Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
What does "future proof" mean for a lens? If you buy a new EF-M lens today, I'd wager it will last as long as a new RF lens. Right now the main lens on my R is the Sigma 50 1.4 from 2008. The EX, not the ART. Sure it's old, but I don't see why that matters. It works great and fit my budget and needs at the time.

For tele glass adapters don't add length or bulk; from ~40mm on lenses tend to be the same length from the sensor. If a mirrorless lens longer than 40mm is smaller than its DSLR equivalent it's because of design differences.

I don't see how or why a higher end M body would change what M mount is about. It's not like an M7 would prompt the discontinuation of everything under it. Canon can and has done both and they can do it here.
Can Canon do that? Sure they could.

Would Canon maximize profitability doing that? They don't seem to think they would.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
517
559
Knock yourself out, as long as you don't need the most advanced AF in the world to shoot sports/action/wildlife.
AF improves all the time. I was happy shooting with a 7DII with it's much more primitive AF system. Of course the R5's AF is great but combined with the 100-500 lens, that's a $7000 kit.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
So strange that some seem to think that adding higher end bodies and glass to the M line would 'muddle the marketing' but that adding an APS-C body and a new line of glass just for that sensor would not 'muddle the marketing' for the RF line.

I think there is a lack of actual marketing knowledge and expertise in these discussion threads.
Only because you can't see that the EOS M system is designed for and marketed to a very large audience who all want a fairly narrow range of characteristics.

On the other hand, the EOS R system is designed to be a much broader system aimed at a much smaller number of potential buyers who each desire something more specialized for the exact way they use their cameras and lenses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
I agree. Of course no one on this forum really has any idea but I find the argument that the M system has to have only small, compact cameras not very convincing. Canon has a decision to make.
It seems to me they already made that decision about the EOS M system several years ago. It also seems to me they are unlikely to change their mind in the way you seem convinced they are going to, all "no one knows except Canon" disclaimers notwithstanding.

Personally, I think an R system APS-C body is among the least likely options. It hinges on the idea that Canon is convinced that people buying into the M system only want small cameras and that none of the perceived reach advantages to crop sensor bodies has any appeal at all to M buyers.
No, it hinges on the idea that Canon has decided to design and market the EOS M system to a specific type of buyer that doesn't care about those things like extra reach with telephoto lenses or features that require larger, heavier, more expensive bodies. Canon isn't really concerned if a few others who do care about those things buy EOS M products, but they're not going to change the entire philosophy of the EOS M system to go after those kinds of potential buyers who are much more limited in numbers than their targeted audience for the EOS M system. They've already created the EOS R system to go after those other types of buyers.


It also assumes that releasing new longer telephoto zooms for the M system presents some sort of insurmountable obstacle that Canon cannot overcome. I find that a bit absurd, especially since Canon does not seem to mind releasing lenses that have a fairly small market appeal. I also wonder just how much more expensive it would be for Canon to take something like the new 500mm zoom and redesign it for the M mount.
No one is suggesting Canon can't make larger, heavier, more expensive cameras or lenses in the EF-M mount. Certainly no one is saying they can't do those things for technological reasons.

The question isn't whether it is technically possible for Canon to do such things.

The question is whether Canon thinks they can maximize profitability by doing such things or by not doing such things.

In addition, I don't know where they price such a body. If it has all the features of the R5 (which 7D users would expect) is Canon going to price it anywhere near the 7DII price point? Probably not. An M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup has no price ceiling except what the market will pay. Since it is a different mount and the flagship, Canon has more flexibility in where they choose to price it.
Again, for the umpteenth time: How was the 7D Mark II (2014) priced with all that it offered that was far superior to everything except sensor size that the 6D (2012) and 6D Mark II (2017) offered? How did the 7D Mark II (2014) compare to the 5D Mark II (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) that sold for roughly twice its price?

I find it very plausible that Canon might prefer to keep a clear differentiation between their APS-C and full frame mount mirrorless lineups, so that buyers know that any lens they buy in the M mount is designed for APS-C and any lens they buy for the R mount is designed for full frame.
And I find it more plausible that Canon is more concerned with developing products that appeal to different types of buyers for each system that they are concerned with what size sensor each camera in each system has.

Obviously no one except Canon knows for sure, but I agree with you that a third crop system seems unlikely.
Of course no one except Canon knows what their plans for the future are today, but even they may not know for sure what might happen in the future.

Yet you keep arguing that only one option could possibly make sense to the decision makers at Canon because you have decided it is the only option that makes sense to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nchoh and Stu_bert

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
Then why are you comparing the two systems? This is the point, they have different purposes. Even a high end M7 is going to have advantages in size/weight/price compared to the RF.
Not if they add all of the buttons, battery capacity, video modes that generate more heat, etc. that everyone seems to think can be done without making it larger, heavier, and more expensive.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
A lot of the additional R5 features which are better than the 32MP APS-C bar I think come from the Digic X. Certainly the AF improvements do, image processing, etc (IBIS calculations may be done in Digic - not sure on that one).

So yes, I agree, pair a Digic X with a 32MP APS C sensor and there would be a significant improvement in features...
That all depends on the readout speed of the 32 MP sensor. It may or may not be up to the task.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,139
3,327
120
The RF 35mm compare to EF-M 22 is not fair. RF 35 is a Macro lens atf1.8 with IS while Ef-M 22 is f2 without IS without macro. it is a given that FF lens will be bigger than APS-C. That is part of the price to pay for FF. M5 with 20mm is barely coat-pocketable. Any bigger it will not be coat-pocketable anymore.
It is 100% fair and relevant because it is the only choice we are given. When I walk with my M5 it has the 22mm on it, when I get an R series it will have the 35 F1.8 on it. So whilst the specs might not be 100% directly equivalent the point is if I want to walk with a ‘35mm’ prime (or equivalent) that is the choice I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReflexVE
That all depends on the readout speed of the 32 MP sensor. It may or may not be up to the task.
That is fair point, I don't truly know as Canon doesnt publish that info to my knowledge. I'm basing it on reading the full 32MP at up to 14fps which the M6 II can do, and honestly, if it needed more speed than that just for doing AF then that's an issue. The image processing side can handle 45MP at 20fps on the R5, so I don't think the M6 II will have issues there (as in, it won't contrain any image processing). IBIS calculations - well that would I believe be separate from the sensor, and thus ok. I'm ignoring video modes.

Can the APS C sensor supply all that data (for 14fps) and additional information about AF etc. Again, I can't be sure. But given how much Canon re-uses existing tech as much as possible, again, I am assuming that if another Mx range is imminent it will be using much the same as the body released only a year ago, and therefore similarly, to support IBIS (only in the Digic X) that will be the combination in a new Mx. Maybe they will drop the frame rate to 12fps and have to adjust a few other things back so they don't have another heat issue - as with more processing there may be more heat generation...

And yep, I could well be wrong...
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
Only because you can't see that the EOS M system is designed for and marketed to a very large audience who all want a fairly narrow range of characteristics.

On the other hand, the EOS R system is designed to be a much broader system aimed at a much smaller number of potential buyers who each desire something more specialized for the exact way they use their cameras and lenses.
You already acknowledged you aren't in marketing, so your opinions are as speculative as anyone else in this thread. You are welcome to your opinion, but I and others don't need to share it. We are no less right or wrong than you, and no more or less informed.
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
I'd like to see the post where I made that admission.

It was a yes or no question. You deferred. There really is no more to say to that, you aren't in marketing and it's not your background, you toss around the terms because it's borrowed authority.

Your posts have a habit of saying enough on something to *imply* you are an expert on such, but never enough to be caught directly admitting something is just your opinion.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832

It was a yes or no question. You deferred. There really is no more to say to that, you aren't in marketing and it's not your background, you toss around the terms because it's borrowed authority.

Your posts have a habit of saying enough on something to *imply* you are an expert on such, but never enough to be caught directly admitting something is just your opinion.
Deferred? Really? If someone is going to share their expertise shouldn't they get paid for that expertise?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
Your posts have a habit of saying enough on something to *imply* you are an expert on such, but never enough to be caught directly admitting something is just your opinion.
That sounds like a trained marketer to me...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nchoh

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
Deferred? Really? If someone is going to share their expertise shouldn't they get paid for that expertise?
You haven't demonstrated any expertise and were directly asked if you had such. You dodged. And quite frankly most of the things you say about marketing are tropes people believe based on how it is portrayed in media. "Perception is reality!" like every dumb book or tv show I've watched claims. I can appear to be an expert in a lot of things if I just repeat what pop culture tells me about it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
You haven't demonstrated any expertise and were directly asked if you had such. You dodged. And quite frankly most of the things you say about marketing are tropes people believe based on how it is portrayed in media. "Perception is reality!" like every dumb book or tv show I've watched claims. I can appear to be an expert in a lot of things if I just repeat what pop culture tells me about it.
I guess it all depends upon if you believe something like "perception is reality" is just a pop culture trope that emerged sometime in the past decade or so (or even that Lee Atwater was the first to suggest it in 1988) or if you have studied the history of philosophy, particularly the tension between ontology and epistemology since the 16th century.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: nchoh

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,711
2,704
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...Yet you keep arguing that only one option could possibly make sense to the decision makers at Canon because you have decided it is the only option that makes sense to you.
No, actually I keep arguing that an M7 successor to the 7D makes sense, not that it is the only option. In fact, I have listed a number of other options. I'm making that argument largely because I rather enjoy the outrage it engenders. However, I'm getting a little tired of these circular arguments. I'm going to try really hard not to engage on the topic further until we see a CR3 rumor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReflexVE

secant

EOS M50
Jun 11, 2020
29
27
I think in order to compete with Sony, Canon should incorporate animal eye AF onto their upcoming APSC mirrorless system, at least the M7 should have it. The Sony A6400 already has animal eye AF and its really good my dad has it and it's able to follow my family dog's eyes which has black hair and black eyes. Even his Nikon D500 couldn't focus its eyes accurately with focus point right on its eyes but the A6400 is able to follow it no problem its so good.

Canon more or less caught up with the competition (mainly with Sony) with the R5 and R6 but it's still lagging imo in terms of APSC. The M6 II is good but it still doesn't have IBIS and animal eye AF vs the A6400 and A6600. The M7 would compete with the A6600 and X-T4 and should have those features at least to be relevant.