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

[Ditboy]

All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they might be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.

 

[slclick]

A bit harsh there at the end, but your main point is good. I've never bought a camera hoping that five years down the line I'll be able to upgrade it. I suppose if I was to have articulated any hope, it's that the camera will last a long time so I don't have to spend money replacing it. (That being said I probably have more cameras right now than I "need" other than for "want a backup camera" paranoia. But that's not because of upgradeitis; they're all current models other than the M50.)

Harsh? The try again part? I could coddle the poster and ask them to rethink their position but these are big kids here and when they come out with GAS related responses I just have to be frank.

 

[Rocky]

I may have set a record here. I brought my Leica M4 ( with 3 lenses) on 1967. It is being actively used as my main camera and travelled to every continent ( except Anartica) until I go to digital on 2004 and get the EOS 20D. Through out these years the Leica M4 has been trouble free. I used it rain or shine. Never baby it and never abused it.

 

[deleteme]

They will probably give non L options with similar build quality to the RF50mm1.8 or RF35mm 1.8, thing many enthusiast will be happy with something like that at a lower price point.

Why?

They don't now. The "make it up in volume" gambit doesn't work at the extremes.

 

[Chig]

there's no chance in hell that canon will produce a full frame 11-22 or a full frame 15-45mm the same size as the APS-C lenses, nor will they even be competitive against other brand's aps-c lenses.

they already make a pancake full frame EF40mm f/2.8 it weighs 124gm and they make a EF-s 10-18 which weighs 233gm , why not a RF one ?
Are you on Canon's board or something , how do you know what they'll choose to make ?
Canon are the biggest camera company in the world and they will make what they think there's a market for and they can make pretty much anything and at a competitive price

 

[Chig]

All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they might be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.

I'd just keep your excellent M6 mark ii personally as the chances of Fujifilm choosing to make cameras in the future is very uncertain as they are a very small volume camera company and probably will struggle to make any money from their camera division.
I'd only choose Canon or Sony myself as they're the most likely to survive long term and will continue to innovate

 

[Kane Clements]

I'd just keep your excellent M6 mark ii personally as the chances of Fujifilm choosing to make cameras in the future is very uncertain as they are a very small volume camera company and probably will struggle to make any money from their camera division.
I'd only choose Canon or Sony myself as they're the most likely to survive long term and will continue to innovate

Fuji are doing well at the moment. Their medium format range is a success and their crop sensor cameras are doing well.

One of the things giving them advantage in the CF sector is sticking to one very good sensor and processor, reducing R&D and production costs.

They keep to a consistent upgrade cycle and their kit is well made.

The X-T4 is weather sealed, has twin card slots and has a 300,000 shutter count. OK auto focus isn’t quite up to Canon and Sony and they really need to introduce animal eye af. Other than that it is top.

The brand new X-S10 is an absolute peach.

Canon are betting the farm on FF and currently don’t have a decent intro / intermediate path for users to follow.

My bet is Nikon will be next to go, then Panasonic. Although not as big as Canon, Fuji’s numbers in the camera division recently have been pretty healthy compared to the competition.

 

[Kane Clements]

All Canon M series shooters, follow my lead and move to Fujifilm, the only APS-C system that is dedicated to APS-C. Why does Canon think a M owner would move to an RF APS-C camera? Sure they might be able to make a small and light enough body, but then you are still stuck with large expensive glass.

I did earlier this year. Well pleased. I’d suggest that any disgruntled Canon user just goes and takes an open minded look at the Fuji range and Fuji’s road maps past and present. And gets a model or two in hand to see how the ergonomics fit.

Brand loyalty should be a two way street.

 

[riker]

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.

I disagree with almost every sentence. 500/4 on a Rebel?? I don't think so. People who buy 500/4 do not use Rebel. 7D2 maybe, but even that is kind of obsolete now. R5 takes 45MP@20FPS, pretty much kills 7D2 (20MP@10FPS). Even R6 (20MP@20FPS) and R (30MP@8FPS) are competitive.
Sport photographers using all the huge white lenses use 1D series with just 20MP and still often crop a considerable amount. Current and upcoming FF cameras have reached the point where there's no gap to be filled by 7D series. In 2014 the 7D2 made a difference. Today, it (or it's equivalent around 33MP@20FPS) would not.
Also do not forget, APS-C might help on the long end, but has lot's of drawbacks (short end, noise, bokeh, etc.), it has always been a compromise ever since the birth of APS-C. We do not use it because it is good for photography, just for economic considerations.

But I think you didn't get the whole point. When using FF lenses on an APS-C body, you pay for and carry the weight of lenses which were designed to produce images on more than 2.5X(!!) size sensors. And you consider it to be totally OK. Anything but. Purchasing and carrying a line of FF L lenses and then pairing them with some cheap APS-C body which will not even really lighten the overall weight of the setup makes no sense to me. Yes there were times....I did it as well...early 2000s starting with 6MP 60D when there were no FF alternatives. The world has changed at 5D2 and now again at R5.
I think we kind of arrived where APS-C is paired with non-L glass and FF with L glass. Mixing APS-C and L glass is pretty much over. Possible but no point really.
Ah yes, and APS-C body is not even going to be effectively smaller than an RP.

The only thing that could make a huge difference if there were professional-grade APS-C lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500, etc.). That has never happened and never will.

 

[riker]

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.

I believe that's exactly what's happening but it's not even such a secret, it's a well-known fact for years. Compact camera market was completely eaten by smartphones. Period. Smartphone development has not stopped and continues to conquer. M line is not sustainable directly because of this. An iphone outperforms even FF cameras in some aspects.
In my ideal world the solution would be to bring down professional grade IQ/photography to the smallest size possible, producing EF-M L glass like 70-200/2.8, 100-400, etc. but for some reason no brand is doing that (not just Canon). So DSLR is over and the MILC market is going to get thinner every year, while smartphones are getting to be better cameras. That's just how it is for the next 20y. (Already in 2019 for my 2 months travel I only brought 100-400 and 50/1.8 with me, wide angle was iphone. I would bring a FF wide lens if my DSLR/MILC could take panoramas like my iphone.)

 

[-pekr-]

Yep. 7D II owners are the only ones pushing for an APS-c R in the hopes that they will get the same kind of feature bargain they got on their 7DII. The problem is that an R5 with an APS-C sensor (which is what they are looking for) is going to sell for upwards of $2,500 and they won't be too thrilled with that and further, nobody else is going to buy it. I haven't heard one Rebel user say they wanted and APS-c R. Rebel users who wanted mirrorless either bought an M camera or moved to a different vendor.

So you admit that APS-C users might leave for a different brand, yet you seem to disqualify Canon on bringing APS-C R? I am a former Rebel user (350, 400, 450) and the reason why I did not buy into an M system initially was my stubborn nature - no future upgrade path, no tequila, period. I am not going to buy into a system, on which I can't eventually use future RF lens, if the need would arise.

My pov changed a bit by M6II, a really nice camera. Was waiting for the M6III to have IBIS though. I for one really think, that APS-C R is actually the answer and I think for a year or two, that it is an inevitable move on the Canon's side. If Canon goes that route, you can bet that they will introduce APS-C R lens, even if the rumour states otherwise.

I also don't believe to the naysayers, who state that any such camera can't be eventually small enough. Sure, if you are after M100/200, probably not, but for anything like that M5, it can be close enough in the 10-20% of the body mass. Your M5II featuring IBIS might get slight boost in size too ....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon can and likely will make EOS R bodies that are similar in price and construction to APS-C bodies. There are no technical difficulties, just marketing. The additional 4mm larger lens mount and 2mm longer backplane distance are the only things that might make a M sized R larger. Throw in IBIS and it will get thicker, but so would a M with IBIS.

It makes economic sense to standardize on one lens mount, both for Canon and for users. With the market shrinking, expect some brands to either go away, or become rebranded cameras mass produced by someone else. Once sales drop to a certain point, a company can't keep losing money.

I can certainly see value in a common lens mount which allows users to own tiny M sized bodies, 7D sized APS-C bodies, Rebel bodies, and have all of the lenses interchangeable with R compatible mounts. If that happens, I expect to eventually see APS-C lenses with a R mount due to price considerations. A APS-C lens could have a distinctly colored ring, maybe gold or brown so they were easily distinguished. The mount on the body could have a similar color but not necessary. Something would need to happen so that those who bought entry level APS-C bodies were not confused as to which lenses they needed, or those who went for a entry level full frame did not buy APS-c due to price and then discover the mistake. Maybe APS-C RF lenses would not be a good idea.

Do some current full frame buyers purchase the wrong Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses intended for APS-C? I suspect they do. They might not even realize the error if the lens sort of covered the entire frame. Some of them do.

 

[allanP]

I did earlier this year. Well pleased. I’d suggest that any disgruntled Canon user just goes and takes an open minded look at the Fuji range and Fuji’s road maps past and present. And gets a model or two in hand to see how the ergonomics fit.
Brand loyalty should be a two way street.

It's not as easy as you want to show it. The main advantage of the M series (for me) is portability.
Small body with good advanced functions, small and good optics (mostly not very bright, but still very useful).
For example, when I look at Fuji, I see
XF16-55mm with 655g and ø83.3mm x 106.0mm for about $ 950
vs EF-M 15-45 IS STM with 130g ø60.9mm x 44.5mm for $ 275
or
XF55-200mmF3.5-4.8 R LM OIS 580g and 118mm for $ 640
vs. EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM 260g and 86mm for $ 250

Fuji is not bad, no question about it, but whether with the R system or with Fuji, I lose the main advantage - small size and weight. The prices are also not comparable.
It's a good system, but not an alternative. Bigger, heavier, more expensive. So I can go straight to RF, which is more future-proof than Fuji.
What I would like to get from M-System is a newer alternative for my M5 that already has 120,000 on the counter.

 

[eat-sleep-code]

I would love to see an EOS M200 form factor -- understanding it would need to be a few millimeters taller to fit the RF lens. I would want to see it with flip out (instead of the M200's flip up) and a flush hot shoe, like the M6.

This would fit nicely into a camera bag as a secondary camera to pair well with an R5.

 

[AJ]

I think Canon will discontinue the M lineup if and only if they release some dedicated R-mount lenses for APSC. You'd have a lightweight mirrorless APSC body, plus some lenses such as 15-45 in R mount. This should result in a small, lightweight and affordable setup perfect for travel and such.

I think there is no way Canon will release an R-mount APSC body and expect people to buy full-frame R-mount ultrawides as normal lenses. Been there done that with the drebels in 2004 or thereabouts. A lot of people were buying 17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8L back then to mount on their 20Ds out of sheer necessity.

In all, I think porting the eos-m line to r mount could work out well for Canon and for Canon shooters. It'll provide a lightweight affordable setup similar to what M is now, plus the ability to use full-frame R-mount lenses without adapters. This would combine the best of M and EF-S.

 

[reefroamer]

I love my M cameras and tiny lenses , but even I can see that Canon is betting it’s photography business on the R lineup. Time will tell if that’s the right call, but ....

What is the profit of an R body v an M body? For RF lenses v M lenses? Canon can’t make the R5 fast enough, nor some of the expensive RF lenses, as indicated by back orders and delays. And people, on this forum and elsewhere, are clamoring for more R bodies and new lenses including more affordable and compact glass. If I’m Canon, with limited resources, I clear out the M production lines/factory space and start cranking out more profitable R products as fast as I can, not because M isn’t successful now but because the R is much more profitable for the future. Adding new factory space in a shrinking market for ILC products probably doesn’t make good business sense. Canon has stated its intention to lead the full-frame mirrorless ILC market. They clearly see that as the most important goal. They also understand, I think, that smartphone cameras are wildly popular and getting better with each generation. Of course, there are M fans but the question for Canon is, how many? And for how long? If they choose to let the M die off, I’m sure that decision will be based on data and Forecasts based on their research. Customers who are furious at the abandonment of the M can surely buy from competitors. But if Canon is right, those customers will eventually face the same dilemma elsewhere.

 

[Annabelle2021]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. An aps-c body (or bodies) will be good for the R line. It worked for the DSLR line. Not everybody is a landscape or portrait shooter. Some also do wildlife and macros and having a dedicated crop sensor body is way better than using the crop mode on a full frame body. The popularity of the EOS 7Dii with professional sports and wildlife photographers is proof of that. It would also be good to be able to use some of the full frame RF lenses on an APS-C R body . You can't do that with the M line. Regarding EF-S R lenses to suit, there are plenty of Ef-s lenses out there already and they all work brilliantly with an adapter. Even better than on a DSLR. No need to make more. It's a shame about the M range users but they will still be able to enjoy their existing gear. Just because the line becomes extinct doesn't mean they have to throw away their M kits. Obviously Canon are going to make gear that is profitable for them globally , not just to suit a small percentage of their customer base. I'm not jumping ship. Canon are still the best IMO.

 

[Czardoom]

....
I think we kind of arrived where APS-C is paired with non-L glass and FF with L glass. Mixing APS-C and L glass is pretty much over. Possible but no point really.

I guess you missed all the threads and all the posts from APS-C birders and wildlife shooters who do indeede use "L" glass on the crop bodies and hope to do so with the rumored "R7". I am neither a birder or wildlife shooter, but if Canon does release a crop R body, I will be getting a used 70-300 L as my telephoto setup. The point is that such a crop camema will be cheaper than the R5 and have far more pixels than the R5 in crop mode.

 

[Czardoom]

For all those complaining about Canon...and condemning Canon...and leaving Canon for Fuji...

This is only a rumor.
This is only a rumor.
This is only a rumor.

 

[RMac]

As someone who has climbed 14,000 foot mountains with a 7D and full-frame zooms and with an M5 with a set of aps-c lenses, I hugely appreciate the low weight and compactness of the M system.

One comparison I'd like to see is the RP with the RF 50mm f1.8 vs the M6ii with the EF-M 32mm f1.4. They frame about the same with similar DoF and have a similar total price. Which is lighter, which one is more compact, which one is sharper? I'd wager the M system would win in all of these. The RF would probably win at low light, though.