Canon has discontinued the Canon EOS M6 Mark II

[scyrene]

All that said, I'm also a pretty firm believer that there is such a thing as too small. For example, my camera phone is rarely used for anything but casual snapshots. Why? It's too hard to hold it still and still get a shot that is shake free. I have gorilla hands, so I'm sure others have differing views on this, but for me personally, below a certain weight/size level my quality of photos goes down because the camera/photo platform is too small for me to effectively use.

I mean your hands might be big but then by definition most other people's will be smaller. "Too small" for you is likely larger than too small for many others. Incidentally, modern phones have excellent stabilisation, aided no doubt by having such small sensors. I find it a little odd to suggest hand holding a big, heavy body still is easier, but each to their own.

 

[lustyd]

Doing APS-C just isn't that necessary to get a small camera.

That’s just the thing though, it is necessary to make smaller lenses and since those lenses won’t work with FF sensors it makes no difference if it’s R or M mount you’d end up with the same exact lens range as M and the same bodies as M which makes all of the “M is dead” talk pointless. Canon have to either create a new identical line just to use the RF lenses or keep M as it is and carry on supporting EF for a while. Eventually they’ll do the former, I’m sure, and create RF-M lenses but right now it makes no sense to replace the entire M lineup for compatibility with lenses most M users don’t buy anyway. As you said, your body is only a little larger so people who want bigger lenses will already just buy that, the rest of us buy M on purpose for the small lens form factor.

 

[kcimer]

Just a thought about M6 II being consumer only, not for pro users.
I have M6 II as a second camera. I use it for establishing shots (wide w/ 11-22mm) and for fun/specials (32mm 1.4, fisheye, circular fisheye) so I can keep the lens on the main camera. Reason being it is much faster than changing lenses, it is lighter around the neck tha FF counterpart, it is relatively cheap, has silent shutter (RP does silent only in Auto), comparative lenses are cheaper and lighter than FF, fun lenses are cheaper and with a converter I could use it as backup camera in a pinch (AF is much better than previous Ms and it does up to 14fps), not to mention travel and as inconspicious camera with near pro results. If you are on a tight budget - it is a really good solution.

 

[lustyd]

. I find it a little odd to suggest hand holding a big, heavy body still is easier, but each to their own.

indeed, at arms length recording a 15 minute Vlog the opposite is true and most can’t hold the 2lbs steady. Sure, it works for taking photos close to the chest, but that’s just one quite niche use case in 2022

 

[stevoc921]

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say the mount will be killed shortly, but not the cameras themselves. I think the M cameras are likely going to be what replaces the Rebel line. I could see them changing the mount to "RF-S" mount, and having fewer models to choose from than the current M offering. Seems to me the M50/II has sold fairly well especially among beginner "creators" so why re-invent the wheel again when they already have mirrorless cameras to work with? Update the mount and be done with it. I have an M6 MK II with the 22mm f/2 and I love it. It's not my main camera, but it's what goes with me every day because it's so small, and if it gets dropped/lost/stolen it's not nearly as big of a deal as my "real" camera. I do love the fact that I can also slap a bigger EF lens on there if I want to and it's still more compact than my main camera with the same lens. However, I would LOVE even more to get the same size camera as an M6 MK II and be able to throw some of my EF or RF mount lenses on it.

 

[stevoc921]

Just a thought about M6 II being consumer only, not for pro users.
I have M6 II as a second camera. I use it for establishing shots (wide w/ 11-22mm) and for fun/specials (32mm 1.4, fisheye, circular fisheye) so I can keep the lens on the main camera. Reason being it is much faster than changing lenses, it is lighter around the neck tha FF counterpart, it is relatively cheap, has silent shutter (RP does silent only in Auto), comparative lenses are cheaper and lighter than FF, fun lenses are cheaper and with a converter I could use it as backup camera in a pinch (AF is much better than previous Ms and it does up to 14fps), not to mention travel and as inconspicious camera with near pro results. If you are on a tight budget - it is a really good solution.

It really is a fantastic camera. I almost went with the RP, but it seemed more money than it was worth for the features it had compared to M6.

 

[canonmike]

The 7D was a decent APSC camera and a body I often used, coupled to a 70-200 L lens to photograph my grandson's ballgames. That being said, it was too big and too heavy to take on hikes while doing trail maintenance. I cannot count the times I punished that combo, banging into trees, rock outcroppings and various other obstacles. When the M50 was introduced, I quickly purchased one and it became my regular trail camera. Compact, lightweight and quite capable, not to mention the ability to carry it handsfree, using a Peak Design bracket on my pack strap, made it my go to hiking camera. To this day it is still my cam of choice for the trail. While I may very well pick up an R7 for sports and wildlife photography, depending on how it specs out, it will never(subject to seeing its size) replace my M50 for hiking. The M50, coupled to an EF-M 22mm lens begs to be used under these circumstances, while the EOS 7D begged to be hidden inside an already heavy backpack, to keep it protected from the elements and being damaged. I don't see any R series body relegating my M50 to the pile of mothballs. I won't be upset If they do indeed, axe the M series line, because there will then surely be some bargain M series bodies out there, of which I am sure to pick one up as a back up. As a side note, I love my R6 body but SAWC prohibit me from carrying it while hiking. While very capable, full frame cameras are just too inconvenient for my POU on the trail.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I mean your hands might be big but then by definition most other people's will be smaller. "Too small" for you is likely larger than too small for many others. Incidentally, modern phones have excellent stabilisation, aided no doubt by having such small sensors. I find it a little odd to suggest hand holding a big, heavy body still is easier, but each to their own.

For holding something steady, having some mass can help. I can certainly see having difficulty holding a smartphone steady if one's hands have some tremor or if one has had too much coffee. Some extra mass adds some inertia and helps. Obviously too heavy is also not optimal, because muscles get tired.

For me, at least, it's more about comfort and balance. A body + lens of FF size/weight with a grip that accommodates my pinky finger is much more comfortable than having that finger rest under the camera base. That's less important with something from the M series, where the body + lens combo is much lighter. Balance is a big part of that as well. I usually use L-series lenses, and I find that a gripped body counterbalances the weight of an f/2.8 zoom much better than a non-gripped body. In that regard, for a lens like the 28-70/2 I find my R3 to be a bit light (the weight of the 1D X would give better balance). However, for the 70-200/2.8 the RF lens is much lighter than the EF version, and balances great with the R3. An unbalanced rig results in my hand being sore after a day of shooting, whereas with a balanced rig my hand is fine even if the total weight is greater.

 

[Maximilian]

EOS-M was a waste to begin with ... Time for me to sell my M6 ...

Sounds like a disappointed user expecting more from a consumer system to become a pro system.

... the M line had even a SMALL significance. ...

Maybe in your gear setup, maybe in your country.
Looking at Japan an Asian sales numbers other people and in other countries opinions might differ.

... There have already been enough rumors that canon was making a small, no EVF RF mount camera ...

This has yet to be proven. I hope with you that this will come true, but for what price?
Comparable price of the EOS M6 MkII?
And when it comes to size, I see almost NO - I repeat NO - RF lens coming close to EF-M lenses.
And I see the RF 16 mm here as well!


So what are you looking for?

 

[Blue Zurich]

Perhaps I should put the RP next to an R5 or R6. I doubt it would change your mind, however, the size difference between the RP and other RF cameras is really significant. If you think the RP is big and bulky, the other RF cameras are outright monsters in comparison. The point I was trying to make was that if Canon really wanted to replace M with RF they're already not that far off with the RP. Doing APS-C just isn't that necessary to get a small camera.

I also don't disagree that M cameras and lenses are small. They should be. If Canon really wants to replace the M line, they'd do well to release some really small RF lenses and trim down the RP body even more. They started the RF line off with big heavy L line pro lenses, but it appears that they're starting to release smaller and lighter lenses as we see with the 50 and 16 RF lenses. BTW, they actually could make even smaller/shorter lenses than that, so I think in another year or so we'll see where this is really going.

All that said, I'm also a pretty firm believer that there is such a thing as too small. For example, my camera phone is rarely used for anything but casual snapshots. Why? It's too hard to hold it still and still get a shot that is shake free. I have gorilla hands, so I'm sure others have differing views on this, but for me personally, below a certain weight/size level my quality of photos goes down because the camera/photo platform is too small for me to effectively use.

After using a 5D3 for almost 10 years, my R6 is a wee thing in my mind.(and hands)

 

[scyrene]

For holding something steady, having some mass can help. I can certainly see having difficulty holding a smartphone steady if one's hands have some tremor or if one has had too much coffee. Some extra mass adds some inertia and helps. Obviously too heavy is also not optimal, because muscles get tired.

For me, at least, it's more about comfort and balance. A body + lens of FF size/weight with a grip that accommodates my pinky finger is much more comfortable than having that finger rest under the camera base. That's less important with something from the M series, where the body + lens combo is much lighter. Balance is a big part of that as well. I usually use L-series lenses, and I find that a gripped body counterbalances the weight of an f/2.8 zoom much better than a non-gripped body. In that regard, for a lens like the 28-70/2 I find my R3 to be a bit light (the weight of the 1D X would give better balance). However, for the 70-200/2.8 the RF lens is much lighter than the EF version, and balances great with the R3. An unbalanced rig results in my hand being sore after a day of shooting, whereas with a balanced rig my hand is fine even if the total weight is greater.

I guess I was interpreting them as comparing both at arm's length. Shooting a camera with the viewfinder against the eye certainly offers better stability, and holding a phone too far out is more shaky; I learned with DSLRs first, so I guess my technique is a hybrid. Best to clamp your elbows at your sides with a phone, especially for longer exposures. But the computational photography of modern phones makes it quite hard to induce motion blur in my experience.

With regard to balance: absolutely agreed, which is why I've never been drawn by the arguments that mirrorless must necessarily mean smaller and lighter bodies. I had an original M and the EF 100L was too big to use comfortably; although if I ever get an R body, I'd be aiming to swap a big L supertele for the 800 f/11, because I just don't want the bulk any more (in the past I imagined continuing to use the 500L).

 

[kcimer]

What lenses are missing that you'd want? Genuine question. And how many of them would be substantially smaller than an adapted EF equivalent?

I would like to see (buy) replacement for 22mm f/2 - say 1.4 with excelent resolution and image quality like the 32mm f/1.4, something like 10-25mm f/4 to replace 11-22mm, and a nice standard zoom 16-50mm f/2.8.

 

[InchMetric]

Or maybe it's just a rumor. And that's all it will be until Canon says it is discontinued.

Rumor sites jut love to discontinue items. Some of them - miraculously - turn out to not be discontinued after all.

What would we do without people reminding us that we are hearing Canon rumors on a site called Canon Rumors?

It would be less of a cringe if you simply shared whether or not you agreed with the rumor.

 

[David - Sydney]

The RP is a very small camera compared to the other RF bodies. I personally prefer the larger grip of the RP over the M5, but that's because I have gorilla hands. My RP is my goto every day carry and it's been wonderful with the 50 STM, though I do wish canon would make an RF version of the pancake 40. On the RP that would be pretty boss.

Making a RF40mm pancake makes a lot of sense to me. It would be an excellent street combination and Canon does need to release more affordable RF lenses.
Adapting the EF40mm doubles the weight, size and cost (assuming you weld the adapter just for this lens).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would like to see (buy) replacement for 22mm f/2 - say 1.4 with excelent resolution and image quality like the 32mm f/1.4, something like 10-25mm f/4 to replace 11-22mm, and a nice standard zoom 16-50mm f/2.8.

In the EF-S lineup, they replaced the 10-22mm with the slower, cheaper 10-18mm. The 17-55/2.8 was never updated. That is consistent with moving the APS-C DSLR line downmarket.

The 32/1.4 is a very nice lens, though, and IIRC the most recently-released EF-M. It could be that Canon decides to move the M line upmarket with a small number of faster, high IQ lenses.

 

[adrian_bacon]

That’s just the thing though, it is necessary to make smaller lenses and since those lenses won’t work with FF sensors it makes no difference if it’s R or M mount you’d end up with the same exact lens range as M and the same bodies as M which makes all of the “M is dead” talk pointless. Canon have to either create a new identical line just to use the RF lenses or keep M as it is and carry on supporting EF for a while. Eventually they’ll do the former, I’m sure, and create RF-M lenses but right now it makes no sense to replace the entire M lineup for compatibility with lenses most M users don’t buy anyway. As you said, your body is only a little larger so people who want bigger lenses will already just buy that, the rest of us buy M on purpose for the small lens form factor.

Or they could keep the physical M mount and just add additional RF pins. All RF is, is EF plus some additional pins. EF-M is literally EF but a different physical mount. They could just keep everything the same and add the RF pins for newer lenses that have a control ring while keeping the same physical EF-M mount. That would mean they stay doing APS-C for EF-M (or maybe it'd be RF-M), but, plenty of pros would like a pro level APS-C body, so I don't doubt that we'll ultimately see APS-C in RF at some point.

It's really just a matter of what to do with EF-M:

1. do nothing, see what happens to the market, then take appropriate action (most likely)
2. Kill it off in favor of RF (Meh, like you said, a lot of it is about the smaller lenses).
3. Update it to have RF pins while keeping backward compatibility.
4. Do something none of us has thought they would do.

Canon has already demonstrated multiple times that they have no problem with introducing/maintaining multiple mounts if they think they can sell enough to make a profit. Contrary to what many on here think, none of Canon's EF-M bodies, or EF-M glass is aimed at pro level anything. It's clearly more consumer oriented, which in many ways frees them up to make it however it fits the target market best.

As nice as it'd be to have one mount for everything and one set of lenses for everything, the reality is, it's just not that simple.

 

[adrian_bacon]

indeed, at arms length recording a 15 minute Vlog the opposite is true and most can’t hold the 2lbs steady. Sure, it works for taking photos close to the chest, but that’s just one quite niche use case in 2022

It depends on what you're doing. I rarely do anything at arms length. If I'm not shooting a selfie type photo or video, I'm looking through the viewfinder, which means I have both hands on the camera and it's anchored to my face, even for shooting video. If I'm shooting a selfie type video, if you really want a smooth static shot, either perch the camera on something (or use a small tripod/monopod) or walk and talk. If you're walking, how stable does it need to be?

All that being said, yes, a larger body with a bigger grip (at least for me, again other people with different sized hands will be different) tends to be more stable, given the way I use it. Again, it may be different for other people, and that's totally fine.

 

[adrian_bacon]

For holding something steady, having some mass can help. I can certainly see having difficulty holding a smartphone steady if one's hands have some tremor or if one has had too much coffee. Some extra mass adds some inertia and helps. Obviously too heavy is also not optimal, because muscles get tired.

Exactly. I don't want too heavy, but a grip that actually fits my hand with a reasonable amount of heft does wonders for stability. I can't tell you how many times I've pulled my phone out to take a photo and afterwards when looking at the taken photo on a larger display it has blur from camera shake, despite my best efforts to make a steady shot. Going to the trouble of actually carrying an RP with the RF 50/1.8 results in far better photos. My M5 is borderline too small, but much better than a camera phone.

 

[Phenix205]

"We have received reports from two different countries ..."

Good catch. Russia is one of the two for sure with so many businesses having pulled out.

 

[adrian_bacon]

Making a RF40mm pancake makes a lot of sense to me. It would be an excellent street combination and Canon does need to release more affordable RF lenses.
Adapting the EF40mm doubles the weight, size and cost (assuming you weld the adapter just for this lens).

I don't think they should just make an adapted version, but rather, take the existing 50 and 16mm housing for RF and shave it down. They could pretty easily lose a half an inch off the length of the 50 with just a skinny control ring on the front and a slight barrel length shave. Both the RF 50 and 16 (I have both) are 1.75 inches long. The EF 40 (which I also have) is 1.125 inches long. I'd be totally happy if they got a RF 40 down to 1.25-1.5 inches long. Make it f/2 while they're at it. They can make the 50 f/1.8, no reason the 40 couldn't be f/2 in a slightly shorter package.