It looks like 2021 will be the last year for the EOS M lineup [CR2]

[Antono Refa]

Truly upsetting if this is what Canon is doing. I just don't understand the marketing decision though seeing as no RF mount camera will ever be as small or as low of cost as an M200 for an entry level camera.

It would have to be a little bigger - 2mm deeper, and 7mm in height & width.IMHO, not a big deal.

As for price, I disagree. Why would a crop RF camera be more expensive than an EOS-M camera? The extra aluminium needed to make the camera body? The price of electronics needed to handle the extra pins, already implemented in several other cameras?

Assuming this rumour is true, question is what Canon would do in regard to lenses. Canon could use the same optical formulas, design new housing that moves the lenses 2mm deeper behind the mount, and keep the price similar. The real problem is upgrading lenses - customers would not only have to buy all new lenses, but their EOS-M lenses would lose in resale value due to the mount becoming obsolete. They might not upgrade, or switch to a competitor in a shrinking market. Not a win for Canon.

 

[grantmasterflash]

The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition

As will all of us customers.

 

[Antono Refa]

It's not as bad as it seems:

View attachment 194892
Left: M50II + EFM 32 f/1.4 ($699 + $479 = $1178) | Right: RP + RF 50 f/1.8 ($999 + $199 = $1198) (recent RP refurbished deal was at $687)

Look carefully at the above and tell me if the size and price differences are worth dedicating an entire system for.

The EF-M 11-24mm is priced $399. IIRC, the RF 15-35mm is five or six times that.

 

[45snegri]

A batch of different thoughts beyond what has been discussed before. First some background, so it's clear where I am coming from. In my (not entirely) misspent youth I worked as a financial analyst. Further back (in my even less misspent youth) I was trained as a mechanical engineer. More than forty years ago I escaped and became a photographer. In my past there were Canon FL and FD mount cameras and lenses as well as five Leica M mount cameras (the Leica CL film cameras brought me my only claim to fame as a photo journalist.) There are also reports that some 'Blads are taking up too much closet space.

In 2003 I bought the original Digital Rebel, and kept upgrading them, living off them until 2012 when the 5D III brought me into FF digital. Since then I have acquired 5DsR, 5D IV, and a batch of Sigma Art lenses, mostly the f/1.4 ones. I also have twelve whites and six other Ls, many from my EOS film days. But as old age started creeping up on me it became clear that a smaller carry around system might be beneficial. So I looked at the (Oh horror!) Sony NEX series. Attractive, but building out a whole new system, not so attractive. Solution, the Rebel SL 1, later upgraded to 2 and 3. And I started to keep an eye on the M system. When the M5 was introduced I bought it (real photographers use viewfinders!) and a batch of EF-M lenses. And that is where I am at today. When a job happens to come along I go FF. But whenever I leave the house the M5 comes with me. And finally, when the rumored R5s comes along I will enter the R world.

First some technical observations:
- It seems highly unlikely that an EF-M to RF mount adapter can be created.
- An R series body with interchangeable lens mounts is technically feasible.
- Sigma FF Art lenses come with mounts for five different camera systems. If you look closely at the lenses you will see that the shiny black rear part of the lens differs from mount to mount while the matte black front of the lens stays the same even though the various systems have different communication protocols. Thus there is no reason Canon cannot inexpensively make APS-C lenses in both EF-M and RF mount.

Then some commercial observations:
- Sigma decided that the ML APS-C and M4/3 market had room for their Contemporary f/1.4 trio which was introduced in Fuji, Sony, and M4/3 mounts. Shortly after these lenses became available in EF-M mount they became backordered. And shortly after that they became backordered in ALL mounts, a situation that persisted for months.
- Canon's M system is selling quite well in many parts of the world.

And some speculations:
- While the profit per M camera likely is much lower than per R unit, it is still profit, and the unit volume is MUCH higher. This leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that Canon will abandon the M system.
- I infer that Sigma thought there was a market for high quality EF-M primes. The earlier lengthy backorder situation leads me to conclude that the demand was significantly higher than Sigma estimated. From this I believe that while some M buyers indeed saw the low end bodies with kit zooms as an inexpensive upgrade from a smartphone, there are customers (like me) who see M5 and M6 as the core of a new small and lightweight system that can generate very high quality images. It takes a sharp eye indeed to see the difference between a 5D III/EF 85/1.4L and an M5/Sigma 56/1.4 photo. Viltrox has three f/1.4 AF lenses in EF-M mount. So it seems like players in the photo marketplace have more faith in the M system than a lot of the posters in this thread.
- It seems difficult to believe that there will not be an M5 Mk. II. And Canon may also see that if third parties can sell good primes for the M system, they may want to take a bite out of that market. The 32mm f/1.4 shows that they do that very, very well. Go Canon!

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Colour me surprised said no one ver. Only the delusional thought this line would continue long term.

Good riddance to a system even Canon didn't care about.

 

[Antono Refa]

I fail to see the point in remaking the same cameras and same lenses on a different mount.

IMHO, it could have two benefits. First, it could offer RF crop lens owners an upgrade path to RF FF bodies. Currently, EOS-M owners who want to upgrade to FF have to replace all their lenses, which means they might as well buy into another brand. That's not a winning strategy, especially with a shrinking market. Second, Canon could make a smaller variety of parts, e.g. mount rings on the camera side.

 

[mb66energy]

It does, just because of the complete lack of lens announcements.

Or Canon has decided to sell bodies for EF-M, some usable zooms and some great primes - there are lots of options on the market now.
EDIT: Just checked: Viltrox is the company which has created interesting f/1.4 primes @ 23 / 35 / 56 mm with f-stop ring (!) which has f-settings + an "A" position.
Only a 15mm (or similar) option is missing ... for me, because I have 22 and 32 + the EF-S 60 Macro.

 

[espressino]

This makes some sense, as the only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens.

So tired of being told what the supposed needs of those inferior APS-C shooters are, and speculations on what they are or aren't using. The EF-S 35mm 2.8 Macro IS STM, for example, is a fantastic lens, and perfectly adapted to APS-C cameras, and at a price that's adequate for non-professional shooters. The reason I haven't bought any new Canon lenses since 2018 is because they haven't issued anything similarly exciting for EF-S. I was looking forward to eventually replacing my 77D with the eventual successor of the M6 II. In the meantime, I'll enjoy using the gear I have. But a few years down the line -- I'm not saying that Canon is doomed, just that a different system might better suit my needs. Which is a shame, because it appears that those hating the loudest on the M system have never really used it, and Canon gets so much hate from the review crowd while doing an awful lot of things right (hello there, perfect touch screen implementation, DPAF, menu system) while having a few annoying kinks (hello there, arbitrary limitations and sometimes lack of customisation).

 

[degos]

Canon is putting a ton of money into market research. They know what's going better than any of us here.

Really? Have you ever been surveyed by Canon? In 32 years of shooting with their kit I haven't had a single survey, nor have any pro or amateur photographers I know.

Canon subscribe more to the traditional "here is the product, no alternative, buy it" philosophy. Which is why the likes of Tamron and Sigma have flourished.

 

[riker]

Proper APS-C lens lineup never exited.
Not EF-M, not EF-S. Thus APS-C system has always been seriously flawed. Simple reason is, it would be too much competition to FF.
Very sad story, decades go by and we still do not have a complete system for travel - small/lightweight but high image quality and wide focal lens coverage.

Seems like we just need to wait for mobile phones to somehow cover tele focal range, they are already better in many aspects.

 

[Etienne]

Continue reading...

I bought into the M system because of the great little lenses, only to wait years for a well-done body, and then they pull the rug out.
Well Canon, you suckered me good... for the last time.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The biggest problem with an RF mount APS-C camera is the size. It can never be as small as an M100 for example.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Proper APS-C lens lineup never exited.
Not EF-M, not EF-S. Thus APS-C system has always been seriously flawed. Simple reason is, it would be too much competition to FF.
Very sad story, decades go by and we still do not have a complete system for travel - small/lightweight but high image quality and wide focal lens coverage.

Seems like we just need to wait for mobile phones to somehow cover tele focal range, they are already better in many aspects.

But at least you could use the same 100-400 or 100mm macro or even the 500 F4 if you wanted on a 7D or a Rebel, because IQ was good enough. And many just did that. The 7D with the EF 100-400 was one of the most popular combos.
Not possible with the M mount and making a $2000 M mount camera for $200 plastic lenses is not a solution.

For an APS-C RF camera you will automatically have 15+ RF already working natively. All Canon needs 4-5 APS-C specific lenses, like a standard zoom, wide angle and a few small primes.

 

[bradcast46]

I'm not too surprised, given the lack of energy by Canon for the EF-M mount. They generally considered it an extension of the PowerShot lineup for beginners and amateurs (despite EOS Utility interface). With the EF mount, there is always a cost-of-entry issue transitioning people from Rebels and xxDs with EF-S lenses to full frame, once they decide to get more serious. This is a chance for Canon to solve this problem. Since the dual pixel 2 is capable of focusing at insanely small apertures, then full frame lenses designed with small max. apertures can be as compact as dedicated APS-C lenses. Not only that, but full frame lenses on an APS-C body would allow accurate phase detection to the edges of the sensor, using the larger lens image circle (even if the image isn't formed by this light). So, I expect compact kit type full frame RF lenses will become the new APS-C stand-in lenses.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

Colour me surprised said no one ver. Only the delusional thought this line would continue long term.

Good riddance to a system even Canon didn't care about.

Wrong on so many levels . If Canon didn't care about it, they wouldn't be keeping it going up until this point. And seeing as it's been an incredibly popular camera line in many markets shows that it was developed and marketed properly. Yes, it did have a big misstep when first launched in 2012 with the EOS M. The EOS M2 that was only sold in Asian markets really should have been the first EOS M (slightly smaller body, addition of WiFi, roughly 4 times faster contrast + phase detect focusing then the first batches of EOS M's). But here we are today with the powerful M6 Mark II, very popular M50 Mark I/II, a great entry level M200, a small but good overall set of Canon lenses, and a growing 3rd party EF-M mount lenses. Call people delusional all you want as no matter how much you do, that won't make you right . And lets be honest, it's not like we're all talking about the failed Nikon 1 camera system.

 

[tomsop]

6 pages of speculation- who cares. I find Canon Rumors to be of very limited value - this guy has lousy sources and when news breaks it is usually within a week or so of an announcement. IF The M system is so big in Asia - don’t they have a stronger voice to get real answers from Canon. I am beyond frustrated with a company that wants my money but shares no vision of the road ahead in our relationship and the rest of us M users are treated like dirt by these executives. If The M is dead and there is no way to port my glass to whatever new body they make I will no longer buy Canon. The truth is that the M barely outperforms an Apple IPhone which is why we are begging for IBIS and better glass as well as decent 4K. I rather just get a new IPhone then lug around a big camera. Many people do not have cameras beacause of the IPhone - the future really lies in mini sized bodies which Is we we all felt we were on the cutting edge when we got the M because it was really good 8 years ago relative to the iPhone. The gap has closed and now we see Canon can’t compete so they retreat to their bigger sized tech and charge more money because they have lost to the iPhone. My next camera will be the Iphone 13 if Canon does not release a new M or a camera that accepts my M lenses.

 

[solovetski]

For sceptics who are assume that supporting two different mounts its unprofitable strategy for camera manufacturers. Just one word - Panasonic. Two mounts which are absolutely incompatible - L and MFT. Both very popular among camera users. And Pany officials maintain that company don't have a plans to kill its MFT lineup.

And one more remark about crop RF lenses. Today we have at least one crop RF mount lens - Venus Laowa 9mm T/2.9 (for Super 35 sensors). And yes, it's cinema lens and fully manual of course. But I'm waiting for a lot of crop RF lenses (with AF) from Sigma, Samyang,Tamron, Tokina and Viltrox with Meike also.

 

[hoodlum]

The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition

They likely make very little profit from the EOS M line. It doesn't matter the volume if the profit is not there.

 

[josephandrews222]

They likely make very little profit from the EOS M line. It doesn't matter the volume if the profit is not there.

A phrase that has been in vogue for the past four years or so applies to your post: “Fake News”

Check the selling price for the EOS M6 Mark II...it is not cheap and more than a year after its release hasn’t really been discounted all that much.

Your point was valid years ago when Canon dumped its stock of original Ms into the marketplace...at ridiculously low prices.

But not now.

 

[ctk]

This makes no sense. They don't even have to invest much in it. The 32.5MP sensor is fine. All they need is a flagship body and a decent 15-xx zoom. EF-M is actually pretty solid lens wise- good UWA, good tele zooms, tons of great primes now with 3rd party stuff. I said before and I'll say it again- I'd happily leave the R system if EF-M could fill in the gaps. What a shame.