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

[-pekr-]

I don't really understand, what is all the fuss about. Anyone not predicting APS-C R would come, should just answer one simple question - what would you offer to the 7DII crowd, which needs both the reach and a sub 2K camera? Crop mode on the FF might be a solution, but I can't imagine Canon ever producing an M7 camera, big, with 7DII ergonomics.

That would be just completly insane - would contradict M's purpose of being small and compact, but first and foremost - there is zero, nilch, nada transition between the M and R lines, period. And that is precisely where I am upset at Canon. If you think that M can live isolated, so be it. Then it's just a bit better Powershot and that's it. EF is a dead end in the long run too. Why would anyone buy a dead-end format 2K camera?

Anyone claiming that a transition path is an overrated argument, is wrong imo. Why I could not buy an FF lens? While we used Tamron 17-50/2.8 for our APS-C DSLRs, for the tele we went with the L line 70-200/2.8 IS II. Should we use 18-150mm on the M instead? So, for the future, unified lens mount is a good thing imo and I believe Canon can make APS-C R small enough, to still be small and attractive. I also don't believe, that APS-C R lens are not coming.

 

[Antono Refa]

I don't really understand, what is all the fuss about. ... <snipped for brevity>

Wish there was a two hands like icon.

 

[degos]

In many cases your lens gives you enough reach and you could end up with a 45MP image. In other cases you only need to crop a bit, 5-10-20% of the image which still results a 32+MP image.

For birds and airshows, a lens NEVER gives enough reach if you're trying to be creative. Even 1200mm often falls short.

 

[espressino]

Full-frame crowd: „full-frame sensors have a 2.3 times larger surface than APS-C sensors. That’s such a huge difference, accounting for why APS-C images are always shitty. APS-C is dead. There’s only full-frame or mobile phones now. Mobile phones are awesome. Their image quality these days rivals full frame.” Incidentally, an APS-C sensor is still 13 times larger than a mobile phone sensor. A USD 900 phone from 2017 is deemed obsolete today. A USD 900 camera is still fine. Ever heard of a good compromise (in terms of price, size, weight) that works for some (not all)?
Incidentally, medium format sensors are 2.5 times larger than full-frame. Full-frame is dead. It’s a contracting market. Just use your medium format lenses on your precious EOS R and stuff it.

 

[photonius]

Sure. But how do you replace the very budget oriented kits like the 1000D and M100 + EF-S 10-18 mm IS STM / 55-250 mm IS STM without producing APS-C specific lenses?

What about the ultra tiny ones like the M200? That body is practically as tall as the EF-M lens mount. With an RF mount and lens, that design simply doesn't seem feasible.

So the role of APS-C seems to either shift to reach and speed optimized bodies like the 7 series, or price regions that you can't reach with a FF sensor (sub 500?). Without dedicated lenses, there is only a little cost savings in the body and 0 size and weight savings, unless we are specifically talking reach limited setups. To me that justifies saying that the role of APS-C in the future is different from what it was in the past.

Indeed, how to make a small camera with the RF mount. Actually, the M200 is small because of the missing viewfinder on top. The height is 67mm according to specs. The RF indexer (edit: = inner) diameter is the same as the EF mount. The outer diameter on EF cameras is 65mm. So, it should be possible to make a similar small body with an APS-C sensor with an RF mount, perhaps just a few mm higher. As to the lenses, the very same lenses could be modified to fit on such an RF body. If Canon will do it is another question.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Indeed, how to make a small camera with the RF mount. Actually, the M200 is small because of the missing viewfinder on top. The height is 67mm according to specs. The RF indexer diameter is the same as the EF mount. The outer diameter on EF cameras is 65mm. So, it should be possible to make a similar small body with an APS-C sensor with an RF mount, perhaps just a few mm higher. As to the lenses, the very same lenses could be modified to fit on such an RF body. If Canon will do it is another question.

It would have to be thicker as well.
If Canon can make a smaller RF mount APS-C camera then they can make a full-frame camera the exact same size since the sensor is smaller than the mount.

 

[photonius]

It would have to be thicker as well.
If Canon can make a smaller RF mount APS-C camera then they can make a full-frame camera the exact same size since the sensor is smaller than the mount.

Yes, the mount distance is 2mm thicker, so it would also be a bit thicker. Yes, a FF sensor could be packed in there as well. However, if one wants a cheap entry level camera, it would have to be APS-C (still cheaper than FF), with the kit lenses. And such a body would have fewer buttons and features (which take space on the body), something that people who go for a FF sensor would probably not be happy with.

 

[Dragon]

My favorite thing about mirrorless is the ability to adapt legacy lenses and pretty much all of them can adapt EF.
I use a G9 for that purpose.
After using the R5 I wish Canon would make an MFT camera.
APS-C does not have the reach.
I wish Canon would make a 1-inch EF-M mount camera with IBIS.
I think the 1-inch ILC from Nikon and Samsung failed because they tried to introduce new mounts.

The M6 II has the same reach as your G9 and so will the R5s.

 

[Woody]

I would like to continue using my EF-M lens collection for as long as possible because with the original EOS-M or EOS-M6 MK2 (instead of the awful M6), they give me joy of photography. I'm not interested enough by the current innovations of the R system. Selling everything and starting a new camera and lens collection is not my focus right now. It just costs too much time and effort and many items are not even readily available to buy.

I totally agree with you about the appeal of the EOS-M series: performance, size and weight are superb.

My collection of lenses is as follows:

01 Rokinon EF-M 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II MF 290g Excellent for travel
02 Laowa EF-M 9mm f/2.8 MF 215g Excellent for travel
03 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM 105g Excellent for travel
04 Viltrox EF-M 23mm f/1.4 STM 260g
05 Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM 235g Excellent for travel
06 Viltrox EF-M 56mm f/1.4 STM 290g Excellent for travel
07 Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro 190g Excellent for travel
08 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro 625g
09 Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM 240g Excellent for travel
10 Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 130g Excellent for travel
11 Tamron EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 AF 430g
12 Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 215g
13 Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 300g
14 Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 375g Excellent for travel

With the new RF mount, It will take quite a bit of time and money to replicate the above. Should Canon choose to end the EOS-M line officially (not through some lousy rumors), I will get a M6 Mark II or M50 Mark II and stay with the M system for many more years.

 

[Dragon]

In your opinion, is this a temporary state of affairs, or permanent?

The body situation may be temporary, but only Nikon and to some degree Sony have the desired glass and that won't change any time soon.


As others have noted, its not just the body. The EF 300mm f/2.8 costs $6,099, while the EF 500mm f/4 costs $8,999.

You are fixating on reach, but the R5s will have the same reach as M 4/3. It is about pixel density, not sensor size.


Yes, it would. Question is whether the 7D's target audience would be happy with it (I gather they'd like the 90D's 32MP sensor), and what the competition would have to offer. Currently, Nikon's only DX MILC is 20MP, but that might change.

The R5s will have similar reach to the 90D. The Nikon Z50 doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, so hard to tell if they will spend any more development money on APS-c, but the odds are against it. Always keep in mind that the market is still shrinking.

 

[PerKr]

Well, there will be no RF-S lenses in the sense that there will be no RF lenses that can only be mounted on APS-C bodies. That was the whole thing with EF-S; making sure they could not be mounted on a body where the flapping mirror would be obstructed. With the RF mount there is no mirror to obstruct and the distance from the mount to the shutter is (relatively) constant. That is not the same as saying there will never be RF lenses that will only produce an APS-C image circle. There will be, if it makes sense, just as there will be slower lenses if it makes sense.

Of course EF-M is a mount destined to be discontinued. Maintaining two incompatible but overlapping mounts aimed at very similar customers is not an option, especially not in a shrinking market. This is why EF-mount will die. This is why F-mount will die. This is why A-mount will die. Fuji have two mounts but they're distinctly different with no overlap.

A low-end RF-mount APS-C camera will come with a suitably low-cost kit lens. Other than that, there never seems to have been a lot of demand for APS-C specific lenses from canon customers. There is a reason Sony haven't paid that much attention to APS-C either. And most photographers clearly didn't care about their systems being compact anyway as they preferred Sony's A7-series (with bodies being somewhat smaller than most DSLRs but lenses being larger than their DSLR counterparts) over the µ4/3 alternatives. Those who actually want a compact system seem to be in a minority vs those who want the very best image quality.

 

[dolina]

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 of this posting #23 Best Sellers in DSLR Cameras on Amazon is the Canon EOS M200

These are the price points that APS-C R bodies must match that M Series bodies already occupies.

• $599 of the Rebel SL3 aka 250D aka 200D II lines up with the M50 Mark II
• $749 of the Rebel T8i aka 850D
• $1199 of the 90D

$849 M6 Mark II slots in between the T8i and 90D.

 

[Antono Refa]

The R5s will have similar reach to the 90D. The Nikon Z50 doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, so hard to tell if they will spend any more development money on APS-c, but the odds are against it. Always keep in mind that the market is still shrinking.

Last I've heard, the R5s was a rumor.

 

[KristinnKr]

I absolutely disagree that EF-M is 'destined to die'. Saying there is necessarily large overlap between the consumer base of EF-M and RF is ludicrous once you take into account the difference in cost between the two systems. The newest EF-M cameras cost 600 and 850 dollars. The newest RF cameras cost 2500 and 3900 dollars! Where talking a roughly 4x difference, that's just two different worlds! The difference in lens costs are a bit smaller, but still at least 2x.

Sure, there is a huge performance difference between the two systems, the difference in cost is not without motivation, but that's the whole point. They are two parallel product systems, catering to two different groups with different needs and spending ability. Some customers might even own both, as the cheaper EF-M system is also much more compact (which an APS-C RF camera wouldn't match without a corresponding selection of APS-C RF lenses). Discontinuing EF-M is a pointless exercise which would not increase sales of RF products, only leave Canon with less sales and consumers that desire a small and cheap ILC system with less choice.

 

[Antono Refa]

I absolutely disagree that EF-M is 'destined to die'. Saying there is necessarily large overlap between the consumer base of EF-M and RF is ludicrous once you take into account the difference in cost between the two systems. The newest EF-M cameras cost 600 and 850 dollars. The newest RF cameras cost 2500 and 3900 dollars!

Did you look at the EF line the same way, saying all the cameras in it target one audience right after a four digits model was announced, then a different audience after a 1DX was announced?

They are two parallel product systems, catering to two different groups with different needs and spending ability.

You can say the same thing about EOS 3 & 4 digits models vs. single digit models.

Discontinuing EF-M is a pointless exercise which would not increase sales of RF products, only leave Canon with less sales and consumers that desire a small and cheap ILC system with less choice.

No, I don't think EOS-M customers would buy more expensive RF equipment. I think that, if true, this would have other things in mind, e.g. sharing parts and software, and putting the 7D replacement in a more convenient position. The transition would also take time.

 

[vxcalais]

What an excellent way to surrender the market to smartphones. They are pricing out a whole market with R lens prices. This is why I love shooting film, you have all the bodies that will ever be made. And lucky I kept my Sony stuff. I will enjoy the M6ii as my first and last Canon.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The M6 II has the same reach as your G9

True. 20MP MFT = 31.25MP APS-C.

and so will the R5s.

That same pixel density will require an 80MP FF sensor.

Maybe the R5s will have that. But if it’s anything like the 5Ds when it came out, high resolution will be its only advantage. Everything else about it will be at least a generation behind. And it will cost $6000.

Is that really the best upgrade path you can think of for 90D and EOS-M users?

 

[derekbez]

"...only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens."

Not sure about that. I would quite like an APS-C sized 600mm lens - smaller and lighter big tele / zoom.

Imagine, for example, the Sigma 150-600, but physically scaled down so it only works with APS-C, making it smaller and lighter. That would be really nice for travelling - or long hikes - where big "pro" gear isn't necessary.

 

[Bob Howland]

"...only lenses APS-C shooters will likely require is a walk around kit zoom and a wide-angle lens."

Not sure about that. I would quite like an APS-C sized 600mm lens - smaller and lighter big tele / zoom.

Imagine, for example, the Sigma 150-600, but physically scaled down so it only works with APS-C, making it smaller and lighter. That would be really nice for travelling - or long hikes - where big "pro" gear isn't necessary.

The size and weight of long telephoto lenses is dominated by the size and weight of their front elements. A 150-600 f/5-6.3 APS-C lens would have the same front element as that range for FF. Or were you referring to a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens?

 

[ctk]

How successful has the Nikon Z50 been, especially since the Z5 came out? After trying the Z50 out it seemed like a nice camera but awkwardly placed on that mount with no ibis and only two kit lenses meant for it (plus a slow all-in-one lens planned).

Nikon and Canon always seemed to be in lock-step for better or worse so I wouldn't be shocked if Canon ends up copying Nikon's Z50 move. If they drop EF-M then I'd wonder if it's more pride than anything else with how popular it has been lately counter to the amount of effort they've put into the system. Kinda reminds me of Sega's gaming console business where the main company undermined the success of the American branch, lol.

I recommend the M100/M200 and M50 cameras quite a bit to people because they have a good price to performance ratio. Most of the people are looking at digicams with tiny sensors because they don't understand the differences. The M200 is a great small low cost camera (kinda irritated they kept out 24p video).

I do think the RP is eating into the potential market placement of the M5/M6 EF-M cameras, which is probably why we haven't seen a replacement for the M5 (yet). I think they did that experiment to see how many people would move from EF-M or EF-S with a lower cost entry point.

My main camera system right now is EF-M, so I'd be pretty jaded against Canon if they drop development of these cameras. It's especially irritating because 3rd party lens makers finally started releasing lenses in the mount.

Did EF-S really have that great of support from Canon over the years? I was with Nikon and Pentax before so I didn't follow Canon at the time. It seems odd to me they'd bother tacking APS-C onto RF given they have a dedicated APS-C system that works. APS-C EF-S lenses won't work with EF cameras anyways, right? It's basically the same situation with EF-M to RF. Maybe they can't charge APS-C Fujifilm prices for their EF-M stuff, but I do wonder how profitable EF-M is for them.

Based on 16-50 lens serial numbers Nikon has sold about 80-90K Z50s over the last... 2 years? Compared to the millions of crop bodies they sold during the good times... it's not encouraging.

And I don't think EF-S was as well supported as EF-M, especially when you factor 3rd party glass into the equation. Initially when there was no consumer FF body Canikon kind of prioritized APS-C, but once the 5D/D700 came out crop was instantly relegated to support status. The decades of momentum behind FF was just too much for crop to overcome, and consumers spoke with their wallets.