A possible reason for the change in code could be that the PS team is shutting down due to the shrinking market and that there is really not enough margin to sustain the PS products.
It's clear with the LP-E12 it's going to be a value orientated model. Probably the M50 shell with the new 32mp sensor. Though, I'd not be shocked if it has the overall body design of the M6mkII but with the limited physical control scheme of the M50. Can't say I'm super excited about a camera with an LP-E12 battery, but we will see! It's irritating that Canon splits EF-M models by battery. It can't cost that much more to simply use LP-E17 in all of them. If this is a direct replacement for the M50 then maybe they will completely phase out that model. Full-sensor 4K alone is enough.
As for EF-M being part of the powershot stuff, I thought that stopped with the M50? The interface of the M5 vs M50 does have a different feel in use.
It'll have DPAF in 4k but i very much doubt for $700 that Canon will include IBIS, that'll be saved for the flagship M cameraHopefully it will have IBIS and DPAF in 4k.
I think more realistic expectations for the M50 Mark II are a 24 MP sensor, Digic 8, 4K (No Crop with DPAF), and possibly IBIS. For now it looks like Canon is reserving the 32 MP APS-C sensor for it's higher priced cameras (M6 Mark II and 90D).
The original EOS M and M2 were running EOS firmware, allowing those two cameras to use EOS accessories like the GP-E2. The EOS 3 moved to Powershot firmware, and some accessory functionality was lost. IMO, it was a mistake for Canon to move to Powershot firmware on the higher end EOS M cameras. Will be great if the M50 Mark II and M5 MArk II/M7 are running EOS firmware again.
I think more realistic expectations for the M50 Mark II are a 24 MP sensor, Digic 8, 4K (No Crop with DPAF), and possibly IBIS. For now it looks like Canon is reserving the 32 MP APS-C sensor for it's higher priced cameras (M6 Mark II and 90D).
Hopefully this means the other M will be a flagship beast and use LP-E6 batteries.
I do wish Canon had made a smaller (and cheaper!) GP-E3, the M+22mm+GP-E2 looks top heavy.
The GP-E2 on the M and M2 does look top heavy, but it's not. The GP-E2 is pretty light, even with an alkaline battery in it. I do wish the GP-E2 worked on my M6 Mark II as I find it far more useful for geotagging then the Canon phone app paired to the camera.
Agreed, I'm happy the GP-E2 work on my RP and according to the manual on the R5 as well. I tag the M6II pictures using the GP-E2 or phone tracklog in lightroom. I lack the discipline to restart the Canon Connect apps every time I turn on the M6II in the field. If you don't, it will use old coordinates.
Given how minor the difference is between an E17 and and E12, I wonder why they're bothering to design anything new around an E12.
Great question! The only EOS M series camera I can see them keeping the LP-E12 battery for is the MX00 cameras. That EOS M series body needs such a small battery to stay at it's pocketable size (with EF-M 22mm lens).
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?
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?
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.
I guess not, which is why the M10, M100 and M200 all have a separate location for the SD card on the opposite side of the camera.