At least two new EOS M cameras coming in 2019 [CR2]

Jul 13, 2013
221
7
#81
I fail to see that. Yes there are many mFT. More than half of them have no AF, so to me of no interest at all. And all mFT lenses come with 1 stop disadvantage vs. EF-M. Equivalent (1 stop faster) mFT lenses are typically larger and far more expensive than EF-M.

Just some examples:
EF-M 22/2.0 is equivalent to mFt 17/1.4, which is not available. Even the Oly 17/1.8 is twice as expensive as the EF-M 22/2.0. Not even to mention the Oly 17/1.2 which is a mind-boggling 1400 € for a quarter-sensor crop lens
EF-M 28/3.5 IS STM Macro -> mFT Pana Leica 45/2.8 Macro at € 600+
EF-M 32/1.4 -> mFT Oly 25/1.2 costs way north of a grand ... plus mind-boggling size/weight for a quarter-sensor crop lens

I really fail to see I see why anybody starting out today would chose mFT over Canon EOS M/ EF-M system.
I agree that Olympus is expensive, and that's why Canon EF-S is attractive.
But the discussion is about the future, long term viability of the two mounts, when all is mirror-less, and dSLRs are gone.
I think we all agree that in the future all EF lenses will eventually be RF lenses.
But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility. At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.). Nowadays you still can adapt EF/EF-S lenses, so you still have a wide lens choice. But in the future EF/EF-S will be obsolete.
So, what is Canon to do?
Yes, they can increase the EOS-M lens line-up. But to maintain two complete lens line-ups (RF and M) does not make sense. With EF and EF-S Canon can make a choice only to produce EF-S lenses specially suitable for crop bodies, the rest is covered with EF lenses, so crop body owners have an even larger lens selection than FF owners.
With EOS-M expanding your system with RF is not possible. So, to compete with full fledged systems a la m4/3,Canon would have to offer a lot more EOS-M lenses (I am not considering manual focus lenses), for example, an EOS-M 100-400 to compete with an Olympus 100-400. (Here we ignore the price issue, but I think Panasonic would be a cheaper m4/3 competition - all the arcane f-stop discussion, most customers don't care about that, as long as you get the right focal lengths for the right price/size/weight. And if you want portrait, you buy your f1.4 or whatever lens, and don't care if system zy has 1 stop better DOF than system xzy because of sensor differences, if you care for such things you most likely buy a FF system anyway). When buying a new system people do consider the possibilities and options they have for expansion even though they might never buy an extra lens. But as mentioned, expanding the EOS-M lens line-up means producing two different lens line-ups, for RF and M, the size of the M-lens line-up determining its competitiveness.
So, should Canon struggle to maintain two lens line-ups, or ditch M and make compact RF crop bodies?
The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old.
Thus, it is not an unlikely scenario that at some distant future point, M will be retired, and all with the RF/RF-S.

If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts,
and Canon would loose me as customer. But as mentioned, at present I am still very happy with my Canon crop body and EF-S and EF lenses.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,374
414
#82
The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old.

If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts, and Canon would loose me as customer.
The M is new compared to EF. Standard EF lenses have 7 contacts on the mount (there are 3 more for TCs). EF-M lenses have 9 contacts on the mount. That certainly implies expanded communication capabilities relative to EF (although less than the RF lenses' 12 contacts).

As has been explained ad infinitum, Canon doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. Like you, I thought Canon would make new FF MILC lenses compatible with EOS M bodies to facilitate an upgrade path similar to DSLRs. But Canon has hard data on the proportion of APS-C to FF DSLR upgraders who owned EF lenses prior to getting a FF body (and which lenses they owned), and presumably that proportion was not significant enough to drive the RF design decisions.
 
Likes: dtaylor
Oct 4, 2018
3
3
#83
But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility. At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.).
Now you are addressing an argument that the earlier poster didn't make, by saying that Canon M doesn't have an upgrade path and therefore isn't viable. But Canon M in this regard is equivalent to m43 and Fuji X. Your second argument is that m43 and Fuji X give you more options than Canon M. This is true, but to the majority of customers this is irrelevant. Right out of bat the majority of people that buy a m43/Fuji X/Canon M (60%? 70%? 80%?) are typical Rebel buyers, they buy the camera in the believe that the product they are buying (camera + kit lens) is complete is a sense, and will in that form allow them to take superior photos compared to phone cameras. The fact that the lens is detachable is almost irrelevant, and their appetite for extra lenses will never test the limit of Canon M. As such the large lens portfolio of m43 and Fuji X nets them no advantage in the eyes of these customers.

The second largest consumer base is going to be people that are serious or moderately serious about photography, and buy into the m43/Fuji X/Canon M system as a small and light second system. As such neither this second group will need a very great variety of lenses, the current offerings of 11-22mm, 22mm f2, 32mm f1.4, macro lens, 55-200mm telezoom as well as the small and light kit lens will satisfy the vast majority of these second-system buyers. Possibly they could desire a lens such as the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4 that is ~1 stop faster than a kit lens without being large and heavy.

So in summary, while Canon M might not be suitable as a primary system of an enthusiast or professional, it's perfectly adequate for either casual photographers and second-system buyers, that together make up the vast majority of the small-and-light buyers. Meanwhile Canon M carries much more value for money and more reasonable sizes when compared at equivalent aperture (which determines not only depth-of-field, but more importantly total light gathering) to m43 and Fuji X.
 
Oct 26, 2013
1,044
238
#84
....
So in summary, while Canon M might not be suitable as a primary system of an enthusiast or professional, it's perfectly adequate for either casual photographers and second-system buyers, that together make up the vast majority of the small-and-light buyers.
You make a lot of good points, but as is usually the case on forums such as this one, you can't seem to grasp that a person can be a high-level enthusiast - and even sell photos - without having a dozen lenses or more. The M lenses cover all the bases save one - no superzooms. And due to the small size, it is unlikely that we will see one in that category as the camera will be way too lens heavy with one attached Not every enthusiast or even professional needs really fast lenses or a wide DOF (depends on what they shoot, of course). The M lenses cover all the bases - and with very good quality (I would say the best IQ for the price). The wide angle zoom (11-22mm) delivers - in my opinion - better IQ than the FF wide angle L lens. So perfectly adequate for many high-level enthusiasts
 
Apr 3, 2018
135
50
Calgary
#85
I agree that Olympus is expensive, and that's why Canon EF-S is attractive.
But the discussion is about the future, long term viability of the two mounts, when all is mirror-less, and dSLRs are gone.
I think we all agree that in the future all EF lenses will eventually be RF lenses.
Nope. Not at all.

But with EOS-M you can't do the same as with EF/EF-S, because the mounts are not compatible. Thus, when a buyer has to choose a small system, he can look at EOS-M, Olympus, Pana, Fuji, etc., nothing ties him to Canon, because there is no upgrade path due to the RF/M mount incompatibility.
Not at all. Different strokes for different folks. I have a T6i with a couple of additional lenses like the Sigma 16-36, EF-S 55-250 and the EF 400 f4. If I could justify it, I would by a EOS M camera and a couple of lenses so that I would have a smaller lighter package when I hike. I don't care about the upgrade path. I care about the shooting experience that staying with Canon allows me to have.

At present the EOS-M lens line-up has less choices than other systems, though in the future EOS-M has to compete against the others. (After all, Canon most likely released the EOS-M system to compete with m4/3 etc.). Nowadays you still can adapt EF/EF-S lenses, so you still have a wide lens choice. But in the future EF/EF-S will be obsolete.
EF/EF-S will not be obsolete as long as you have the adaptor.

Yes, they can increase the EOS-M lens line-up. But to maintain two complete lens line-ups (RF and M) does not make sense.
Really? If Canon is making money selling to 2 lines, why does it not make sense? You are not making sense.

With EOS-M expanding your system with RF is not possible. So, to compete with full fledged systems a la m4/3,Canon would have to offer a lot more EOS-M lenses (I am not considering manual focus lenses), for example, an EOS-M 100-400 to compete with an Olympus 100-400. (Here we ignore the price issue, but I think Panasonic would be a cheaper m4/3 competition - all the arcane f-stop discussion, most customers don't care about that, as long as you get the right focal lengths for the right price/size/weight. And if you want portrait, you buy your f1.4 or whatever lens, and don't care if system zy has 1 stop better DOF than system xzy because of sensor differences, if you care for such things you most likely buy a FF system anyway). When buying a new system people do consider the possibilities and options they have for expansion even though they might never buy an extra lens. But as mentioned, expanding the EOS-M lens line-up means producing two different lens line-ups, for RF and M, the size of the M-lens line-up determining its competitiveness.
So, should Canon struggle to maintain two lens line-ups, or ditch M and make compact RF crop bodies?
Canon is struggling to maintain two lens line-ups? Really? You know this how?

The RF lens communication protocol is new and the most future proof, EF/EF-S, and M is old.
Thus, it is not an unlikely scenario that at some distant future point, M will be retired, and all with the RF/RF-S.
The RF mount is newer than the M mount. And your point is???

If EOS-M stays more or less as it is, with no RF upgrade path, to me it is not an attractive system anymore, as I explained in previous posts, and Canon would loose me as customer. But as mentioned, at present I am still very happy with my Canon crop body and EF-S and EF lenses.
Good to know.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
#87
Personally, I'd buy 1 more EF-M lens: an "as compact as possible", moderately fast, short tele prime. Something like an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM which I'd use as a 135mm FF equivalent "headshot and concert lens". :)
Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?
 
Likes: stevelee

zim

EOS 7D Mark II
Oct 18, 2011
1,863
53
#88
Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?
without a manual focus ring of course, I think neuro let the cat out the bag on this one. maybe the more alternate personas you have the more influence you have with Canon. but give the guy a break he's on a crusade to save photographers from themselves we should be having a whip round for a statue.
 
#89
Thanks -- I wonder why it wouldn't be in be in continuous autofocus :( I would never have found it, because I am rarely in one-shot (and I don't own a M50, though I do use a friend's here and there).
IMO it has to do with the fact that DPAF is a full sensor implementation of a Split Image Focusing Aid (if you do not know it: well described from 0:40 in the video on the following webpage: https://petapixel.com/2013/01/02/a-demo-of-split-screen-and-microprism-ring-focusing-in-old-slrs/ )

Just think about the length of the split image indicator as the size of the AF point or better region. If you have a camera with a tiny split image indicator you can do the focusing on a smaller area BUT you have less detail to compare and you loose time - but SERVO isn't about loosing time but being fast.

I would like to have much more options in the menus and maybe SERVO would work under optimum circumstances but the M50 is more or less targeted on beginners and less experienced photographers so maybe they omitted that feature because many would see it as a not really working feature under average circumstances. I would like to see Canon enabling a "hackers" mode switched on or off in the menu for whose who like to configure much more but then they were in a competition with ... ML :)
 
#90
Really ? An 85/2.4 prime lens on crop. There's only one other person I've heard of wanting something like that. You're not related are you ?
I would prefer 50 / 1.4 IS and 85 / 2.0 IS as tele construction (pos. front group, neg. back group) to save size, weight and have enough elements to do the corrections. Because I would like to have the choice for THE single prime for walk around use. All with close focus capabilities like the EF-M 1.4 32mm

22 - 32 - 50 - 85
1.45x 1.55x 1.7x


makes a nicely sorted row of focal lengths for (1) lens trio users and (2) those who select one lens fulfilling their need. But realistically I see the 50mm happen with 1.8 and NO IS and an EF-M 85 might have a to small customer base to be developed/produced.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,288
138
UK
www.flickr.com
#93
Then I'm sure you'll be happy to allow me to have my own opinion. Thanks.
Lol. Your earlier point was:

I'm failing to see a strong audience for the M.
To paraphrase a current adage, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts. There is a strong audience for the M series, as they sell well. Unless the audience to which you refer has to be in your head? It doesn't appeal to you, nor to plenty of us, but that's a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
#95
I lived professionally (weddings, events, portraits, portfolios) off Digital Rebels (from 6 Mp to 18 Mp) from 2003 to 2012. Then I went FF with various generations of 5D (III, IV, SR). From my film days I had a lot of L lenses; today I have ten great whites plus six other Ls and five 1.4 Sigma Arts. So I believe I can offer my customers just about the maximum image quality it is possible to extract from today's DSLRs without going to medium format.

Longer ago than I like to admit, by accident I was in the right place at the right time with two (film) Leica CLs and six lenses. Grabbing the CL with B&W film I ran through a roll. The next day my photos ran full page on the front pages of both NYC tabloids. It is my only claim to photo-journalistic fame, but I still always carry a basic kit, hoping that lightning will strike twice. That kit was a Rebel T3i (stupidly with battery grip!), three kit zooms, and the plastic fantastic nifty fifty. But as I got older the outfit seemed to get bigger and heavier, and I started to hear the siren song of the Sony NEX. A quick visit to B&H showed me that the comparable lenses were no smaller or lighter, plus a Sony kit comparable to mine would set me back about four grand. I bought a Rebel SL1 instead, since replaced by an SL2. Smaller body, but still the same lenses.

When the M series was introduced I was mildly interested, but real photographers don't hold their cameras at arms length; the lack of an EVF was a deal breaker, even when you could get one as an accessory. The M5 changed my mind; I got one (with 11-22, 18-55, 55-200, 22f/2, and an adapter, mostly for the 50/1.8) and I must say I like it a lot. I also just acquired the 32/1.4 and that is one impressive piece of glass, 14 elements in 8 groups, that is 2 more elements than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4, which is considered the best non-AF normal lens there is. It is also one more element than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which seems to be regarded as the best AF normal lens. Disclaimer: I know very well that more elements does not automatically imply higher IQ, but it does give the lens designer more options to improve quality.

Some observations:

- Two macros aside, there is only ONE EF-S prime lens, the 24mm f/2.8, which is a rather pedestrian design and seems to be largely a scaled down version of the EF 40mm f/2.8. Over 15 years of EF-S lenses, that is it!

- One macro aside, after 6 1/2 years there are already two EF-M prime lenses.

- The EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is likely the most ambitious lens Canon has ever made for their APS-C format cameras. That seems to indicate a significant commitment to the M system.

- The Sony NEX/A6x00 have been relatively successful in the marketplace. This has likely not escaped Canon's attention.

Some speculations:

- I suspect there is a market out there for a small ILC which in addition to three kit zooms can offer some high grade small and light prime lenses.

- The M range is comprehensive enough to likely appeal to both phone snappers stepping up as well as more seasoned photogs wanting/needing a small and light yet high quality system (that is guys like me.)

And finally a bit of a wish list:

- 50mm in APS-C makes an excellent portrait lens. I think it is optically feasible to make an EF-M 50mm f/1.4 fit into the current form factor. If not, I would settle for f/1.8 or f/2.0.

- And then an 85mm, which of course is equivalent to a 135mm on FF. Again, it could possibly be f/2.0 without getting overly large and heavy. As suggested in an earlier post, f/2.4 would be Plan B. Finally, there really wouldn't be anything wrong even with f/2.8. 135mm f/2.8 lenses were pretty common in FF days.

That's my position, and I am sticking to it!
 
#97
Oh, a couple of additional thoughts:

An EF-M 15mm f/2.0 or better would also be nice, but I would be willing to settle for f/2.8.

If an RF-S surfaces, which I think is a mighty big IF, existing M lenses can not be adapted. But, given the geometric similarities (primarily back focus) between the two ML mounts, there is no engineering reason why future mirrorless lenses cannot be made in both mounts. A really elegant solution would be to make only one lens with its mount (call it, say, an XF mount) some distance (say 10-15mm) forward of its theoretical current mount surface. Then the lens could be offered with either an EF-M or an RF-S adapter, or both. Such an adapter would of course only be a mechanical tube with two mounting surfaces and two sets of electrical contacts. Voila!

Now I will admit that this is hardly a revolutionary insight; as a matter of fact it is not even new. Those of us who go back to the Canon FL mount (hey, anyone else out there?) may remember the Tamron Adapt-All mounting system. One lens, using adapters that would accommodate different back focus distances as well as different native mount diameters and mechanical couplings. Admittedly things were a lot simpler in those days, but here we would only consider the Canon ecosystem which of course is fully understood by the Canon designers.

I am also going to go a little bit further out on a limb here. Sigma offers what they call mount conversion service. They don't say much about it on their website, but I have some thoughts. All my five f/1.4 Art lenses seem to have a metallic ring or tube, about 12 mm long, forward of, but separate from the mounting surface. I am not about to disassemble any of them, but I suspect that this tube detaches easily and that there is a quick disconnect electric/electronic connector as well. Then grab a different mounting tube, connect its connector and attach the new tube. You have the same lens ready for another system. This does of course require Sigma to have licensed or reverse engineered the electronic interface for the new system. But I do suspect that Sigma has some pretty darn clever engineers in their organization.
 
Last edited:
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
#98
- And then an 85mm, which of course is equivalent to a 135mm on FF. Again, it could possibly be f/2.0 without getting overly large and heavy. As suggested in an earlier post, f/2.4 would be Plan B. Finally, there really wouldn't be anything wrong even with f/2.8. 135mm f/2.8 lenses were pretty common in FF days.
thanks for confirming that i am not the only one asking for a short tele prime for EOS M system.

not sure what focal length/ aperture is possible within EF-M lens size (61.6mm max. diameter) and price range - 85/2.4 IS STM is just a "guess on the modest side". But I'd just as well take an EF-M 75/1.8 or 80/2.0 or 100/2.8 IS STM or anything in that ballpark.

my desire for an EF-M 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 is not so great/urgent, since EF 50/1.8 STM is compact even with adapter, dirt cheap and AF works well and silently on EOS M bodies thanks to STM / focus by wire.

but beyond 50mm focal length there are no real alternatives. EF 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 don't have STM and are "on the large side" when adapted to a EOS M body. EF-M 18-150 and EF-M 55-200 both are only f/5.6 at 85mm focal length and out - which is very slow and also leaves only 1 stop to stop down (f/8), since f/11 is already well into "diffraction-induced IQ loss territory" on 24MP APS-C sensor.
 
Last edited:
Feb 7, 2013
25
0
#99
With the EOS R announcement - the users can still buy into the Canon or Fuji system for Aps but buying the bare minimum EF-M glass and some EF glass. Once they want to upgrade can still use the EF-M bodies for APS / Crop work, e.g., telephoto and then buy an EOS R for FF assignments / work and use EF-R and EF glass (excluding EF-M)

Not a bad decision by Canon - in one way clear on Canon's Mirrorless approach compared to Nikon on why no APS Mirrorless system exist at the current time or wasn't developed instead of Nikon 1.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
as users migrate to Canon R and RF lenses, there will be a lot of hardly used, mint condition EF lenses available second hand for little money. Including STM lenses EF 40/2.8, EF 50/1.8 and Nano-USM 70-300 II - and they work very well on EOS-M bodies. ;-)
 
Last edited: