The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,495
272
S Florida
But as all the hipsters jump to ML bodies so they can show off their ability (on credit) to buy the latest and greatest, you will be able to find all kinds of cool deals on fleabay. I predict your wallet is still in jeopardy :).
We don't all rely on credit...

vette on blocks 2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
162
138
Which M bodies, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes? An M5 couples with larger lenses much better than M, M10, 100 or even M6 1/ll
The M5 handles bigger lenses better than the smaller bodies, but it still is a pain manage with something the size of a 100-400 or 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4 is about the upper limit for any kind of regular use. OTOH, if you are using a really big lens like the 800L on a gimbal, then the camera body size is essentially irrelevant, but a tilty/flippy screen is very handy in that situation so I prefer the SL2 and the 90D. The biggest issue with really big lenses and any of the tiny bodies is battery life because those big AF and IS motors chew up quite a bit of power. Even the 100-400 sucks an LP-E17 down pretty fast if you are doing anything very dynamic. That is a hit against the RP as well for such service since it uses the same battery.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,893
1,701
imho, the 100-400 Mkll is still relevant and a worthy purchase. (not to mention head and shoulders over Mk l)
 
Mar 15, 2018
52
54
United States
IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
749
512
IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.
It's the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, killing it off would be a very strange thing to do for Canon.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
IBIS would be great in a small body with an M6ii sensor. If Canon would only provide a lens and body roadmap and some basic assurance that they won't kill off the system in the next 5 years, I and many others would probably get into it. As it is, I don't want to risk investing in a new (for me) system. Less risky just to wait and see, hold on to my 80D and invest in refurb EF lenses that I can always adapt to another system later.
What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
532
482
118
Williamsport, PA
That's what happens when you give engineers blank pieces of paper :)

As I understood it all the Canon engineers needed to do was make the best new mount they could within the R design parameters, registration distance etc, whilst retaining EF compatibility, I think universal opinion is they did a superb job.

Personally I appreciate the fact they didn't try to make it do lots of other stuff and subsequently compromise current or future designs, ultimately I have no desire to use big $2-3,000 lenses on a tiny cropped $400 body.
Do not get me wrong, I think the RF mount is absolutely brilliant. Also it is the only manufacturer to seamlessly change from Mirror to mirrorless with all previous EF/EFs lenses 100% operational, no one else has come close. I know the M was likely not but was hoping.
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
474
287
A fixed display is more reliable than a tilty/flippy, but a flip-up/flip-down display is not, and that is really the other alternative in the discussion.
Any time the display moves, it’s at a higher risk of getting caught, or knocked by something, and damaged, or even broken off. I’ve seen it happen once.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
Any time the display moves, it’s at a higher risk of getting caught, or knocked by something, and damaged, or even broken off. I’ve seen it happen once.
OTOH, when you fold the display toward the camera, it is protected.

For some kinds of shooting a fixed screen is best, for reasons you mentioned. For others, a flippy screen as on my G cameras are handiest (inside domes and towers or ornate ceilings are common shots for me in my travels). For others, like a solar eclipse or taking macro shots of small flowers near the ground (to cite a couple of my experiences), tilty-swingy works best.
 

PeterT

EOS 80D
Jan 19, 2017
33
8
What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.
I am not the person you asked, but my answer is: I miss a walkaround mid-quality zoom (not superzoom), something that would come close to my existing 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (maybe 15-80 4-5.6 non-IS if m5II will have IBIS, but still USM) which would be native and smaller/lighter than the mentioned one with adapted to M.
And then I miss the completion of the basic range of "cupcake sized" set of fixed lenses with "very good" IQ (not necessarily "excellent") : 85 f/2, 105 f/2, 15 f/2 (the sigma 16 f/1.4 is too big) all non-IS and preferably USM. I see no need for the rumored 52 f/2 because I do not think it will be much cheaper or optically better than the sigma 56 f/1.4, which seems to be small and good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,893
1,701
I am not the person you asked, but my answer is: I miss a walkaround mid-quality zoom (not superzoom), something that would come close to my existing 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (maybe 15-80 4-5.6 non-IS if m5II will have IBIS, but still USM) which would be native and smaller/lighter than the mentioned one with adapted to M.
And then I miss the completion of the basic range of "cupcake sized" set of fixed lenses with "very good" IQ (not necessarily "excellent") : 85 f/2, 105 f/2, 15 f/2 (the sigma 16 f/1.4 is too big) all non-IS and preferably USM. I see no need for the rumored 52 f/2 because I do not think it will be much cheaper or optically better than the sigma 56 f/1.4, which seems to be small and good enough.
I would not rule out you getting something like that in the near future, the M line is a huge money maker for Canon and is going to be here for a while, no matter what RF does.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
45
18
imho, the 100-400 Mkll is still relevant and a worthy purchase. (not to mention head and shoulders over Mk l)
Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas? :)

Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits ;)

What EF-M lenses would you want that are not available now? There are rumors that a 50mm and a 100-400 may be coming soon.
For *me*, I would look towards the "M" series as a "baby" ILC system. Also, and intro to mirrorless that doesn't break the bank buying RF lenses. I would definately target the M6-II because I like the fact it shares the "guts" of a 90D. I don't need built in EVF. Would I get the EVF? Sure. Also would use a flash on occassion.

But to me the point of "M" is a light weight travel system. For that purpose, based on experience, I would *need* lenses in the 10-100 range. Faster the better; but honestly I have found F4 good enough. I might tolerate F5.6 lenses; but F6.3 is a non-starter for me.

I could see buying the 11-22/F4-F5.6. . . . the price is reasonable. . . . . but the 15-45, 55-200 and 18-150 are all too slow for my tastes. Put a 22-70/F4 or a 22-100/F4 out there for $500-$700. . . .and I am there for that AND the 11-22 like. . .tomorrow.

I hear the talk of primes. . . .but for a "travel kit"; not sure I want to deal with a sack of primes.
I have a sack of EF primes. . . and I find I use them less often than I would prefer. (the zooms are good; and just more convenient in general)
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,893
1,701
Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas? :)

Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits ;)



For *me*, I would look towards the "M" series as a "baby" ILC system. Also, and intro to mirrorless that doesn't break the bank buying RF lenses. I would definately target the M6-II because I like the fact it shares the "guts" of a 90D. I don't need built in EVF. Would I get the EVF? Sure. Also would use a flash on occassion.

But to me the point of "M" is a light weight travel system. For that purpose, based on experience, I would *need* lenses in the 10-100 range. Faster the better; but honestly I have found F4 good enough. I might tolerate F5.6 lenses; but F6.3 is a non-starter for me.

I could see buying the 11-22/F4-F5.6. . . . the price is reasonable. . . . . but the 15-45, 55-200 and 18-150 are all too slow for my tastes. Put a 22-70/F4 or a 22-100/F4 out there for $500-$700. . . .and I am there for that AND the 11-22 like. . .tomorrow.

I hear the talk of primes. . . .but for a "travel kit"; not sure I want to deal with a sack of primes.
I have a sack of EF primes. . . and I find I use them less often than I would prefer. (the zooms are good; and just more convenient in general)
I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
474
287
OTOH, when you fold the display toward the camera, it is protected.

For some kinds of shooting a fixed screen is best, for reasons you mentioned. For others, a flippy screen as on my G cameras are handiest (inside domes and towers or ornate ceilings are common shots for me in my travels). For others, like a solar eclipse or taking macro shots of small flowers near the ground (to cite a couple of my experiences), tilty-swingy works best.
Sure. But the point of those displays is to unfold them and use them. If you keep them folded all the time, what’s the point to them? It’s when you’re using them that the problem occurs.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
162
138
I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.
By 100L, you mean the f/2.8 macro?. The plain old 100 f/2 works pretty well too, but no IS.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
45
18
I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.
I think I had heard this opinion on the EF-M glass before. For my money, I need the 22-70 (or 100) range too much. Not sure I want to put an EF-24-105/4L (with adapter) onto a M6 II body. I suspect at that point, I may as well have a 90D body ;)

I have heard good things about the 100L. I was on a nice sale a few months ago. But considering how much I actually use my other primes. . .I decided against it because of my lens-clutter problem. (It's a lot cheaper than a 100-400/II; but I would get lots more use out of another "air show lens" that a short telephoto prime)
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,893
1,701
By 100L, you mean the f/2.8 macro?. The plain old 100 f/2 works pretty well too, but no IS.
Yeah it's no slouch but that extra smidgen of better IQ means the world in a macro shot. I liked using it with MF and focus peaking which my 5D3 body doesn't have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
162
138
Dang it. All these endorsements for the 100-400/II over the 400/I is making my wallet itchy. When's xmas? :)

Not going to wait for the 100-500RF because. . . .I don't see buying an RF system anytime soon AND I am sure this lens would be hideously expensive. I can afford toys. . .but I do have limits ;)



For *me*, I would look towards the "M" series as a "baby" ILC system. Also, and intro to mirrorless that doesn't break the bank buying RF lenses. I would definately target the M6-II because I like the fact it shares the "guts" of a 90D. I don't need built in EVF. Would I get the EVF? Sure. Also would use a flash on occassion.

But to me the point of "M" is a light weight travel system. For that purpose, based on experience, I would *need* lenses in the 10-100 range. Faster the better; but honestly I have found F4 good enough. I might tolerate F5.6 lenses; but F6.3 is a non-starter for me.

I could see buying the 11-22/F4-F5.6. . . . the price is reasonable. . . . . but the 15-45, 55-200 and 18-150 are all too slow for my tastes. Put a 22-70/F4 or a 22-100/F4 out there for $500-$700. . . .and I am there for that AND the 11-22 like. . .tomorrow.

I hear the talk of primes. . . .but for a "travel kit"; not sure I want to deal with a sack of primes.
I have a sack of EF primes. . . and I find I use them less often than I would prefer. (the zooms are good; and just more convenient in general)
I have found that the Viltrox focal reducer (i.e. speed booster) works quite well on lenses 50mm or over. It actually picks up the center resolution a fair bit on most lenses. I have found the 70-200L with the Viltrox makes a nice combo with the M5 if you are looking for speed. That results in a 50-140 f/2.8 that is razor sharp. I suspect the newer Metabones would work at least as well and maybe better, but it is pricey and I have seen no compatibility problems with the Viltrox. Just something to keep in mind given that you have a collection of EF lenses. The Viltrox is not expensive and it opens new vistas. For example, a nifty 50 becomes a 35mm f/1.2 and the lens plus the Viltrox is less than either the Sigma 35 or the Canon 32. AF seems to work normally, and aperture is reported correctly to the camera for EXIF and exposure.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,495
272
S Florida
I found the 11-22 and 22 essential. Everything else was just so-so and I had better results adapting EF L glass. The 100L produced very nice images on the M5 and the 135L was very similar to using the EF 200 2.8 on FF.
I would include the 32 f/1.4 along with the 11-22 and pancake. It is a superlative lens for the system. If Canon adds IBIS to the M5ll, it would be dandy for low light video as well.
 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,382
358
Davidson, NC
Sure. But the point of those displays is to unfold them and use them. If you keep them folded all the time, what’s the point to them? It’s when you’re using them that the problem occurs.
I use the OVF more than live view, so it stays folded in or out most of the time. Out when shooting and in when in transport usually. Solar eclipses don’t come that often, but it is nice to have the option of shooting them, as well as more common events.