IBIS coming to EOS M in 2020 [CR1]

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
645
130
Adelaide, Australia
An M5, 18-150 and 270EX is a match made in heaven. The Sigma primes give excellent results, especially in low light, but they're not zoom lenses.

If you like the 270EX, have a look at the EL-100, it's slightly bigger, but has a head that can flash backwards and sideways. Another option is the Godox *350C, that one is much bigger than the EL-100, but half the price.

I added a black piece of tape as a rim about the bottom of my 270EX, that keeps it from throwing harsh light towards the subject when flipped up towards the ceiling. Don't use blue painters tape, the flash is powerful enough to turn it into a blue effect light :)
Yes, the EL-100 is a great flash too.. a bit more versatile than the 270EX II.. but yes, it's slightly larger. The reason I got the 270EXII is that it was going for a great price (2nd hand, about 1/6th new price), So I really wanted the smallest flash possible (generally I bounce from ceiling if required on my EOS M5 camera). If I do require more 'bouncing' angles, then I can use my Speedlite 430EXIII-RT which while bigger again, is both more powerful and more versatile again.

However whenever I do 'really serious' flash work, then I bring out my DSLRs (often with multiple flashes on stands, etc). :cool: That's why I just wanted something small (and cheap)- and the 270EXII does a great job from initial testing. The built in flash on the M5 is useful in a pinch (where required) - but it's very low powered and obviously can't be used for bounce flash on the ceiling. That's where the 270EX was what I was looking for.

Thanks for the tip about the black piece of tape as a rim at the bottom of the 270EX.. I'll keep that in mind in case If ind my 270EXII produces unwanted harsh light on my subject. Yes, I know one definitely doesn't want to use colour tape with flashes for such a purpose! ;) Cheers!
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
182
150
So now Canon says the R5 IBIS works cooperatively with IS In EF lenses, so no reason for an M camera with IBIS not to do the same.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
So now Canon says the R5 IBIS works cooperatively with IS In EF lenses, so no reason for an M camera with IBIS not to do the same.
RF mount offers much more bandwidth/faster data communication between lens and Camera than EF. Not sure about EF-M capabilities, whether closer to EF or to RF in that regard. It might be a bottleneck in getting IS and IBIS work well-coordinated in tandem. But also hoping for the best.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
36
15
Johannesburg
First - releasing an M50 II without an IBIS is a suicide, especially in a situation, when Canon users are going to be warmed up to the IBIS by R5/R6 releases. Second - give me the M6 III with IBIS and pop-up viewfinder, please :)
How quickly we forget the obvious massive price difference between a M50 MkII and EOS R5/R6
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
36
15
Johannesburg
EOS-M7 with ran RF mount.... come on Canon!

I could understand them wanting to keep the APS-C sensor under the M label, but the RF mount is a must.
Not happening. We've said countless number of times both here and elsewhere on the internet that RF mount is designed for a Full Frame sensor, not a "whatever-size" sensor like EF was. Could Canon still do it? - Yes. Will they? - highly, HIGHLY unlikely because they would need to start from scratch with RF APS-C lenses.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
36
15
Johannesburg
I remember saying there's no way Canon would leave us M5 owners without an upgrade (EVF, all dials, IBIS). It didn't matter what the Canon rep said at the M6 Mk2 launch - there's just no way Canon would leave us out. I was actually expecting an M7 to come before the R5 and introduce Canon's 5-axis IBIS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
Exactly. Big crop sensor / EOS M bodies make no sense.

7D II successors for those who mainly use long tele lenses (birding, wildlife) will be FF-sensor EOS R models. Resolution and speed are/will be fine, crop mode can be used for extra reach. Price will be somewhat higher than 7D II, but those who buy white Canon L tele lenses can typically afford it.

that's how i read Canon product strategy.
There were a LOT of 7D Mark II buyers who chose it to use with a 70-200mm f/2.8 precisely because a lens like the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II was too expensive to pay for itself shooting youth/high school sports. The birders and Big White owners on this forum do not, IMHO, represent the typical 7D Mark II buyer.

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II: $1700 + $2100 = $3800
1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II: $5500 + 6100 = $11600
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
Also, "1k" is totally unrealistic. 6D II is USD 850 MSRP - without any viewfinder = unfit for "typical 7D" usage scenario. Kit with EVF (and 15-45) is USD 1100 already. An M7 with IBIS, duals SD UHS-II slots, weathersealing and built-in EVF will be quite a bit higher.
Did you mean M6 Mark II instead of 6D Mark II?
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
There were a LOT of 7D Mark II buyers who chose it to use with a 70-200mm f/2.8 precisely because a lens like the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II was too expensive to pay for itself shooting youth/high school sports. The birders and Big White owners on this forum do not, IMHO, represent the typical 7D Mark II buyer.

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II: $1700 + $2100 = $3800
1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II: $5500 + 6100 = $11600
no more issue ever since EF 100-400 II was launched. EOS RP + 100-400 II = less than 7D II + 70-200/2.8 III. Or take a Tamron/Sigma 150-600. Or a simple 1.4x Teleconverter. Enough affordable options today.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
Nothing like a good rumour. One possibility for this new EOS Mx. that I cannot see anybody has speculated on is that instead of having an adaptor for EF lenses what if it was to have an adaptor for the R lenses. This would meet several objectives. Maintain the smaller size. Allow Canon to concentrate on R series lenses while having a smaller portfolio of EF-M The key to the M range is camera size. This competes with the MFT suppliers but provide APSC sensor which should be better. The concept has to be a winner. I am in the market to downsize but I do want good quality images and kit that allows me to do nature, aircraft, landscape and hopefulky macro. The Mx could be just what I am waiting for. We shall see.
It's physically impossible.

The registration distance of the RF mount is 20mm.
The registration distance of the M mount is 18mm.
So far, so good.

But the RF mount has a larger throat diameter than the EF-M mount, and the bayonet lugs on the RF lenses extend more than 2mm behind the flange. So it would be impossible to get an RF lens close enough to the sensor in an EF-M camera to focus to infinity. The lugs that fit inside the throat of the RF mount would hit the EF-M mount ring on the camera first.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
182
150
RF mount offers much more bandwidth/faster data communication between lens and Camera than EF. Not sure about EF-M capabilities, whether closer to EF or to RF in that regard. It might be a bottleneck in getting IS and IBIS work well-coordinated in tandem. But also hoping for the best.
Please go back and read what I said. "The R5 will support IBIS cooperation with EF (again EF) lenses" EF lenses on an R camera have no more bandwidth than they do on and EF body or an M body. My original comment holds.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
but camera side EOS M with EF-M mount may not have the throughput needed.

there are 3 different mount pairs
1. EOS R body <> RF lens
2. EOS R body <> EF lens
3. EOS M body (EF-M mount) <> EF-M lens

until proven otherwise i would not assume that combo 3 allows for the same set of IS/IBIS cooperation as combo 1 or even 2.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
no more issue ever since EF 100-400 II was launched. EOS RP + 100-400 II = less than 7D II + 70-200/2.8 III. Or take a Tamron/Sigma 150-600. Or a simple 1.4x Teleconverter. Enough affordable options today.
None of those affordable options include f/2.8.

100-400 doesn't open up to f/2.8 for youth/high school sports under lights at night or inside gyms. The 100-400 is useless for that role.Ditto with the SLOW 150-600mm lenses. To shoot at f/6.3 instead of f/2.8 and maintain 1/1000 second, you'd need to use whatever ISO 12800 plus one-third stop is instead of ISO 3200.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
None of those affordable options include f/2.8.

100-400 doesn't open up to f/2.8 for youth/high school sports under lights at night or inside gyms. The 100-400 is useless for that role.Ditto with the SLOW 150-600mm lenses. To shoot at f/6.3 instead of f/2.8 and maintain 1/1000 second, you'd need to use whatever ISO 12800 plus one-third stop is instead of ISO 3200.
so what. and indoor you don't need a 150-600. not even on FF.

but whatever, i still believe there will be neither a 7D III nor any crop sensor EOS R body either.

An EOS M7 is likely, pretty much on par with fuji x-t4, in specs and price - around 1500. hopefully in the smallest possible form factor.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,200
466
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Well, I didn't mean the EOS M was not acceptable, what I actually meant was the I hated cameras getting smaller and smaller.
Hands don't !
I think my hands are perfectly average, but I have no problem adapting to smaller cameras when smaller lenses are used. The issue isn't the size of the camera so much as the ergonomics and the placement of the controls. You also have to factor in some considerable time to getting used to change if you've been used to a DSLR for a decade or more.

The combination of a smaller M body and lightweight M lenses works really well. It's not so great when using heavier adapted EF lenses, but I've found some combinations (eg EOS M3 with EF 100mm f/2.8L IS) to work really nicely for some reason.

I like the size and ergonomics of the R body and I think the R5 is likely to be a good refinement of this. But I also like smaller and lighter cameras (which is why I'm keeping my Sony A7RII) in certain cases. And an APS-C camera for general photography works better in a smaller body than a larger one. Specialist cases such as birding and sports may have different requirements - but the R5 and the future R5s are likely to cover most bases for that niche.
 
Apr 17, 2020
2
0
It's physically impossible.

The registration distance of the RF mount is 20mm.
The registration distance of the M mount is 18mm.
So far, so good.

But the RF mount has a larger throat diameter than the EF-M mount, and the bayonet lugs on the RF lenses extend more than 2mm behind the flange. So it would be impossible to get an RF lens close enough to the sensor in an EF-M camera to focus to infinity. The lugs that fit inside the throat of the RF mount would hit the EF-M mount ring on the camera first.
Well it was just a thought.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
so what. and indoor you don't need a 150-600. not even on FF.

but whatever, i still believe there will be neither a 7D III nor any crop sensor EOS R body either.

An EOS M7 is likely, pretty much on par with fuji x-t4, in specs and price - around 1500. hopefully in the smallest possible form factor.
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding whether there will ever be another 7D type body, either in the EF, RF, or EF-M mount.

I'm disagreeing with you that the R5 and a SLOW telephoto lens can do the same job as a 7D Mark II and a 70-200/2.8 shooting youth/high school sports, which is where I've seen the vast majority of the 7D bodies I've come across out in the wild.

As far as the price threshold is concerned, the R5 body alone will probably cost about as much as the 7D Mark II (at list) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II combined did.

It's true that indoors one does not need a 150-600, nor is an f/6.3 lens usable for indoor sports, but you are the one who suggested a slow 100-400 or slow 150-600 would be suitable lenses with an R5 to tackle the same role as a 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 as a budget conscious youth/high school sports package.

Not to mention that an EOS RP can not do AI Servo AF tracking at remotely anything approaching 10 fps, and the EVF lags way too much for shooting sports/action. So it's not a suitable substitute, either. As far as camera performance goes, the M6 Mark II checks most of the boxes, but with an external shoe mounted eye level viewfinder, it wouldn't last very long on the sideline of football games.
 
Last edited:

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
It's true that indoors one does not need a 150-600, nor is an f/6.3 lens usable for indoor sports, but you are the one who suggested a slow 100-400 or slow 150-600 would be suitable lenses with an R5 to tackle the same role as a 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 as a budget conscious youth/high school sports package.
nope. you brought the reference to indoor sports. I was thinking more of budget-limited birders/wildlife/zoo shooters, who often have/had a 7D series camera.

As far as camera performance goes, the M6 Mark II checks most of the boxes, but with an external shoe mounted eye level viewfinder, it wouldn't last very long on the sideline of football games.
totally agree here. External hot-shoe hugging EVF would likely break off within first week of my regular use - unfortunately i do run into protruding edges and things, hurting myself and or my gear. ;-)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
nope. you brought the reference to indoor sports. I was thinking more of budget-limited birders/wildlife/zoo shooters, who often have/had a 7D series camera.
I'd already brought up youth/high school sports, a high percentage of which are played indoors or under lights at night, when you suggested the 100-400 and RP (LOLOLOLOLOL) as a suitable replacement for a 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8. Birders and wildlife shooters also need AI Servo AF at frame rates significantly greater than the RP can deliver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM