A new EOS M camera appears for certification, with a twist

Eagle Eye

Recovering Full-Framer
CR Pro
Jul 5, 2011
186
56
Virginia
Canon takes some weird decisions occasionally. The LP-E12/E17 is one of them. The other is focusing on compactness and portability for the M system and yet they make every single lens with different filter size so one has to carry 2-3 different filters.
Actually, the EF-M filter size is very uniform - 43mm, 52mm, and 55mm. Primes are all 43mm, 11-22 and 18-150 are both 55mm.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,606
1,455
Actually, the EF-M filter size is very uniform - 43mm, 52mm, and 55mm. Primes are all 43mm, 11-22 and 18-150 are both 55mm.
The kit 15-45 is 49 mm. The two primes I own are indeed 43mm. In any case that's at least four distinct filter diameters now, and after they put all that work into making the outside diameter of the lens 61-point-something mm.

(I said 62mm earlier, but I just realized that's the diameter of my Tamron 18-200 native EF-M mount lens, which lives on my M6-II. I'll go back and fix the post.)
 

Eagle Eye

Recovering Full-Framer
CR Pro
Jul 5, 2011
186
56
Virginia
The kit 15-45 is 49 mm. The two primes I own are indeed 43mm. In any case that's at least four distinct filter diameters now, and after they put all that work into making the outside diameter of the lens 61-point-something mm.

(I said 62mm earlier, but I just realized that's the diameter of my Tamron 18-200 native EF-M mount lens, which lives on my M6-II. I'll go back and fix the post.)
Gotcha. Yet another reason for Canon to replace the 15-45.
 

Sibir Lupus

EOS M6 Mark II + EOS M10
Feb 4, 2015
135
68
36
Gotcha. Yet another reason for Canon to replace the 15-45.
The 15-45mm needs to be revised to give the future MX00 and M50 Mark II a better performing standard kit lens. A "higher end" kit lens has been rumored along side the M5 Mark II/M7, so hopefully we'll see some specs on it soon.
 

scottw

I'm New Here
Aug 30, 2018
11
6
photographybanzai.com
The only difference is a millimeter of thickness. I have to try to read the black on black label to tell the difference between the spare 17 and the spare 12 in my EF-M camera bag, or pull them both out and hold them side by side.

They can't squeeze one millimeter of space out even in the 00 cameras?
I have the M50 and M5. Basically the same camera. I guess the M50 is slightly thinner, but it's extremely inconsequential.

I'm thinking it costs them a little bit less to use LP-E12. Looking in the battery compartments, the M5 has 4 pins and the M50 has 3 even though the LP-E12 has 4 contact points. The physical differences are that the M5's sidewalls and rugger grip material are thinner. They are both plastic around there so the M5 is actually a little flimsier feeling.

Can't see any other reason. It is irritating having two sets of batteries. Maaaaybe the M100 styled body, but even then I don't get it.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
314
229
Simple, cost. MicroUSB is only for data transfer on these cameras. USB Type C adds PD functionality to allow recharging of the battery with a compatible charger.
Using USB-C connector doesn't necessitate Power Delivery.

In fact the majority of USB-C devices in the World don't have PD; they don't need 100W; 15W over standard USB 3.1 is fine.
 

Sibir Lupus

EOS M6 Mark II + EOS M10
Feb 4, 2015
135
68
36
Using USB-C connector doesn't necessitate Power Delivery.

In fact the majority of USB-C devices in the World don't have PD; they don't need 100W; 15W over standard USB 3.1 is fine.
Understood, but charging over USB hasn't been a feature on Canon EOS cameras up until them using USB Type C ports.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,321
1,103
Understood, but charging over USB hasn't been a feature on Canon EOS cameras up until them using USB Type C ports.
And to charge Canon cameras you need PD. And haven't seen USB-A ports with PD support, so in this case you need both USB-C and PD :)