Canon talks IBIS and EOS M in a recent interview
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
"We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features"
In other words, we have these really expensive lenses that come with IS, so buy them if you are interested in image stabilisation, because we're not in any hurry to offer ibis in any of our cameras in the near future.
Extremely disappointing.
In other words, we have these really expensive lenses that come with IS, so buy them if you are interested in image stabilisation, because we're not in any hurry to offer ibis in any of our cameras in the near future.
Extremely disappointing.
Upvote
0
Also, why did bdbender4 buy the EF-M 32, which was released after the Z6, knowing that weather sealing and IBIS (by definition) weren't on the cards for that lens?
Upvote
0
That's a good logical question. My thinking didn't follow the release dates. I was waiting - and still am waiting - for an update to the M5. If that ever happens, I can see perhaps using both systems. I like the EF-M system, but if the only thing keeping it alive is the popularity of the M50 in Japan, then it won't evolve into a real system. Then I will lose interest and probably sell it.
Regarding the Z6, with the 24-70 zoom it is reasonably compact and takes really nice images. I wanted to like the Canon R better, but IMHO strange throwback controls, handicapped video, no IBIS, and large heavy lenses didn't float my boat. Not to mention that the EOS-R with the 24-105 lens was $800 more(!) than the Z6 with 24-70.
Upvote
0
I absolutely agree with you on the M5. It's all good and well to say that they'll let the market decide but I wonder if the fact that they barely released anything EF-M-related (let alone EF-S) last year, and don't seem to be planning on this year given that they're shifting most of their resources to the R system, doesn't send a strong signal (at least to those customers who read up before they buy). The release of the M50 last year was accompanied by a chorus of reviews saying that this was only the entry-level model, and that most of its drawbacks didn't matter in that class and would not be there in the (surely soon-to-be-released) M5 successor. Which shows no signs of materialising over a year later. And I honestly don't understand why there wouldn't be a market for 'small, capable, portable, sells in large quantities'. Surely they will have done their research but if you don't release certain models you don't know whether they wouldn't potentially sell really well. (So by taking another route I absolutely agree with your reasoning on the EOS R as well: lenses too pricey and too heavy for semi-dedicated hobbyists (those smartphone users the camera manufacturers arguably want to court), R and RP not up to the standards (I think) of (some) pros).
Upvote
0
Why do you care about the M5's update? I imagine it offered something that you bought it; wheter it being updated or not would not change it.
In contrast, if you already moved on to Z6, there would be no EOS M update to compete with Z6 (or R/RP)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Maybe Canon will use the EOS M system as a testbed for IBIS and presumably full sensor 4k: If the systems work in the field, tested by hundreds of thousend customers you can track failure rates of subsystems and customer feedback.
E.g. the EF-M 32 f/1.4: A strange lens because it is designed for an "amateur camera system" but is in my opinion something like a mini RF 50 f/1.2 construction wise and IQ wise (TDP, both lenses, f/1.4 https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1) The RF wins the direct comparison but (1) maybe the influence of the higher sensor resolution (~112 % scaling / linear) helps the perception and (2) the combo is not miles ahead but ~ 5 times more expensive.
But where are the raving reviews about EF-M 32 two days after its availability? Missing. Where have been the bad reviews if it were crap? Missing too.
Releasing stuff with new features/capabilities for the EF-M system is IMO a low risk procedure. The M50 is a good example because it has a lot of features (and some standards are underrepresented) which were new at the time of introduction and maybe Canon will do the same with an EOS M5 mkii adding IBIS and maybe 4k without additional crop.
This might keep the EOS M system alive for a longer time especially if Canon releases some fine primes in the lower focal length region like
EF-M 10 f/4.0 (16mm equiv)
EF-M 15 f/2.0 (24mm)
(EF-M 22 f/2.0) (35mm) done, pancake
(EF-M 32 f/1.4) (50mm) done, high quality, high aperture standard prime
EF-M 53 f/1.4 (85mm)
EF-M 85 f/1.8 IS (135mm) <= f/1.8 to keep the diameter inside the ~60mm standard
E.g. the EF-M 32 f/1.4: A strange lens because it is designed for an "amateur camera system" but is in my opinion something like a mini RF 50 f/1.2 construction wise and IQ wise (TDP, both lenses, f/1.4 https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1) The RF wins the direct comparison but (1) maybe the influence of the higher sensor resolution (~112 % scaling / linear) helps the perception and (2) the combo is not miles ahead but ~ 5 times more expensive.
But where are the raving reviews about EF-M 32 two days after its availability? Missing. Where have been the bad reviews if it were crap? Missing too.
Releasing stuff with new features/capabilities for the EF-M system is IMO a low risk procedure. The M50 is a good example because it has a lot of features (and some standards are underrepresented) which were new at the time of introduction and maybe Canon will do the same with an EOS M5 mkii adding IBIS and maybe 4k without additional crop.
This might keep the EOS M system alive for a longer time especially if Canon releases some fine primes in the lower focal length region like
EF-M 10 f/4.0 (16mm equiv)
EF-M 15 f/2.0 (24mm)
(EF-M 22 f/2.0) (35mm) done, pancake
(EF-M 32 f/1.4) (50mm) done, high quality, high aperture standard prime
EF-M 53 f/1.4 (85mm)
EF-M 85 f/1.8 IS (135mm) <= f/1.8 to keep the diameter inside the ~60mm standard
Upvote
0
Only one person is upset that Canon’s dropping support for the EF-M mount? And several negative remarks directed at the only person who cared enough to leave the cult?
Canon confirmed in writing that their next premium RF mount camera would have IBIS at Photokina. There a photo from their PowerPoint presentation out there somewhere.
Canon knows what the market is going to do. That’s the only reason the R and RP exists. How many years were spent by Canon and its customers attacking every “fake benefit” that mirrorless offered? (Sure, Canon were late to market, overpriced, and missing features that every other brand offers—but that’s also how Canon works.) A low price alone doesn’t mean it is a good value. This is a misconception that companies take advantage of all the time. An M50 with the 6D II’s sensor in it is hardly a deal priced even one penny over $999 in March of 2019.
Playing dumb by pretending the market is going to decide the fate of EF-M would be a little insulting to me if I owned a Canon mirrorless APS-C camera. But I also don’t belong to this religion, so there truly is no way I “get it.” I know enough to know I “don’t get it.”
Canon confirmed in writing that their next premium RF mount camera would have IBIS at Photokina. There a photo from their PowerPoint presentation out there somewhere.
Canon knows what the market is going to do. That’s the only reason the R and RP exists. How many years were spent by Canon and its customers attacking every “fake benefit” that mirrorless offered? (Sure, Canon were late to market, overpriced, and missing features that every other brand offers—but that’s also how Canon works.) A low price alone doesn’t mean it is a good value. This is a misconception that companies take advantage of all the time. An M50 with the 6D II’s sensor in it is hardly a deal priced even one penny over $999 in March of 2019.
Playing dumb by pretending the market is going to decide the fate of EF-M would be a little insulting to me if I owned a Canon mirrorless APS-C camera. But I also don’t belong to this religion, so there truly is no way I “get it.” I know enough to know I “don’t get it.”
Upvote
0
Say what you want about the M50 but I have owned a 30D, 40D, 70D, 7D, 7D Mark II, 1D Mark III and 5D and the 5D is the only one that outdoes the M50 for photography and has no video capability at all. Low light is its only drawback when compared to the other models I have owned. I can use all my Canon lenses on the M50 with the Canon adapter and can use a speedbooster to give EF lens the ability to be used in the M50 as close to full frame lenses with 1 stop increase in the lens native maximum F stop to help with low light photography. Video ability is excellent for the price. Only disadvantages in video are Canon purposely crippling that function in the camera. Love the 720P slow motion video straight out of the camera and is perfect for Facebook postings. Canon needs to develop a better battery for the camera though. My only problem with the M50 so far is me actually learning how to use it better and learning all its abilities. Would be nice if Windows would come out with a Codec for CR3 files so I could shoot only RAW in camera and use windows to view the files on my computers.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
