Canon has discontinued the Canon EOS M6 Mark II

[Blue Zurich]

Craig, fix this BS headline.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Really? Then why does an EF mount have 8 pins while an EF-M mount has 9 pins?

Maybe you only had one side of the headpiece of the staff, so the old mystic couldn’t tell you to take back one pin to honor the Buddhist goddess who’s mount this is.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

I agree. My point was to ask for a newly designed RF40mm pancake as the current adapted EF solution isn't that small/light/cheap which is what a pancake should be.

 

[John Wilde]

Canon is still having parts supply problems;

"we prioritized the supply of high-end models such as the EOS R5 and EOS R6"
- Canon, April 26, 2022

 

[Blue Zurich]

Really? Then why does an EF mount have 8 pins while an EF-M mount has 9 pins?

Maybe you only had one side of the headpiece of the staff, so the old mystic couldn’t tell you to take back one pin to honor the Buddhist goddess who’s mount this is.

OMG that slayed me, rotfl

 

[Blue Zurich]

If we can somehow segue this cra cra thread into the image of a pancake lens with syrup, it would be palatable.

 

[makei]

I don't like this news.
Because I cannot imagine if and what consequences this means to the EOS M system.
I am no M owner. But if I was to get one body It would have been the M6 II. Because I like the idea of the optional EVF.

Edit: In Germany almost every shop has it on stock.

I had M6 MK2, and I don't like the optional EVF. I bought it becaue I find a really good 2nd price. the price is so low that it is basically free upgrade for me. But other than the EVF, it is a very good camera. Very quick and very good ergonomics. I like this even more than my Sony A7RIV

 

[adrian_bacon]

Really? Then why does an EF mount have 8 pins while an EF-M mount has 9 pins?

Maybe you only had one side of the headpiece of the staff, so the old mystic couldn’t tell you to take back one pin to honor the Buddhist goddess who’s mount this is.

The 9th pin is reserved for future use. The other pins map to EF pins. If you have an EF to EF-M adapter, it's not difficult to see the mapping from EF to EF-M pins. It's literally a straight through.

 

[adrian_bacon]

I agree. My point was to ask for a newly designed RF40mm pancake as the current adapted EF solution isn't that small/light/cheap which is what a pancake should be.

Ah... No. With the RF to EF adapter it's a little longer than the RF 50 STM.

 

[Bahrd]

The M series uses PowerShot menus/software after all.

I think that - if any - this will be the actual nail in the coffin of M.

 

[Skux]

This is the right move, and I'm saying this as an M6 Mark II owner.

Trying to support RF, EF, EF-S and EF-M makes no sense from a business or marketing standpoint. The entry and mid-level camera market is rapidly evaporating as phones get better at video and editing. Coupled with supply shortages it makes sense for Canon to focus on the products with the highest return per unit.

For me the R7 just needs to be a 32mp sensor with bird eye AF and R6 ergonomics and I can finally fully transition to RF for all my digital workflow.

 

[David - Sydney]

Ah... No. With the RF to EF adapter it's a little longer than the RF 50 STM.

Correct. But comparing the EF50mm and the EF40mm, the EF40mm is about half the length. My thought is that a RF40mm pancake should be about half the length of the RF50mm. That would be great!

 

[AlanF]

This is the right move, and I'm saying this as an M6 Mark II owner.

Trying to support RF, EF, EF-S and EF-M makes no sense from a business or marketing standpoint. The entry and mid-level camera market is rapidly evaporating as phones get better at video and editing. Coupled with supply shortages it makes sense for Canon to focus on the products with the highest return per unit.

For me the R7 just needs to be a 32mp sensor with bird eye AF and R6 ergonomics and I can finally fully transition to RF for all my digital workflow.

The number of units is crucial. The highest return per unit is probably the RF 1200 but the number of units will be minimal.

 

[mustafa]

Continue reading...

M5 mkII please.

 

[Chig]

If they don't follow up with an M7 announcement that'll solidify my decision to change to Fuji. I don't want a bulky FF mount on an APS-C camera.

Oh yeah 54mm instead of 47mm , wow that's 3.5mm bigger radially so the camera will potentially be slightly larger . Oh dear !

 

[RexxReviews]

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


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.


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?

I knew exactly what it was.... I own currently 2 R3 bodies, 2 R5 bodies and a double set of all of the currently Canon RF lenses that matter. Thats is my personal stash. The company that I own and run has far more than that. The M-format is a waste.

 

[mustafa]

I knew exactly what it was.... I own currently 2 R3 bodies, 2 R5 bodies and a double set of all of the currently Canon RF lenses that matter. Thats is my personal stash. The company that I own and run has far more than that. The M-format is a waste.

To you, maybe. For others, it's a useful small line-up that can supplement the RF line. I have both, for different purposes.

 

[lustyd]

The entry and mid-level camera market is rapidly evaporating as phones get better at video and editing.

The data suggests otherwise. YouTube and Instagram have created a huge new market for small mirrorless cameras such as M series, as has streaming on platforms like Twitch. Sony created their Vlogger range for this very reason. Just because photography is declining doesn't mean the market is disapearing. People are not generally buying a $4k body for vlogging or streaming, they're buying small mirrorless systems.

 

[dilbert]

This should be good for another dozen pages of forum battles.

Don't forget the ad placements and revenue for CR.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 9th pin is reserved for future use. The other pins map to EF pins. If you have an EF to EF-M adapter, it's not difficult to see the mapping from EF to EF-M pins. It's literally a straight through.

Your staff is too short. You’re digging in the wrong place.

Why is it that when people don’t understand something, they make up some bullshit to support their incorrect statements, and think people will believe it? It’s puerile, like when your kid tries to convince you they brushed their teeth, but their breath smells like dinner and they didn’t even bother wetting their toothbrush to make the lie plausible.

Did you really just count the 8 pins on the EF lens-facing side of the adapter and the 9 contacts on the EF-M camera-facing side and come to that simplistic and totally incorrect conclusion? ‘Reserved for future use’ is really the best you could come up with? Well, people make themselves look like idiots every day, so you’ve got lots of company.

With a modicum of initiative, you could have at least counted lens contacts. EF-M lenses have 9 to match the 9 mount pins, whereas EF lenses have only 7 contacts for the 8 mount pins. One of the EF lens contacts is double-width and bridges two mount pins together, that’s the analog ground. EF-M uses a single pin for ground, so functionally there are two additional pins in the EF-M mount. The mount adapter wires two of the pins on the EF side to a single contact on the EF-M side.

Of the two new pins in the EF-M mount, one is an electronic replacement for a physical microswitch in the EF mount to confirm full mounting of a lens. The other is used to signal that an EF/EF-S lens is mounted in the adapter when it’s used.

The remaining pins have the same functionality for both mounts, although the order of the pins is different between them. Also, EF-M lenses operate at a lower voltage and higher clock speed than EF lenses. So no, it's not even close to 'literally straight through'.

Details on the EF-M mount shared above are described in its patent:

US9638987B2 - Camera and camera accessory - Google Patents

The camera side mount is brought, by relative rotation with the accessory side mount, from a first state where each accessory side bayonet claw is inserted between the camera side bayonet claws into a second state where the camera side and accessory side bayonet claws engage with each other. The...

patents.google.com

The right thing for you to do here would be to admit that you were wrong. Go ahead...surprise me.