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

Jul 30, 2010
1,060
130
I don't like the idea! There is no way to achieve the M line form-factor with the RF mount! This will be giving up against Fuji APSC line.
Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,573
4,109
The Netherlands
Dimension of RP: 5.2"X3.3"X2.8", Dimension of M5: 4.6"X3.5"X2.4". The RP actually is not as tall as the M5. The thicker dimension is due to the bigger grip.

Now compare it to the M1, M2, M10, M100 and M200. That's the formfactor which started me on the M system. I feel that while my M6II is small, it isn't small enough. During summer I put the M1+22mm in a coat pocket when going out, the M6II is too bulky for that. Right now in winter that isn't an issue, I think the chest pocket in my parka could fit an R5+50mm STM :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,573
4,109
The Netherlands
It is a well know fact that the RF lenses are MUCH bigger and a lot more expensive than the EF-M. No need to keep on mentioning it.

The RF50 f/1.8 is a step in the right direction, it's half the price of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and roughly the same size. Not so much with the RF35 and EF-M 22mm.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 12, 2010
169
172
The RF series cannot replace the EF-M. The smaller mount for EF-M allows for a small form factor of the combined camera + lens combination that an APS-C RF camera cannot match (the lens mount is larger which forces the lens to be bigger.)

The EF-M is in a unique position. The combination of the camera and small lenses has no competition in the current marketplace. Neither Fuji nor Nikon can come close to the price point and friendliness of a EF-M camera plus 11-22 for a small street walk around camera for travel. Or when we used to be able to travel.

Yes, some EF-M users will migrate to RF, but even the smallest EF-S zoom lenses are bigger than their equivalent EF-M lenses.

It might be a win for Canon to reduce the complexity of its manufacturing but it is not a win for consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
The RF50 f/1.8 is a step in the right direction, it's half the price of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and roughly the same size. Not so much with the RF35 and EF-M 22mm.

hmmm no. The RF 50/1.8 is just not in the same league optically. The RF is barely an upgrade over the EF 50 stm (see TDP review).
So you can't make an RF 1.4 lens, tack sharp wide open, as compact and for 500 bucks.
The whole point for the good EF-M lenses is bang for bucks, with compactness on top. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the market to the 11-22, the 22, the 32 and even the 23mm. Comparable lenses are bigger or more expensive or less sharp.
Take the sigma 30 1.4 for exemple : cheaper, yes, but bigger and and not as good optically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
The whole point for the good EF-M lenses is bang for bucks, with compactness on top. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the market
In the end, on a new low-volume market, makers are looking for high-marging segments. EF-M can't be high margin. Like EF-S before it. And that's surely why it see no much love from Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
It doesn't work that way. Sigma has the ability to leverage a line across multiple mounts, so they have an inherent volume advantage over camera brands. Sigma can make one lens for Sony, Canon and M43 but each of those brands are restricted to their systems.

If anything this 1st party body + 3rd party lens relationship is the only way EF-M will continue to get lens development, which is fine by me. Sigma makes great glass.
This is a big reason that I think the L-mount alliance was bad for Panasonic.
I never really saw the point of partnering up with a lens manufacturer who is going to end up making the same lenses for every other mount.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
Now compare it to the M1, M2, M10, M100 and M200. That's the formfactor which started me on the M system. I feel that while my M6II is small, it isn't small enough. During summer I put the M1+22mm in a coat pocket when going out, the M6II is too bulky for that. Right now in winter that isn't an issue, I think the chest pocket in my parka could fit an R5+50mm STM :)
I would really like Canon to combine M6II and M50 to make the perfect pocket camera.
No built-in EVF and a fully articulating screen would protect from scratches and dust.
Canon could do the same with M200 for a smaller version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
If they could somehow come up with a way to make existing M lenses compatible with a future RF crop body all of the M users would have an option to upgrade without losing there portable lenses and possibly changing brands. I know the M mount is 2mm less depth then RF but would it actually be impossible to make an adapter? I understand that this adapter would have to go 2mm inside the RF mount but maybe there is another way? Even if this adapter only maintained compatibility with RF crop sensor bodys that would be ok.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

jolyonralph

Game Boy Camera
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
944
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
If they could somehow come up with a way to make existing M lenses compatible with a future RF crop body all of the M users would have an option to upgrade without losing there portable lenses and possibly changing brands. I know the M mount is 2mm less depth then RF but would it actually be impossible to make an adapter? I understand that this adapter would have to go 2mm inside the RF mount but maybe there is another way? Even if this adapter only maintained compatibility with RF crop sensor bodys that would be ok.

The only way I'd see it happening is exchangable mounts. But I suspect that's too much work and too expensive for a low-budget camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

jolyonralph

Game Boy Camera
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
944
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Honesty, I doubt this news is true. It may be possible that the EOS M range will be discontinued in North America, but in the rest of the world they're just too popular for Canon to drop.

I think canon have the mix right now.

APS-C lenses -> EOS M mount for small cameras

FF lenses -> RF mount primarily for larger cameras. You can make smaller RF cameras but your lens sizes will still be bigger than EF-M lenses.

The RF APS-C camera is an oddity, it's not designed to appeal to the EOS M market at all, it's designed for a specific niche (but large niche) of users who want FF heavy lenses but the extra reach of a high pixel density APS-C sensor. In the future when high-density FF sensors become more affordable this niche will evaporate and the line will end.

Canon *could* abandon EF-M now and switch everything to RF, but I don't see what they have to gain. smaller EOS M bodies aren't suited for heavy/long RF lenses, so there's not going to be much need for interoperability. They COULD rework all their current EF-M lenses into RF mount and call them RF-M or whatever. This would give people APS-C lenses for the R series - but at the moment there's not really much demand for that.

Sony created a bunch of confusion in the market with the E and FE mounts being compatible and people buying E lenses for FE cameras and vice versa and being unhappy with the (cropped) results. I know three people who did just that. The current Canon system avoids that problem. Two separate systems with separate lens lines.

It IS actually the best way to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

ctk

Refurb EOS R Kit
Mar 25, 2020
71
69
This is a big reason that I think the L-mount alliance was bad for Panasonic.
I never really saw the point of partnering up with a lens manufacturer who is going to end up making the same lenses for every other mount.
Panasonic kind of had no choice. Outside of the GH series they don't have much to look forward to with M43. And if their FF system were on a solo mount it would be stillborn. I don't think it's all bad. The S5 looks pretty interesting.
 
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
We'll have to wait and see where this goes. As many have pointed out, crop sensor-friendly focal lengths that also cover a full-frame image circle are big and expensive. 18mm on Canon's 1.6 croc has to GO. All things considered, the 15-45mm was a really decent lens and covers a 24-70mm equivalent. We've already seen what an RF 15-35 f/2.8 looks like and costs...what is their plan here? What will the cost and size be?

The VAST majority of people I speak to that want a camera, want it for traveling or hiking. They love the M50/M6/M5 cameras for this reason - it's also why I love them too. I find it really puzzling that Canon would abandon what may be it's best selling cameras.

Why not engineer an optical adapter that would allow these lenses to mount and focus properly on the RF mount? I'm sure it can be achieved because optical adapters have existed that refocus for incorrect backspacing...but one built with Canon glass and engineering may marvelous. Or, they couldn't build one that was affordable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

mdcmdcmdc

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
318
442
It might be a win for Canon to reduce the complexity of its manufacturing but it is not a win for consumers.
If this is a "win" for Canon, that's only in a pyrrhic sense.

If there is truth to this rumor, I trust it's not part of a long-term plan by Canon to increase profits by screwing their customers (only internet and mobile service proiders seem able to continually profit that way).

The ILC market has been in a tailspin for the past 10 years. Economic uncertainty and supply chain issues due to COVID-19 have only accelerated that trend. Companies have had to throw out business plans in favor of just trying to stem the bleeding. I fear this rumor, if true, is a symptom of that.
 
Upvote 0