC bodies, there is no reason to maintain the M line. Because people who want small cameras largely dont care whether the name is M or RF so long as they are comparably small. We have not yet seen one single RF-C lens yet. But they are probably going to be very compact like the M line, even if the throat is 7mm bigger. If Canon feels they can maintain or grow their market from M to RF-C, then they will. The cost savings and profit potential would be much better.

Now the first RF-C will probably be standard sized bodies like a 7D replacement. But it wont be long before we see some subcompact RF-C bodies moving into M territory. Canon seems to have little to no interest in making M lenses, but they are cranking out glass and patents for RF like water from a broken hydrant

Except if you offer no backwards compatibility then you have no stickiness and potentially alienate those consumers

Re lens capacity - yes that reflects the target segment and what they want / will buy / will pay. Lower number of lenses doesn’t reflect commitment...

 

[Stu_bert]

The point is an APS-C RF body would necessitate cheaper APS-C-only lenses of the sort you mention. The benefit would be if you wanted, you could also use regular RF lenses on that body. And you could pick and choose. And eventually get a full-frame body if you were really serious about it. But wouldn't have to. There is no path for M users to become more serious about photography other than ditching the entire system.

The point is if you don’t offer any migration then you have no stickiness and people are free to chose any system. I get that many people may like future proof, but I don’t see many people who bought the M expecting to have compatibility with the R / Rf range. Completely different segments.

 

[slclick]

Yes, the analogy would be closer to describing a point and shoot line being discontinued.

You two, fun at parties I bet

 

[koenkooi]

Serious question:

When using large lenses, how do you guys hold the system?

For those saying that certain bodies are too small, can't you just told the camera with one hand, and then the lens with the other hand where that hand is slid further away from the camera (further up the lens) than when used with a heavier body?

That works, until you need to use one hand to keep nature out of the shot, like grass and reeds. On my original M I have a Franiec grip, which improves things a lot. An M + MP-E65 + MT24-Ex is no trouble. I start having trouble with long, front heavy lenses, like the 100-400II.
The M6II is a lot bigger than the original M, but I still prefer to use the Smallrig L-bracket with that, it gives it that extra bit it needs with a 100-400II .

FWIW, I need the EG-E1 on my RP to make it work with anything bigger than the EF85/1.8.

But I mainly like my Ms for their size, I really wish Canon would release an updated version of the original M: sized like the M200, but with a hot shoe.

 

[koenkooi]

I don't know. When I buy something I get it for what it is today. The M has been around since 2012. 8 years and the lens catalog for that line has always been small. After 8 years, it is presumptuous to believe that Canon is going to suddenly sink a lot of development into that when that segment is getting hammered. The newly rumored M has probably been in development for 2-3 years. I would think that M fans would be happy to get one last great model. Instead, they fret that after 8 years their expectations were mirages. These were not expectations fueled by Canon. They were dreams manufactured in the minds of some of the M owners and forum dwellers. I understand that people really enjoy those cameras.

For a long time the M line was basically the mimimum viable product, but I got my hopes up after the M50, 32mm f/1.4 and M6II. Especially since the M6II had more features than it's half-sibling 90D, which implies more effort being spent on the M than the rebel.

OTOH, if you look at the timing of the M50 and M6II, they seem to be test models for upcoming R models, The M50 had a lot in common with the R, the M6II with the R5. So it could be that Canon doesn't need to use the M series for testing new mirrorless tech with the R, RP, R5 and R6 already being out there.

 

[Sporgon]

but as a complete system, the RF mount lenses will never be as small as the EF-M.

View attachment 192574

Not as small as the M mount, that's true.

I don't see the relevance of your comparison above; one is a slow crop zoom lens, the other is a fast FF lens.

Anyway this conjecture pales into insignificance compared with you nicking private's avatar. What have you done with him and why does he keep laughing at your posts ?

 

[huscusahead]

Canon's main competitors, Nikon and Sony have one mount for FF & APS-C bodies. Canon would be crazy to duplicate effort & resources in a shrinking market across two mounts. If Canon is not to be "doomed" it has to ditch M & focus on RF. I guess they could create a RF to M adapter to acquiesce M owners but they might not consider that worth the effort & cost either.

 

[simeyesky]

I guess it's feasible to build bodies sized like the M50/M6 with a RF mount. Then to put the M lenses into a RF-mount housing.
Most customers buy a kit anyway, so these will buy a RF kit the same way, even when upgrading/renewing.
This essentially leaves the "enthusiasts" M users who have more than three lenses, for whose it will cost more to switch (but Canon could launch a switch trade-in program.) And in the other hand, this would allow them to benefit from all the RF lineup natively.

 

[Avenger 2.0]

Don't see any potential upgrade path for EF-M lenses. If the new body is good, I guess we could keep using it for another couple of years.

Biggest problem to me is that there aren't yet enough cheap and light weight RF lenses or even crop RF lenses available.

Another problem with the RF mount is that there might never be native RF mount Tamron or Sigma lenses available (secret and encrypted lens communication protocol).

 

[Ozarker]

To be fair, that's a pretty bad analogy. Your 2013 Ford Focus came with an attached engine. If you bought the body thinking that you would be able to pick from a range of engines in the future, you might be a little bit annoyed.

If you are comparing the engine to lenses... I already had a collection of lenses (engines) before buying the rumored but still to be announced, released, purchased, doesn't yet exist, new M camera, remember? These are people already in the M line that are pissed the line will not be around much longer... yet Canon will (might) release one last body.

If I am walking around with a 2012 Ford Focus (M) and a bag full of engines (lenses) I interchange for different driving conditions, and 8 years later I get annoyed because Ford decides to discontinue the car model... yeah, a little childish. Especially since all my hopes and dreams were that Ford would eventually sell an 800cid (800mm) engine for my compact car (camera) fetish. Personally, I am still angry that AMC no longer makes cars and I can't buy a Gremlin, Hornet, or Pacer.

 

[vxcalais]

What was the reason for Canon not continuing EF/EF-S ? EOS-M was the equal of Sony and recently Nikon with the single mount. DIsappointed as only recently since last year from Sony to my M6ii. After making a beast of a camera it made sense to support it via new lenses. But to no avail. The equal of the SEL18-105G with constant F4 is perfect for the EOS-M.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Well, I'm just gonna say it - this is dumb. Apparently if you want a decent camera now, you will need to buy into a system with Super Expensive lenses. The R system is nice, but I'm just trying to take photos of my cats in the back yard or of my friends doing dumb stuff. Just really personal mementos. I would never buy a FF camera, its too expensive. An RP with a 50mm f/1.2 is damn near $4k. An M6ii with a 32mm f/1.4 is well under 2k.

Lowest quality body with a fast 50mm $4k.

Highest quality body with fast 50mm equivalent $1750.

For $4k I can get a body, a 22mm, a 32mm, a 56mm, a 15-45mm zoom, a 65mm macro and a 18-200mm zoom with a bag and warranties. For what I'm shooting there is no need for more.

Ill buy the new M flagship as long as it checks the boxes and then I'm done for the next decade if this is the choice. Ill wait for the R brand to come down and buy them second hand so Canon can eat it. This is an anti consumer move that limits choice.

It's just wrong to compare to RP with a 50mm f/1.2. That's the most expensive 50mm and obviously will be a much cheaper variant very soon.
In a few months we will probably have an 50mm 1.8. Until then you can adapt the EF variant for less than $100.

The bigger problem is that cheap FF is always slow and lacks features or ergonomics compared to high-end APS-C for the same price.
With the M6 you get uncropped 4K with DPAF and 14fps (30 in crop mode), with the RP you have 4 fps with cropped 4K and unusable contrast AF in video.

Plus lenses is another thing. The 11-22 is 200g while the comparable 16-35 F4 is three times the weight. The RF 35mm 1.8 costs and weights 3 times as much as the 22mm.

 

[Baron_Karza]

Not as small as the M mount, that's true.

I don't see the relevance of your comparison above; one is a slow crop zoom lens, the other is a fast FF lens.

Anyway this conjecture pales into insignificance compared with you nicking private's avatar. What have you done with him and why does he keep laughing at your posts ?

those were the smallest lenses for EF-M and R that goes to 200mm

maybe you can do better (i tried)

 

[scrup]

Canon will give a farewell body like the 1DXiii. There will be an overlap where older M models will still be available simultaneously as the RF mount crop bodies.
Some folks are scared of change, its not really not that bad.
Your old gear will still work stock up on bodies if you are afraid you will outlast the gear.

 

[brad-man]

Not as small as the M mount, that's true.

I don't see the relevance of your comparison above; one is a slow crop zoom lens, the other is a fast FF lens.

Anyway this conjecture pales into insignificance compared with you nicking private's avatar. What have you done with him and why does he keep laughing at your posts ?

I am a bit curious about this as well. The baron must be a friend or family. And then there's private's new avatar...

 

[canonmike]

It would be a strange decision to abandon such a popular system, especially after having introduced the M 6II...
Not convinced M users would rather buy a much bigger APS-C R model.
An EOS 7 DII (future EOS R) user isn't the usual clientele for the M system, and the EOS 90 D no replacement for the M 5 or 50.
Extreme compactness still is THE argument for the M, and, for some, it's disadvantage.
And stupid me was just saving money for the coming "uber M"

Agree with your assessment, Del Paso.....I can throw my M50 and 22mm lens in my pocket, something I can not do with any R or RP series body and lens combo. When pack hiking, I can easily carry an extra lens of my choosing with it. If there ultimately is going to be an R series APSC body, it better be small or I won't be interested. While doing trail maintenance over sev yrs., I have damaged a 7D, a 60D, a 6D and two lenses. Due to size, they are just too difficult to protect on long hikes through rugged terrain. While not a perfect camera, by any means, the M50's small form factor and small lenses are perfect for the trail. If I was to damage my M50 and 22mm EF-M lens, for instance, while hiking, I would not be out a fortune, like I would with the wonderful but painfully expensive RF lenses, attached to an R body. That aside, however, as you say, I carry my M50 because of the small size and love it. I have sev full frame Canon bodies but only use them when size doesn't matter and I just have to have full frame capability.

 

[Quirkz]

Something like the m5/m50 would work, and could be quite compact as an RF-C, but will never be as compact as the little m200 (which I adore), with the 22mm - On the m200, the body is basically the size of the lens mount. It would need to grow 7mm to fit an RF. And again, the 22mm is about the size of the lens mount. It would also need to grow. You just can't get a RF-C as compact as an M.

Maybe canon is selling a lot more m50s/m6s than they are selling m100/200's, and that's driving the decision.

If this happens, I'll just go back to my fuji for my compact setup when I finally need to upgrade/replace - I didn't sell the lenses i had.

( to be fair, I sold my m5 when I got my RP. Practically as compact since the m5 was just a bit too big to be pocketable, with much better quality/features/lenses)

 

[ashmadux]

A replacement using a RP mount makes sense. It can still be a small camera, but it would simplify production to be able to have common components. You might even be able to use FF lenses or APS-C lenses on FF bodies. It never made sense to have two different and non adaptable lens systems.

No this doesnt make sense, as the lenses are generally vastly more expensive and none are even close to being compact. If this is true, they have to have something else in the works. An expensive M body could be interesting for M lovers like myself, but the compromises in build quality and dare i say not enough enthusiast lenses would make it a tough sell.

I would like to get into the RF system eventually but i woudl be forced into adobe cloud system with no alternatives (the competiion is just not there yet for a full dam + editor)..thats at least a year away (probably).

 

[Kit Chan]

I bought an M200 in July as my first camera along with a 55-200mm lens and I love how compact the M line is. The camera and my 2 lenses fit in my handbag easily with room for more. I'm currently planning on getting the 32mm lens and I'll definitely be grabbing a 100-300mm as my 4th lens if the lens rumors are true. I'll likely upgrade to a M6II or M7 when I outgrow the M200 and I can get an EF adapter/Metabones speedbooster (or possible RF equivalent) for higher end lenses when I need them.

I think Canon would be smarter to release an RF adapter than to discontinue the EF M line. It's a great system for newcomers and newcomers need a variety of decent enough lenses to explore the world of photography with before they invest in the bigger gear and an RF adapter will help pave an upgrade path for M owners and keep them in Canon's ecosystem when they move up to high end gear.

I don't believe the majority of EF-M owners will only stick to the kit lens myth. Why would they buy an interchangeable lens camera if they don't want to try different lenses on it? My original plan was to buy a compact camera for casual backyard, food and family pics, but then I became inspired to explore photography more seriously and settled on this M200 instead so I could start my photographer's journey.
I definitely wouldn't own an M200 if all I wanted was casual snaps.