It looks like 2021 will be the last year for the EOS M lineup [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
D
Deleted member 387121
Guest
I think that's global and related to COVID-19. In the US too, a lot of photographic gear is out of stock. Many factories are working with reduced staff, some may have been completely closed for a time, and shipping has been impacted, especially across national borders. I don't know if we've even begun to see the effect from the Sony factory fire in December yet, either.
Upvote
0
There is a lot of talk about "M" is not good enough for longer EF lens with adapter because it is unbalanced and hard to hold. My personal experience says otherwise. I have been using 28-135 EF with adapter on M, M2 and M50 on many trips that are over a month long each. I do not see any real problem in handling. the only problem is the weight in my camera bag.
Upvote
0
I also think that the M series is a quite perfect system for a lightweight system not only for travel, also for quite a lot of semi pro and even pro photography as long it is not for very big prints. I will not go back to heavy pro equipment which I left after the M50 came out, and yes, M6 Mark II an M50 combined are a superb combination, M50 for my EF tele zooms and M6 Mark II for the superb 11-22 , 22 and 32 wide lenses.
Pro bodies are wasted if you shoot not professional to make money, they are superb, sure, no weather problem, no problem in extreme environments, but all "normal" hobbyist and lot's of semi pro do not need that guarantee that the camera can also fall into mud, from a camper roof because that would mean problems.
I am happy with the EOS-M lineup after many years of DSRL Canon pro bodies and semipro use.
Pro bodies are wasted if you shoot not professional to make money, they are superb, sure, no weather problem, no problem in extreme environments, but all "normal" hobbyist and lot's of semi pro do not need that guarantee that the camera can also fall into mud, from a camper roof because that would mean problems.
I am happy with the EOS-M lineup after many years of DSRL Canon pro bodies and semipro use.
Upvote
0
Try a bigger lens and heavier lens. The handling does degrade because the grip is so small and you can't generate as much torque. Think a 2x extender mounted behind a 3+lb 100-400 II or with any of the great whites. The M sensors are fine and if that's the only camera you have, then you use it. However, other bodies that have a deeper and longer grips and more direct controls. That makes it easier to use if you can take advantage of those characteristics. A lot of people add grips to make portrait shots easier, but I never have. I'd rather have a smaller package, and I don't mind rotating the rig. If I had to do it for a living, then I might think otherwise...
Upvote
0
Even as a cost-saving measure it does not make much sense unless it results in cheaper cameras.
If the main reason people buy M50 and T7 is the price of each then Canon might well do better with a cheaper RF mount APS-C camera.
That will not help if people are buying EF-M mount cameras for their smaller size.
It will also not help if people are buying EF-S mount cameras because they like DSLR cameras.
Upvote
0
Canon is reporting that camera sales dropped significantly in 2020.
That is not just for Canon cameras.
It includes everyone.
It seems like it is more supply related than demand related.
Upvote
0
I do not see such a future because they could probably still make APS-C cameras with even higher density.
Even if that were not the case they could still save money by making a smaller sensor at the same density and just providing the crop that that market segment actually wants to use.
Upvote
0
I am not a fan of long telephoto. I do not do birding or air show. I also do not do it for a living.With the 28-135 on the M, It is cradled with my left hand. The right hand is just helping to balance it and do the adjustment and triggering
Upvote
0
Even with a FF camera, my left hand naturally supports a long lens, not the camera body, and a foot comes with them for tripod mounting.
Upvote
0
I rarely use tripods with 70-200s/100-400s or even with something like a 300 f/2.8. I do mount a BR strap to the lens foot or L-plate on the camera body because I'm moving from one location to another plus it's less fatiguing to have it hanging from a shoulder strap than holding it all the time. It's that initial motion to bring the camera/lens combo up from the right side to the front for shooting that requires torque.
Current Ms are better than the original, which was tiny and had a minimal grip. I played with it using a 2x and a 100-400 to take a moon shot, but that was pretty much it for larger lenses. The Ms are not as responsive and the rebel interface is different from the 7D/FF interface that I'm used to. I only use the M5 when I can't bring a FF body or when weight/size is the overriding criterion. I use the native lenses for it most of the time; the only times I regularly used the adapter was when I was using it for video and using the FF for stills.
Upvote
0
The EOS M50 is the #1 selling mirrorless camera in the U.S. market.
Source: The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service, Mirrorless Detachable Lens Cameras, Based on camera family unit sales, Jan. 2020 - Aug. 2020 combined.
Which that fact cemented I doubt Canon would discontinue the line unless it costs more to produce than to sell.
Source: The NPD Group, Inc. U.S. Retail Tracking Service, Mirrorless Detachable Lens Cameras, Based on camera family unit sales, Jan. 2020 - Aug. 2020 combined.
Which that fact cemented I doubt Canon would discontinue the line unless it costs more to produce than to sell.
Upvote
0
it's not close to the same performance, and if you have to use full frame glass on an RF APS-C you need to compare it to a 32/35mm F1.4 and not the 50mm.
Upvote
0
yeah .. something happened last year... it's on the tip of my tongue.. dammit.. can't remember what it was..
Upvote
0
the logic here is cray cray.
I wrote it up a bit on my site about my thoughts, but I have another article coming to what may be canon's long game here.
Upvote
0
Rumor sites tend to cater to fanciful ideas.
I try to counterbalance it with some evidence to make things interesting
Upvote
0
I've pushed back in the past about the M series demise, but with the frequency of announcements, I've mulled it over for longer . Sorry if this duplicates what others have said earlier....
TL;DR - The M is a casualty of economics but this is a play for a larger market - their existing (non M) APS-C base (Rebel and 7D).
As we know, lenses take 2-3 years from design to release, and bodies are perhaps a little bit shorter but not much. I would guess that Canon's R strategy was created 4-5 years ago, and the M series allowed them to experiment on what would and would not work. I'm guessing 2+ years ago they decided that the M range would not be continued, and the M6 II was a last attempt to squeeze a bit more out of it whilst they tried the same with the 90D, and not an ongoing commitment to the M range. But in releasing it, they may have kept you away from competitors for a little longer unless you sell your M gear in annoyance. Similarly, the R and the RP were attempts to shore up people moving. Both these moves show that Canon is not always perhaps as decent as we might like to think, and in the shrinking market they cannot allow buyers to decide...
Despite its success in terms of sales volumes and its contribution to Canon's market share (which is clearly important), Canon knew what margin they were making and based on the number of resources required to achieve this. Looking at the market erosion, they deemed those resources should be concentrated on more lucrative developments at the "expense" of market share, leaving Fuji, Panasonic and Sony to determine the viability of the "M" segment of the market. And in hindsight, I think they concluded this a couple of years ago as per above. In time, Canon's decision will inevitably lead to a reduction in resource requirements when they achieve a level of market saturation with their new range. But it maintains profit and thus keeps the share-holders happy. What impact it has on market share in a shrinking market may not be as significant as we might hope (for them to change their minds).
There will be some economies of scale in terms of a single body range (for Canon), some benefits to end users of a harmonized set of accessories, but the single body range will not provide what the M did in terms of price/performance/weight/size. Whether it provides sufficient for some M users to convert remains to be seen (unless you actually register all your equipment with Canon, I'm not sure where they can get that information from).
For those M users, like myself, who were attracted to that combination of p/p/w/s it is very simple - just as anyone with a dSLR can confirm, the M range will continue to take good pictures for many years to come. I personally will probably pick up another M6 II and I think that will satisfy me for a significant time. My 10D still works, and although the construction on the M range is not as robust, I suspect the innards do have a similar quality to them. I have R bodies, so an APS-C in an R body has potential appeal for wildlife but I doubt it will cause me to sell my M gear.
For existing APS dSLR users who have not migrated, it will be interesting to see if there are sufficient compelling features or pricing for them to change. I would expect Canon to be reasonably aggressive to lure the two "APS-C camps", and taking your lenses with you (like many of us who have EF or EF-S lenses did) will "reduce" the cost effect and hence why there will be no APS-C R lenses - it's a play to keep you in the Canon ecosystem, and over time a APS-C users may even supplement with an RF lens or two, and then a FF body. If you don't well then you're Again, without people registering their kit, I am not sure where Canon can know this.
The casualty of the M is economics - as per my 4th paragraph. I do not believe these new bodies are aimed at M users. It is disappointing for a lot of people who have no interest in larger bodies, but alas I think they have concluded that purchasers of the M system are no longer as important to Canon's future. You'll be supported just like the dSLR camp and EF camp who were told similar things last year. It will be interesting to see if they make an announcement about focusing on R and not active on M just like they did with the EF...
TL;DR - The M is a casualty of economics but this is a play for a larger market - their existing (non M) APS-C base (Rebel and 7D).
As we know, lenses take 2-3 years from design to release, and bodies are perhaps a little bit shorter but not much. I would guess that Canon's R strategy was created 4-5 years ago, and the M series allowed them to experiment on what would and would not work. I'm guessing 2+ years ago they decided that the M range would not be continued, and the M6 II was a last attempt to squeeze a bit more out of it whilst they tried the same with the 90D, and not an ongoing commitment to the M range. But in releasing it, they may have kept you away from competitors for a little longer unless you sell your M gear in annoyance. Similarly, the R and the RP were attempts to shore up people moving. Both these moves show that Canon is not always perhaps as decent as we might like to think, and in the shrinking market they cannot allow buyers to decide...
Despite its success in terms of sales volumes and its contribution to Canon's market share (which is clearly important), Canon knew what margin they were making and based on the number of resources required to achieve this. Looking at the market erosion, they deemed those resources should be concentrated on more lucrative developments at the "expense" of market share, leaving Fuji, Panasonic and Sony to determine the viability of the "M" segment of the market. And in hindsight, I think they concluded this a couple of years ago as per above. In time, Canon's decision will inevitably lead to a reduction in resource requirements when they achieve a level of market saturation with their new range. But it maintains profit and thus keeps the share-holders happy. What impact it has on market share in a shrinking market may not be as significant as we might hope (for them to change their minds).
There will be some economies of scale in terms of a single body range (for Canon), some benefits to end users of a harmonized set of accessories, but the single body range will not provide what the M did in terms of price/performance/weight/size. Whether it provides sufficient for some M users to convert remains to be seen (unless you actually register all your equipment with Canon, I'm not sure where they can get that information from).
For those M users, like myself, who were attracted to that combination of p/p/w/s it is very simple - just as anyone with a dSLR can confirm, the M range will continue to take good pictures for many years to come. I personally will probably pick up another M6 II and I think that will satisfy me for a significant time. My 10D still works, and although the construction on the M range is not as robust, I suspect the innards do have a similar quality to them. I have R bodies, so an APS-C in an R body has potential appeal for wildlife but I doubt it will cause me to sell my M gear.
For existing APS dSLR users who have not migrated, it will be interesting to see if there are sufficient compelling features or pricing for them to change. I would expect Canon to be reasonably aggressive to lure the two "APS-C camps", and taking your lenses with you (like many of us who have EF or EF-S lenses did) will "reduce" the cost effect and hence why there will be no APS-C R lenses - it's a play to keep you in the Canon ecosystem, and over time a APS-C users may even supplement with an RF lens or two, and then a FF body. If you don't well then you're Again, without people registering their kit, I am not sure where Canon can know this.
The casualty of the M is economics - as per my 4th paragraph. I do not believe these new bodies are aimed at M users. It is disappointing for a lot of people who have no interest in larger bodies, but alas I think they have concluded that purchasers of the M system are no longer as important to Canon's future. You'll be supported just like the dSLR camp and EF camp who were told similar things last year. It will be interesting to see if they make an announcement about focusing on R and not active on M just like they did with the EF...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 386702
Guest
Ok, let's see things in a different way.
EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.
So no problem if Canon ends the production of M system for EF.
But I think they may reconsider keeping the -S concept first. I think it's clearly a dead end (and I hope they won't maintain all those useless numerous 18-xxx either BTW).
To my sense, the future APS-C line-ups should only be of two kinds :
But IMHO, they need to enhance EF-M to RF-M to make it more competitive in the APS-C mirrorless market (and I think the only adapter still needed would be the RF-M to EF considering the number of EF lenses around vs RF Lenses for the moment... that and the fact most EF-M owners love much more having lenses made to fit the size of the camera, may they be third party or brand name).
So, yes, EF-M "must" probably die, as all others EF mounts... but still, it should perdure thru another, more modern type of mount.
EF lenses line-ups are due to end anyway, may it be EF, EF-S or EF-M.
So no problem if Canon ends the production of M system for EF.
But I think they may reconsider keeping the -S concept first. I think it's clearly a dead end (and I hope they won't maintain all those useless numerous 18-xxx either BTW).
To my sense, the future APS-C line-ups should only be of two kinds :
- high-end for prosumers sport/wildlife (i.e. EOS R7 or any 7D replacement), in other words, products for customers that mainly use FF lenses on APS-C to have more reach.
- "Mini" for travel, family, VLOG and any casual usage (i.e EOS M... ), in other words, products for people that dig nice little "gems", like EOS M cameras actually are, for their every day life (which old EF-S, Rebels etc. tend not to be, if ever they were considered that way...).
But IMHO, they need to enhance EF-M to RF-M to make it more competitive in the APS-C mirrorless market (and I think the only adapter still needed would be the RF-M to EF considering the number of EF lenses around vs RF Lenses for the moment... that and the fact most EF-M owners love much more having lenses made to fit the size of the camera, may they be third party or brand name).
So, yes, EF-M "must" probably die, as all others EF mounts... but still, it should perdure thru another, more modern type of mount.
Upvote
0
