EOS M related camera bodies coming in late August 2019 [CR1]

shunsai

EOS RP
Oct 15, 2011
213
105
Hopefully one of these will be the long awaited replacement for my M3. And wouldn't mind another f1.X lens.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.
That’s like saying that because Canon doesn’t have production sensors larger than 35mm, thet can’t make a medium format camera. There aren’t currently EF-M lenses with a front element anywhere close to the 61mm diameter of the barrel because there large front elements aren’t needed based on current lens specs. Look at EF telephoto lenses, the front element is often only slightly smaller than the barrel (the extreme case of the 300/4 with a 75mm front element and a 77mm filter thread). An EF-M front element could easily be 55-58mm, so while that rules out a 400mm lens, there could be an EF-M 350mm f/6.3 or 300/5.6.

There won’t be, at least as long as EF lenses are produced, because such lenses would be effectively the same size as EF versions. But in some future hypothetical world where there are only EF-M and RF lenses, since the latter can’t be practically adapted to the former mount, I could see an EF-M telephoto lens of 300mm or longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
417
258
As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.
Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2019
7
1
I get the sense that Canon is sending a message that whether it is full-frame or aps-c, or whether it is mirrorless or DSLR, they intend to be the dominant player in the market. Not conceding any territory to any competitor and not trying to arbitrarily shit customers to one format over another.
How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.

I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: espressino
How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.

I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?
If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII).

M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove that yet imo.

On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....
 
If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII).

M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove the dedication to the M yet imo.

On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: illadvisedhammer

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,294
199
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.
Canon Can make wider front barrels - but they decided not to do so up to now. Olympus has to do that because they have no FF alternative in their current lens lineup.

As neuro said: The size advantage of EF-M for longer focal lengths is next to zero at the moment. And if you go solely M and use e.g. 1.4 35 + 2.8 100 macro + 5.6 400 just buy three EF2EF-M adaptors third party or original to combine these lenses e.g. with EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 32. The price of the adaptor is neglegible compared to the adaptors price.

With future lens or better glass type/glass manufacturing tech/diffractive optics there is a chance that we will see a 100mm long high IQ EF-M f/4 200 lens which would be a great thing but I am not shure that enough EF-M users are willing to pay 800 $ / EUR for such a lens.

For the moment I am really loving the M50 with the EF-M 32 welded on it. Depending on the real advantages (for my photographic style/applications) I will buy a 2nd body of one of the new M cameras or buy a 2nd M50 (maybe at 450 EUR after new bodies are released). This camera will take the EF 4.0 70-200 IS mk i which is a gorgous lens on APS-C or the 100mm f/2.0 / 100mm macro / 5.6 400 depending on my needs. One body for "standard" + one body for EF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
248
13
Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: espressino

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
560
537
Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.
People like me who positively hate having to look at the little screen :mad: at the back of a camera, especially in sunshine.
I'll never understand how one can buy a camera without a viewfinder (like I bought that cute little Olympus Pen ;)).
Maybe I'm stupid (I certainly am), but I'm also unable to use live-view...in daylight.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
340
295
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.
beats me but as others have commented on, every single EF-M lens is exactly the same barrel diameter. it stands to reason this is some internal design consideration that Canon has imposed on the lenses for the mount.

So while it would be nice to assume that they aren't self-constrained, it certainly feels like they are.

It would be an interesting question to ask Canon!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin and Pape

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,360
156
Ottawa Ontario
Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.
I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.

I will probably buy the M5 mark II no matter what improvements it has or lacks because I like these lenses so much:

EF-M 11-22 IS
EF-M 22 f/2
EF-M 32 f/1.4

But I do hope they add the following:

IBIS
A top rate viewfinder
Fully articulated LCD
Good usable 4K 24p and 30p
1080p 120p

But as I said, I'll buy it as soon as its available anyway.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
I really liked the M system but my fear is that with M there and so popular, they may way under-prioritize the cheap/portable lenses for the RF system. I don't want two complete camera systems though; my life is already complicated enough.

I've said it too many times already so I'll say it again: I want my R in my backpack at all times and the 35/1.8ISMac is just a little too big for that. I don't need a pancake given that the grip already sticks out so far, but give us something that sticks out no farther than the grip: 50/1.8 or 35/2 or 24/2.4. It doesn't need IS, Mac, or to be the last word in sharpness. I just want an aperture bigger than 2.8 so that there might be a reason to use it even when you have your trinity zooms with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape
I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.

I will probably buy the M5 mark II no matter what improvements it has or lacks because I like these lenses so much:

EF-M 11-22 IS
EF-M 22 f/2
EF-M 32 f/1.4

But I do hope they add the following:

IBIS
A top rate viewfinder
Fully articulated LCD
Good usable 4K 24p and 30p
1080p 120p

But as I said, I'll buy it as soon as its available anyway.
You can buy an external viewfinder to the M6, though then you lose a hotshoe. There might be an advantage there - you might eventually use the new one with older camera. Well, in theory anyway ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: espressino

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,094
272
I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced
 

mensaf

EOS M50
Aug 21, 2018
56
27
Washington, DC
Damn shame, I sold everything but 7 LP-E12 batteries from my old M50 setup. I do wish I still had it every now and then because of the mic input, but the RX100 VI has done a great job replacing it for the most part.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,152
387
I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced
The size cost and performance packages in the M system seem to have worked for a lot of people, either as a main system or as a lightweight travel option. It will only die out if the size cost and performances packages that the M system offers stop working for people.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,139
41
If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well.
Notice that you specifically choose to talk about the FF mirrorless sector, not mirrorless cameras as a whole. Guess you must have already figured out that Canon is doing very well in the APS-C mirrorless sector even though they launched into it much later than Olympus and Sony.

Allow me to repeat this for the umpteenth time:
"Canon — Initially a follower in film SLR, eventually a leader in autofocus SLR; then a follower in DSLR that again flipped to leader; then a follower in mirrorless which may be flipping to leader. Sense a pattern there? Canon isn't generally the first mover, but when they move they move. I think that anyone who underestimates the EOS M and whatever full frame mirrorless Canon decides to produce needs to rethink their position. I'd call Canon opportunistic and well managed. I wouldn't call them the innovator that's going to trigger the next changeover in camera designs by leading the way, but they are quick to understand when that changeover is occurring. Follower that becomes a Winner."
- http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/who-leads-who-follows-who.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
917
30
I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced
small size, light weight, and reasonable price with good to excellent performance. That is the appeal of M. I move from 40D/20D combo to M and M2 combo a few years back. I have never looked back. Now I am using M50 and M2 combo, that is even better. My camera bag weighs about half as much as before. That alone is a big plus on a month long trip
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape