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

Jul 31, 2018
297
110
i am also a bit surprised that with all the pining for "4k video in every camera", including the most compact EOS M models, there is hardly any clamouring for fixed aperture zooms by the same folks?

Wouldn't fixed f/4.0 zooms (if f/2.8 not possible) be high on the wish list of all "video" users? But all i see them clamoring for is "uncropped 4k/60, served with zebras and fancy codecs" ... suitable lenses seem largely irrelevant to the "4k in every camera videots". o_O:p
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,369
409
is short end the real limitation? should not 15-19mm at f/2.8 all be possible with a 58 filter thread, 61.6mm diameter and 18mm FFD? what about long end - 45mm vs 50 or 55 or 60? "mathematically" no issue, but in real life? without 4+ stops large corner vignetting?
If the short end is too short, that means a more retrofocal design and retrofocal + wide aperture = big lens. 35/1.4 for EF is retrofocal, 32/1.4 for EF-M is not.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
If the short end is too short, that means a more retrofocal design and retrofocal + wide aperture = big lens. 35/1.4 for EF is retrofocal, 32/1.4 for EF-M is not.
yes. 35mm on 44mm FFD is "a problem". 32mm lens on 18mm FFD mount is comparatively easy. :)

Question is: at what wide FL would retrofocal design be absolutely necessary on EF-M mount (18mm FFD)?
16mm still possible without? Or alternatively achievable by rear element protruding 2mm [or so] behind flange?

Looking at Fujifilm, f/2.8 is definitely "a challenge" ...
* XF 16-55/2.8 is 83.3 D x 106mm L, 655g, 77mm filter, € 1150
* XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 is 65 D x 70.4mm L, 310g, 58mm filter, € 750;

so yes, the compact lens starts at 18mm [not 16], but aperture goes from f/2.8 at 18mm quickly to f/3.2 @24mm, f/3.6 @35mm and f/4.0 @55mm. From that I conclude, that long end is more of a problem with compact size and 58mm filter thread. Otherwise Fuji would have probably made it constant f/2.8 ... or is it just done to "protect sales" of the more expensive 16-50/2.8 ? ;)
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,288
66
S Florida
motion seconded! :)

but EF-M 15-85/4.0 IS STM preferred, if it were f/4.0 :)
For someone who's been advocating for compact and inexpensive lenses, you certainly seem to be going in the other direction. I want an EF-M 17-50 roughly equal to the EF 24-70 f/4L IS. I don't think I'm greedy...
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
hmm, 15-85/4 might be pushing things, but hopefully less so than a f/2.8 16-50. :)

and yes, i want both, a constant f/4 wide-standard zoom within EF-M lens size standards and at an affordable price as "general walkabout lens" AND a few very compact, "moderately fast" EF-M primes for "specific tasks and situations".

Especially when i cannot get there by adapting an existing, small EF/EF-S lens (EF-S 24, EF 40, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 60) that i already own and want to utilize until i can consolidate all my gear to only one, "reasonably compact" FF system (R / RF ... provided there will be reasonable RF lenses some day as well as more compact bodies).

So currently for me 22/2.0 is "golden" whereas 28/3.5 and 32/1.4 are of less interest to me and a short tele around 85mm is totally missing.

re. affordable price: I'd be willing to pay for a Canon EF-M 15-85/4 IS STM up to twice the price of Tamron 17-50/2.8 (€ 250) ... :)

if we are looking at "Fuji eXpensive" for crop lenses, i refuse - irrespective of IQ or build quality. north of € 500 i only consider lenses if they very capably serve FF image circle. straightforward decision rule. yes, i did make 1 exception: EF-S 17-55, because it had IS and FF was no option for me back then. :)
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2018
15
5
48
Moscow
smorovoz.com
Hello colleagues.

This is a very interesting discussion.

For a long time I was a fan of DSLR cameras. Recently, the Canon G7X M2 and EOS M3 came into my hands. I was very surprised by their compactness and photo (video) quality.

I'm afraid we should accept this trend! The main thing is that the EF lenses remain working in new systems.
 
Aug 21, 2018
31
3
How will the M6 mark II and M5 mark II be speced? What will be the differences be? M6 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8
4k 30 fps 422 10 bit
1080p 60 fps maybe 120 fps
15 fps for stills
M5 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8
4k 60 fps 420 10 bit
1080p 120fps
20 fps
 

pj1974

EOS Rebel SL2
Oct 18, 2011
571
31
Adelaide, Australia
How will the M6 mark II and M5 mark II be speced? What will be the differences be? M6 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8
4k 30 fps 422 10 bit
1080p 60 fps maybe 120 fps
15 fps for stills
M5 mark II
24 MP
Digic 8
4k 60 fps 420 10 bit
1080p 120fps
20 fps
The main difference between the M5 and M6 is that the M5 has the built in EVF (in addition to the rear screen)... and it also has an extra dial. Whereas M6 just has the rear screen (no EVF, so the M6 is a smaller camera body).

I have a M5 (and a M10) - and I love the M5's ergonomics for it's size that is, it's pretty good (I prefer my 80D overall).

These are exciting times... particularly because yes, the M50 (entry level, but latest EOS-M body) outspecs the M5. So I expect the M5ii to have some significant upgrades / updates.

Cheers

PJ
 
I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
835
82
I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.
Your are right. The Canon M line is not for people who like to buy expensive lenses.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,369
409
I like the M bodies but the lens lineup is minimal at best. The M series has been around for over six years and IMO they only have three quality lenses: M 22m f2, 11-22 f5.6 and new equiv. 50 mm 1.4. The kit lenses are trash with a 6.3 aperture and a cheap plastic lens mount. Canon came out with more high quality lenses on the first day they introduced the new R series. This really shows that Canon has never been serious with the M series.
Yeah, the M line is just the most popular MILC line in the world, of course Canon doesn't care much about it. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I mean, it's not as if you could easily adapt any lens in the EF lineup to work on an EOS M body, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I can state with certainty one thing that Canon doesn't give a damn about is what you personally think about the EOS M system.
 
Likes: tron
Feb 25, 2015
111
35
[..] and a cheap plastic lens mount.[..]
Roger from lensrentals.com remarked in a teardown that the metal bajonet portion on most lenses screws into a plastic frame internally, so it only gives an illusion of strength. After reading that I've become less inclined to use "metal" as a marker for quality or perceived worth.
But all other things being equal, I'd pick a metal mount over a plastic one if given the choice :)
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,612
137
Roger from lensrentals.com remarked in a teardown that the metal bajonet portion on most lenses screws into a plastic frame internally, so it only gives an illusion of strength.
I’d not make any inferences about *strength* by looking at a tear down.

However, I would make assumptions about *hardness.*

A metal mount is likely less succeptical to damage than a plastic one regardless of the primary structure material. It is a wear surface, after all, and slides against the camera side of the mount (metal).
 
Likes: pj1974

Rocky

EOS Rebel T7i
Jul 30, 2010
867
9
The strength of M system is, smaller, lighter, and cheaper, even compare to the XXD. I still have my 20D and 40D. As for the quality of lens, I call it “ passible”. For sure they are not “L” quality. But they are decent, unless you are a pixel peeper. The M system served me very well as travel cameras. I packed the M2 and M50 with the following lenses in an old Nova 3 bag: 22mm, 15-45mm,18-55mm, 11-22mm, 28-135mm with adapter, 270EX and a few odds and ends. I can never do that with any other system. The 28-135 works surprisingly well with the M50. Focusing is fast and resolution is almost as good as any other EF-M lenses. If you do a 75% shrink at pixel level (that becomes 12 M) you cannot tell the difference.