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

ctk

I'm New Here
Mar 25, 2020
21
25
With the M series, I can put EF and EF-S glass. But unless Canon changes their approach on the M lenses, then as you suggested, people are going to just use their (existing) EF glass. No upsell, bar the body. At least when they had 7DII, Canon could attract buyers to the L series and upsell. M7, no such opportunity. Yes, I accept they could produce better EF-M glass, but then I think they will have to change batteries, and body size (lens plus heat) and haven't they just designed an R7? With a M7, I now have this bigger body and only teeny existing EF-M lenses which will look quite funny. Canon never developed a big range of EF-S lenses. I think they are doing the same on the EF-M.

Design an R7? Take an existing R6, change the sensor (assuming the current 32M can cope) and voila. Price it higher than the R6. It will take EF and you can upgrade to shiny better RF lenses. Use the new RF 800mm with an APS sensor? Yep. Ergonomics for the larger EF lenses? Tick on the R, not so much on the M. Re-use existing tech / design (maybe all you need to do is change the sensor) given the M6 II can do 14fps. Tick. M7 would be quite a few changes. Have your APS-C sensor (R7), and when you replace your lenses you will have lenses which work on the R FF range (another upsell). You can use legacy EF-S or EF, there is the same upsell at first, but then there's some RF glass which you can use alongside (upsell). I dont think you need to produce any RF APS lenses, just use your legacy or buy new RF. Cause that's what any 7D II user wanted if they needed good glass.

I don't think either is a clean option, but I don't see a massive change for the M range. Slighly bigger M? Sure, I can see that. If they put in IBIS and Digic X, they may have no choice. Something designed to take good sized EF glass? Personally, I don't see that.
Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?

There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
290
169
Calgary
So put a timeline on it... when do you see Canon discontinuing EF-S production/sales/support? Why do your "beliefs" hold more weight than the release of the 90D? Even in the market's abysmal state Canon is still selling hundreds of thousands if not millions of EF-S bodies. Companies aren't infallible or omniscient but I'd be curious to hear what you know or see that Canon doesn't.
Yes, I am reaching a bit in my forecast. I reality, the XXD, XXXD and XXXXD are fully mature product lines and require minimal effort for Canon to update and release, so it is possible that they will keep doing it. As I have said, as long as there is a market.

But the main thrust of my argument is where Canon is going with respect to DSLR, M and R lines. This thread is getting kind of windy and long, so I'll just leave it at that.
 
Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?

There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".
It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....

By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range.

I'm not saying Canon won't go this route, I just think it's not giving them as many opportunities as an R to upsell and would look like an R in every way but the name. Plus with the M mount, there is a small lens range which atm, Canon doesnt show any more willingness to invest then they did in the EF-S ie enough to keep them sort of happy. Hence why many users picked up EF glass.

What I also find surprising is that they intend to iterate and produce a higher end M range having produced the M6 II only a year ago and said it replaced the M5 as well. Can they do a u-turn, of course they can. Would I like IBIS and an integrated EVF? Yep, I purchased the M5 over the M6 for that reason, but still have the M6 II.

The RP shows how cheap they can make a FF camera. The 7D II replacement probably needs to come in at 2 to 2.5K. Take your existing EF / EF-S glass, and attach it to a body designed to take larger glass with an adapter. Lure them with the fact that they can pick up a 600mm or an 800mm RF for less than a grand. What are you luring them with on an M7? What upsell is there for Canon past the body?

I dont even think they need to worry about APS lenses in RF - the users of the 7x have shown they will buy the FF lenses, and likely have them. So they will bring those with them, and maybe pick up an RF lens in the right price bracket in future.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark
The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range.
Oh and no one in the range has a 32MP sensor capable of producing 14fps do they? Not that I keep up with competitors. Better AF as in Eye Focus? Possibly. So Canon's APS is better in some features and behind on some others. That's kind of normal right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,368
1,240
It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....

By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range.

I'm not saying Canon won't go this route, I just think it's not giving them as many opportunities as an R to upsell and would look like an R in every way but the name. Plus with the M mount, there is a small lens range which atm, Canon doesnt show any more willingness to invest then they did in the EF-S ie enough to keep them sort of happy. Hence why many users picked up EF glass.

What I also find surprising is that they intend to iterate and produce a higher end M range having produced the M6 II only a year ago and said it replaced the M5 as well. Can they do a u-turn, of course they can. Would I like IBIS and an integrated EVF? Yep, I purchased the M5 over the M6 for that reason, but still have the M6 II.

The RP shows how cheap they can make a FF camera. The 7D II replacement probably needs to come in at 2 to 2.5K. Take your existing EF / EF-S glass, and attach it to a body designed to take larger glass with an adapter. Lure them with the fact that they can pick up a 600mm or an 800mm RF for less than a grand. What are you luring them with on an M7? What upsell is there for Canon past the body?

I dont even think they need to worry about APS lenses in RF - the users of the 7x have shown they will buy the FF lenses, and likely have them. So they will bring those with them, and maybe pick up an RF lens in the right price bracket in future.
I thought that giving a cheap 600/F11 and 800/F11 glass to wildlife photogs was the Canon‘s upgrade plan for those stepping up from the 7 series to EOS R?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,603
1,452
I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.
The really frugal/tight budget APS-C folks, however, will want to bring their EF lenses over, and that can happen in either EF-M or RF, so they'll want a body that economizes because it's not built for a big sensor (either present or not present)
 

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,314
1,098
I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.
Longest glass for the M7 would be the EF1200mm f/5.6L.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,368
1,240
I think it could be. But an R7 would also get them into the R ecosystem, an M7 not so much. Longest glass they can be tempted with? Whatever they have right now.
Canon 7d2 Users: can we have an EOS R series 7D2 replacement please?
Canon: introducing RF 1000 F16 lens... :)
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
290
169
Calgary
I wonder why one would have studied this, but wouldn't have studied logic. There is a difference between "reality is perception" and "perception is reality".

Or is logic counterproductive to marketing?
Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.

For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

ctk

I'm New Here
Mar 25, 2020
21
25
It's not about change for the range - you're ignoring size, batteries and ergonomics....

By the time you increase the size to be balanced with bigger glass (heavier and longer), then you're adding bigger batteries, and you'll end up with a body which almost looks like an R range. So anyone with an M range can't use their batteries, it will be a different size for accessories (grips, cages), it will be larger and it'll look like an R body. And then you stick on the EF-M mount with it's existing tiny (size) lens range.

I'm not saying Canon won't go this route, I just think it's not giving them as many opportunities as an R to upsell and would look like an R in every way but the name. Plus with the M mount, there is a small lens range which atm, Canon doesnt show any more willingness to invest then they did in the EF-S ie enough to keep them sort of happy. Hence why many users picked up EF glass.

What I also find surprising is that they intend to iterate and produce a higher end M range having produced the M6 II only a year ago and said it replaced the M5 as well. Can they do a u-turn, of course they can. Would I like IBIS and an integrated EVF? Yep, I purchased the M5 over the M6 for that reason, but still have the M6 II.

The RP shows how cheap they can make a FF camera. The 7D II replacement probably needs to come in at 2 to 2.5K. Take your existing EF / EF-S glass, and attach it to a body designed to take larger glass with an adapter. Lure them with the fact that they can pick up a 600mm or an 800mm RF for less than a grand. What are you luring them with on an M7? What upsell is there for Canon past the body?

I dont even think they need to worry about APS lenses in RF - the users of the 7x have shown they will buy the FF lenses, and likely have them. So they will bring those with them, and maybe pick up an RF lens in the right price bracket in future.
OK, this is a much more logical take in the context of Canon.... but I still don't see the upside for a 7D2 shooter, outside of the..... "opportunity"..... to buy some expensive and exotic RF glass. The ability to use all their old EF glass and LP-6x batteries while also getting a small selection of native mirrorless glass seems like a win-win for the user. Maybe I am looking at this too logically:D:D:D:D
 

ctk

I'm New Here
Mar 25, 2020
21
25
Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.

For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.
If marketing could trump logic no product would ever fail. Blaming marketing is something people do when they don't understand or are unwilling to admit why a product they don't like is successful and popular.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,994
1,350
Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.

For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.
As if their abuse of the monopoly power given to them by IBM had nothing to do with it...

There are some areas where marketing can afford to ignore logic. Hopefully, this forum is not one of them.
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
Oftentimes marketing trumps logic. Since the basis of logic, the building bricks if you may, are based on perception, then altering people's perceptions means that you are mucking around with the logical conclusions.

For example, Microsoft products were the among the weakest. Yet due to good marketing, Microsoft has been able to dominate to the point where they are now. In fact Microsoft marketing is so dominant that anything that isn't Microsoft like is deemed to be of inferior quality. So in this case, marketing is influencing perceptions and hence "logical" conclusions.
Um, as someone who has spent 25 years in the industry including a decade at Microsoft this is a garbage take. MS has been on top for a number of reasons, among them (but not all of them) -

- Intense focus on corporate client needs, they have long been light years ahead in terms of software manageability and hardware support in almost all industries
- Strong support of third parties for hardware
- Aggressively reducing the overall cost of the PC, especially in the 80's and 90's
- Standardization, again especially on the hardware side (ACPI, HID, multiple other interoperability standards)
- Yes, aggressive and at times illegal tactics against competitors, also mostly in the 80's and 90's
- Extremely lengthy support standards for API's resulting in a lot of software written in the 80's still working on PC's produced today

Things that were not a factor -

- Marketing. They have been slaughtered on this front since day one, that is a space Apple has always owned. They are one of the biggest examples of a corporation succeeding despite thier marketing department rather than because of it. Unless you really think names like "Windows XP Media Center Edition" are fantastic branding. The only brand they ever got right was Xbox.

When I moved on from Microsoft to Amazon the deficit in terms of MS marketing was even more stark, and played a large role in their defeat in the mobile space.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
290
169
Calgary
If marketing could trump logic no product would ever fail.
Blaming marketing is something people do when they don't understand or are unwilling to admit why a product they don't like is successful and popular.
Um, as someone who has spent 25 years in the industry including a decade at Microsoft this is a garbage take. MS has been on top for a number of reasons, among them (but not all of them) -

- Intense focus on corporate client needs, they have long been light years ahead in terms of software manageability and hardware support in almost all industries
- Strong support of third parties for hardware
- Aggressively reducing the overall cost of the PC, especially in the 80's and 90's
- Standardization, again especially on the hardware side (ACPI, HID, multiple other interoperability standards)
- Yes, aggressive and at times illegal tactics against competitors, also mostly in the 80's and 90's
- Extremely lengthy support standards for API's resulting in a lot of software written in the 80's still working on PC's produced today

Things that were not a factor -

- Marketing. They have been slaughtered on this front since day one, that is a space Apple has always owned. They are one of the biggest examples of a corporation succeeding despite thier marketing department rather than because of it. Unless you really think names like "Windows XP Media Center Edition" are fantastic branding. The only brand they ever got right was Xbox.
All the bullet points you gave do not say that MS was a superior product.

From the days of DOS, MS was not the greatest DOS product Dr DOS was arguably better. Programs like DBase was way better than MS offerings. SQL Server was also a poor performer when compared to DB2 and Oracle. Excel was a copy of Lotus 123. Word was crap compare to Word Perfect. The various flavors were Windows were really poor up to Windows 97 was bad, 2000 was bad... yet every time I had to support other products, it was also in comparison to Microsoft and any variance from Microsoft was considered bad by end users that I supported.

Good positioning is part of good marketing. Good marketing understand clients and creates product and services that your customers want, such as corporate customers and support for third party support. Marketing is just about advertisements, if that is what you are thinking. It also includes segmentation and positioning. Yes Apple was a design power house and consequently it marketing was gorgeous. But to say that MS sucked at marketing is definitely wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb34

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
All the bullet points you gave do not say that MS was a superior product.
I never said it was. In many ways it was inferior.

From the days of DOS, MS was not the greatest DOS product Dr DOS was arguably better.
Yes it was, and that is where a lot of questionable and at times illegal conduct occurred. The history of DOS and how MS owned that market is basically a scandal.

Programs like DBase was way better than MS offerings. SQL Server was also a poor performer when compared to DB2 and Oracle.
DBase and DB2 were too expensive, MS competed with them on price. Oracle never lost ground and still is a powerhouse. SQL Server has a niche but it does not compete at the high end.

Excel was a copy of Lotus 123. Word was crap compare to Word Perfect.
WordPerfect died because they refused to embrace Windows until it was dominant, and then when they did WP6.1 was a buggy mess. Lotus and other office products were killed by Microsoft Office, which bundled everything for much cheaper than the individual apps used to cost. Again, MS won on price and availability, not marketing.

The various flavors were Windows were really poor up to Windows 97 was bad, 2000 was bad... yet every time I had to support other products, it was also in comparison to Microsoft and any variance from Microsoft was considered bad by end users that I supported.
"Windows 97" was only a product in Asia and it was actually Windows 95 with the OSR2 update rolled in. Windows 98SE was the only truly good version of Win9x IMO, but that line was groundbreaking in a lot of ways for its time. Windows 2000 was a solid product, I don't know what your issue with that is.

Users use what they are familiar with. MS's strategy was to saturate the corporate market so that when corporate users went home they would want something that worked like the computers they were used to at work. That turned out to be an effective strategy along with low overall pricing.

Good positioning is part of good marketing. Good marketing understand clients and creates product and services that your customers want, such as corporate customers and support for third party support. Marketing is just about advertisements, if that is what you are thinking. It also includes segmentation and positioning. Yes Apple was a design power house and consequently it marketing was gorgeous. But to say that MS sucked at marketing is definitely wrong.
You are expanding the definition of marketing to fit the results you want. Product positioning is an entire discipline of it's own, and to gain that position marketing is often, but not always a part. Pricing, access, featuresets, engineering, these also play substantial roles and if your argument is that they are all also 'marketing' then fine, you win the discussion by simply defining everything into that singular bucket to make your case.

MS marketing has always been objectively mediocre to bad. It has little to nothing to do with where they are. Go watch old advertisements for MS products someday then compare against ads for their competitors. The difference is obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
290
169
Calgary
I never said it was. In many ways it was inferior.


Yes it was, and that is where a lot of questionable and at times illegal conduct occurred. The history of DOS and how MS owned that market is basically a scandal.


DBase and DB2 were too expensive, MS competed with them on price. Oracle never lost ground and still is a powerhouse. SQL Server has a niche but it does not compete at the high end.


WordPerfect died because they refused to embrace Windows until it was dominant, and then when they did WP6.1 was a buggy mess. Lotus and other office products were killed by Microsoft Office, which bundled everything for much cheaper than the individual apps used to cost. Again, MS won on price and availability, not marketing.


"Windows 97" was only a product in Asia and it was actually Windows 95 with the OSR2 update rolled in. Windows 98SE was the only truly good version of Win9x IMO, but that line was groundbreaking in a lot of ways for its time. Windows 2000 was a solid product, I don't know what your issue with that is.

Users use what they are familiar with. MS's strategy was to saturate the corporate market so that when corporate users went home they would want something that worked like the computers they were used to at work. That turned out to be an effective strategy along with low overall pricing.


You are expanding the definition of marketing to fit the results you want. Product positioning is an entire discipline of it's own, and to gain that position marketing is often, but not always a part. Pricing, access, featuresets, engineering, these also play substantial roles and if your argument is that they are all also 'marketing' then fine, you win the discussion by simply defining everything into that singular bucket to make your case.

MS marketing has always been objectively mediocre to bad. It has little to nothing to do with where they are. Go watch old advertisements for MS products someday then compare against ads for their competitors. The difference is obvious.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether marketing is relevant to Canon and probability that Canon will expand the M series to replicate the 7D II. The point I was trying to make is that marketing is important. It's not about winning or losing.
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
There has been a lot of discussion about whether marketing is relevant to Canon and probability that Canon will expand the M series to replicate the 7D II. The point I was trying to make is that marketing is important. It's not about winning or losing.
I totally agree marketing is important. And I'm not accusing you of this, but some in this thread are pretending to be marketing experts when they are not (nor am I).
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
456
37
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
On the one hand, I can't see how they can fit the better digic and the IBIS into a body the size of the M6 II and not have heat issues.

On the other hand, this might lend support to people suggesting the M7 may well be a bigger body - just for thermal management.

if Canon can produce an acceptable fix for the R5/R6 through firmware, well the new products coming down the line may well continue on the release schedule (bar covid). But if they can't, I wonder if there may be some slight changes to designs if the new products have the same workings.
Didn't some old G series have stabilization? I feel like I've seen it in the spec before...too lazy to look now
 
Longest glass for the M7 would be the EF1200mm f/5.6L.
Did you read my bit about balance & ergonomics? I can hand hold a 600mm f.4 II with a R or 5D series because of the design. I can't add on M5 to that and get any sort of usability out of it.

I've tried my 100-400mm on it, and the only way it worked comfortably was to put the lens on a monopod.

Now I know some birders prefer to use a monopod, except if you're giving them IBIS perhaps they would want to drop that. I'd like to see how many people would be comfortable with a 100-400mm or maybe a 200-500mm etc on a tiny M body for extended periods.

Technically, yes, that is the longest glass. Practically?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark