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
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?
And there will be a niche body to go with it eventually. It may be FF, it may be APS-C. But it will be cheaper than an R5 and higher resolution than an R6 and have IBIS.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
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
Canon is more concerned with what is a win-win for Canon.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
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.
There have been plenty of superior products who lost the marketing war.

The classic example is VHS vs. BETAMAX.

Or Tucker vs. GM/Ford/Chrysler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
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.
This forum does not make Canon's design and marketing decisions.
 

Kane Clements

EOS M50
Dec 6, 2019
41
31
Just a personal opinion based on owning or having owned R and M cameras and EF, RF and M lenses. I have no idea what Canon might do, nor what they should do.

For me, based on my experience, putting out a crop R series camera as a 7D successor has the following benefits:

Larger body closer in size, weight, button layout to the 7D.
Much easier to use existing EF telephoto lenses on a larger camera with bigger grip.
Users can buy RF lenses and use them.
Canon need not create any APC-S line of lenses - patents already exist for lenses that would be fine for both FF and crop, such as a 17-70mm lens.

Drawbacks of creating an R series crop camera:

Having both FF and APS-C cameras in the same system might cause some confusion.

Advantages of an M series successor to the 7D:

A clear defining line between their FF and crop cameras.

Drawbacks of creating an M series successor to the 7D:

Possible confusion at having an M body that would need to be (in my opinion) twice the size and weight of all the other M models.
The need to create M series telephoto lenses
RF lenses will not work on the camera

If they decide to keep the body small to be consistent with the other M cameras:

Ergonomically awful (base on my experience) to use almost any EF lens on a tiny camera. Personally, I found even relatively small or light lenses such as the old EF 28-105 or the EF-S 55-250mm to be uncomfortable to the point where I sold those lenses when I got the M-5. I found only M series lenses were a good match with the M series camera.

Ergonomically awful to create any telephoto lens larger than the 55-200 that exist now, making it ergonomically awful for any wildlife, sports or any of the major uses that 7D owners now use their cameras.

If the target consumer for the M series camera is someone looking for the smallest, lightest system, good for tourists, casual users and vloggers, then putting out an M series successor to the 7D makes no sense. My guess is that a large segment of this target consumer group won't care if the camera is crop or FF - or even knows what the difference is. To them, camera size is what the differentiating factor is - not sensor size.

If the target consumer for a 7D successor is a pro or high level enthusiast looking for a camera (and lenses) with extra reach for wildlife and sports, then an R series crop camera makes much more sense, in my opinion. Mainly, because Canon already has lenses for that consumer and will no doubt develop more in the RF line.
Hi Czardoom.

If you go and take a look at the crop frame Fuji X-T 4 you will see pretty much what Canon needs to aim for. The body dimension are on a par with the RP. It weighs about 600 grammes with battery and SD cards. Excellent IBIS. It is weather sealed, has twin SD card slots. Excellent video, though with overheating in 4K. Burst rates good enough for sports and BIF. Range of lenses with many weather sealed.

Viltrox (and others) produce adaptors to mount a load of Canon EF and EF-S lenses with full auto focus in stills, though there are restrictions for video.

So essentially for all the hot air expended on this thread, a fair amount of it mine admittedly, another company has already produced the camera equivalent to that which has stirred such debate and passion whilst only a glimmer in the eye of Canon (Rumours). It can all be done in a smallish body that would balance nicely with Canon legacy glass, of which we probably all have rather more than we should.

I've plans, currently deferred due to the wretched virus, to do a couple of serious walking trips in mountainous terrain and at the moment my M50 is too small and neither that or the RP are whether sealed. I'm not confident Canon will come up with the goods in time for me (I figure I'm looking at Autumn 2021 at the earliest because of Covid) the Sony 6600 looks Ok on paper but doesn't cut it in the flesh, so I may have to invest in Fuji.

Funny old world.

By the way, my EF-S 15-85 balances well and works nicely on the M50.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
Didn't some old G series have stabilization? I feel like I've seen it in the spec before...too lazy to look now
Yes, but it was lens based IS. Even some lower tier PowerShots had it. But it was always lens based, not sensor based.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible.

If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.
Maybe for sports (but then again, maybe not). But for the birders sensor size is irrelevant, it's all about pixel density. If there is an R7, it will be at least 32 MP which is the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor. The R5 doesn't begin to approach that.

If the EOS R5s ever gets released and can shoot at the same frame rates as the R5 and R6, I can see the argument there that, other than price, it makes an R7 redundant. But the R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. So why change at all as long as 7D Mark II bodies are available?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
That latter would be handy too if one finds one's self wishing it were a 1.5 crop because the subject was just a teeny, tiny bit too large to fit in 1.6, e.g., a BIF whose wingtip went outside the box at the exact instant the shutter tripped.

If I understand it, the R5 crop mode really does NOT record anything outside the crop area, unlike the 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 ratios, where the entire frame is written to the raw file but the JPG (if you have jpegs turned on) is cropped to the desired ratio.
The R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. Why change at all?

Most birders rarely have an issue with the target being too large compared to it being too small due to distance. Maybe a 500:1 ratio between the two situations?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,752
1,619
The R5 doesn't even have the same pixel density as the 7D Mark II. Why change at all?

Most birders rarely have an issue with the target being too large compared to it being too small due to distance. Maybe a 500:1 ratio between the two situations?
20.2 vs 17.6, so: true. But of course there's zero reason 7D folks cannot continue to use their old cameras, at least until they fall apart from heavy use. At which point it's buy a used unit, or switch to some other model, or even brand.

Yeah, I realized what I said was not even consistent with my example. So let me amend my hypothetical: one COULD benefit from capturing a BIF that would otherwise have been partially outside of frame (regardless of whether it could fit if the camera were centered on it) because the bird "jinked" while you were following it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,126
1,832
I tried, I really tried, to drop this conversation...but...



I think people hear your argument. They just don't find it convincing.

It rests on your definition of what the EOS-M system is and presumes that the EOS-M system can only ever be what you think it is.

My counter argument is that it's Canon's line of cameras and lenses and they can do anything they want with it.

Like you, my personal preference would be a 7DIII. But, I'm simply more willing to entertain the notion that it is at least a 50/50 proposition that Canon, if they ever again make a high-end sports/wildlife focused APS-C camera, will chose to keep the APS-C and Full Frame lines separate.
They never kept APS-C, APS-H, and FF separate in the EF system.

Why do people dismiss so easily the possibility that the difference between EOS-M and EOS R is something other than sensor size? It's like deja vu from 10-20 years ago when the only thing that mattered was megapixels.

You completely reject the notion that there is value in keeping the APS-C line and the full-frame line separate. I happen to think that there is at least some merit in such a decision and that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Canon may go that route.
No, I do not completely reject the notion. But there are plenty of voices here who argue that position, I see no need to repeat again what they continually post here.

I do think it is more likely than not the defining difference between the EOS M system and the EOS R system is not sensor sensor size. It seems to me far more likely, based on what Canon has done so far with both systems, the differences are about which types of buyers they want to attract with each system.

Much of your argument is also based on what lenses Canon currently makes for the RF mount. But, Canon can also make whatever lenses they want. If they decide to make a long telephoto lens in the M mount, they can do it. Having lenses in the RF mount doesn't preclude them from making lenses in other mounts. And, given the low prices for some of those new RF mount lenses, it doesn't seem like retail price would be a barrier to offering similar lenses in an M mount.
It's based on what Canon has done for two decades with APS-C, APS-H, and FF DSLR bodies and EF/EF-S lenses and what Canon has thus far done with both EOS M bodies/EF-M lenses as well as EOS R bodies /RF lenses.

Canon has had eight years to introduce EF-M lenses to the EOS-M system. If they wanted to sell premium EF-M lenses in the EOS-M system they have had more than ample time to introduce them.

Finally, I'm not even sure if Canon would make an APS-C R7 at a price point that would be reminiscent of the 7D series. The 7DII and the 5DIII came out before Canon changed it's sensor fabrication to on-chip ADC. With their more modern sensor fabrication, the cost of a full-frame sensor seems to have significantly dropped (based on the pricing of the EOS R and RP.) Could they make a feature-packed R7 at a price point significantly below the R5? Would they? Would they be better off putting those features into an M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup with no ceiling, instead of somewhere in the middle of the R lineup? Would that increase sales, because it would appeal to M buyers who want to own the best in the line, rather than R buyers who want a second body? Only Canon knows.
The EOS 5D Mark IV was the same price in 2016 that the EOS 5D Mark III was in 2012.

The EOS 90D was introduced at the same price in 2019 as the 80D in 2016 and the 70D in 2012.

Canon's pricing has always been market driven, not cost driven. Always.

The pricing of the EOS R and EOS RP were based on where Canon wanted to place them in terms of price points. Also, both sensors were retreads from the 5D Mark IV and 6D Mark II, respectively. That decision may have been based as much on how many they already had stockpiled on hand due to less than projected sales of the 5DIV and 6DII than on the cost of making them.

If Canon can't make a product at a desired price point they don't raise the price and keep the design, they change the design until it can be sold profitably at the desired price point.

But even if it were cost driven, if producing a FF sensor is cheaper post-2015 than pre-2016, then that would apply all the more to APS-C sensors. This argues against an R7 having to cost more relative to the R5 and R6 than the 7D and 7D Mark II cost compared to the 5D Mark III and 6D/6D Mark II.

The 7D and 7D Mark II sat squarely in the middle of the EF lineup. It was three times the cost of the entry level Rebels. It was one-third the cost of the 1-Series. Why do you think a mirrorless equivalent has to be "king" of its mount?

The typical M buyer outside North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe doesn't care about a ceiling. They are like most Rebel buyers a decade ago. They bought one and used it without worrying about the next Rebel coming down the pike. I've got friends still shooting with Rebel XTi and T3i bodies. I've got friends still shooting with Nikon D50 and D90 bodies. They all do tend to use their phone more than their cameras, though. But so do many EOS M owners. They only grab the camera when they're going to a special event like a birthday party or taking a trip, in much the same way that most other Rebel owners once did. The vocal Rebel users who wasted money (that could have been spent on lighting, better lenses, etc.) on every single upgrade that inhabit these forums are not the typical Rebel buyer.

Sure only Canon knows for sure what their current plans are. But history can be a pretty good indicator, especially for a company as conservative as Canon.

History is filled with generals and football coaches and baseball managers who were successful because they understood their opponents past history and tendencies better than their opponents understood theirs.

Clemson won the National Championship game in football in 2017 because their coaches did their homework about how lenient the Big12 crew calling the game had been all season long with letting offensive receiver throw picks. It caught Alabama off guard because neither SEC officials nor ACC officials had allowed the same thing.

One reason the Civil War lasted as long as it did was because Lee and the other Southern generals knew their northern counterparts, whom they had been instructed by at West Point and under whom they had fought the Mexican-American War, better than the Northern commanders knew themselves. The tide of the war only turned when Lincoln replaced his commanders with "unknown" generals like Grant, Sherman, and Custer who were as unpredictable to their foes as their foes were to them.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,128
3,293
120
I think any discussion or theorizing on the future of APS-C/EOS-M/7D III/RF and potential for an RF crop should really look at how the market evolved into what we knew and where the technology is now.

For a start the earliest general mass market APS-C Canon cameras were the D30, D60 and the breakout 10D, these were not EF-S cameras and the crop sensor was forced into the larger EF cameras because of cost, don't forget the 10D was $1,999 at launch nearly 20 years ago back when $2,000 was a lot more money! Canon realized there was a sizable market who wanted digital sensors but couldn't afford larger than the APS-C so they started introducing EF-S lenses a full four years and four iterations after the first general mass market APS-C cameras were released.

This general mass market did serve as a feeder market for some users to grow into mixed APS-C and FF ownership but don't forget unlike Nikon, who moved to FF sensors much more slowly, Canon crop camera lenses never worked, or even fitted, onto FF bodies so somebody with a comprehensive EF-S system effectively started from scratch when they bought their first FF body anyway. But the EF-s cameras were always very much aimed at the mass market at numerous price points, it really was something of an accident that niche users like the birders who wanted pixel density and affordable reach bought into the sensor size too.

Canon have transitioned to MILC's with two systems aimed at two very different market segments just as they had with APS-C/EF-s and FF/EF, the core difference being the mounts are different and the lenses have been optimized for their respective market segments. But they started this transition with a cleaner slate and comparatively little considerations for interoperability just mindful of people transitioning from the ubiquitous EF, that is why EF lenses fit EF-M and EOS R. I believe Canon see the major selling feature/advantage of EOS-M is the size, ergo no big lenses fit into the marketing system ethos. Enthusiasts/pros might own an M camera and lenses but they are for very different uses than the EOS R system and they know it, but the point is the M system is better suited to them as customers for that use because of the size, weight and price and those M sales still make up the larger part of the mass market.

But what of our niche birders, what did they have and what might they end up with? If they have stuck with Canon most probably still have the venerable 7D II and probably the 100-400 L II for their price and focal length limited situations, maybe a Tamron or Sigma 150-600 and some might have the 90D. If the former on brand Canon gave them 20mp on an effective 640mm at f9 with 10fps. $1,800 body and $2,200 lens, $4,000 total. An R6 and 800 f11 gives them 20mp, effective 800mm at f11 with 12fps, $2,400 body and $899 lens, $3,200 total. So effectively 160mm longer and 2/3 stop slower with much newer and better AF ISO performance etc etc for $800 less. Of course this says nothing of the IQ differences between the lenses, the 100-400 II is legendary and the 800mm relatively modest, but it does put then and now into perspective.

Given that along with the fact that the camera market is still going through a massive contraction I think the probability of Canon expanding ranges is extremely unlikely. I believe they knew where they wanted the EOS-M when they designed and made it and they are happy with the market it attracts. I believe the same is true with the RF system, if you want a more 'serious' system with capabilities that stretch beyond small and light then RF is it, M will remain inside that key system feature of small and light.

I believe Canon see the future clearly.
1: EOS-M = small, light and comparatively cheap APS-C camera system aimed at the worlds mass market for non phone cameras.
2 EOS R = bigger more complex and expensive full frame camera system to cover everything.
3: EOS EF = pain in the butt carry over legacy products they need to maintain and service with the minimum of effort and commitment but enough to keep entrenched, holdover and inheriting owners happy for a reasonable amount of time. However EF does give the R lens development teams some breathing room especially for many of the exotic EF lenses that will take forever to transition to R, like TS-E's, MPE, 8-15 etc etc that many pros rely on but can keep using with a variety of functionally useful adapters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jethro and SteveC

ReflexVE

EOS M50
CR Pro
May 5, 2020
64
80
Renton, WA
There have been plenty of superior products who lost the marketing war.

The classic example is VHS vs. BETAMAX.

Or Tucker vs. GM/Ford/Chrysler.
As usual, lots of throwing around of 'marketing' without any basis in facts.

VHS vs BETA: Beta was more expensive for both the players and tapes, it's video and audio quality improvements were minor and not able to be discerned except on the highest end home theater setups, and most importantly, it's recording times were half of VHS which was a huge issue given the price of the tapes was also higher. It lost on price and features, not due to 'marketing'.

As for Tucker, starting a car company was hard and they engaged in some shady business practices which resulted in an SEC investigation. The demise of that company is again much more complicated than 'marketing' and they were actually innovative at that aspect for their time.