M7 sounds like a continuation of the 7D line which is the top of the line for Canon APSC DSLR to me I like that.
Upvote
0
This "branding" exists only in the minds of camera geeks who waste time on this forum. The rest of the camera buying public could not care less about this supposed distinction. A top of the line M7 won't affect sales of the other M series cameras any more than the 7D affected the Rebels.
For the record, though, I don't "want" any particular system. I'll consider whatever Canon produces, whether it is M, R, EF or EF-S mount. Actually, if the R5 performs as well at it's marketing claims, I could be content with that and just crop my images.
I just happen to think that it makes sense for Canon to have one camera line that is full frame and one camera line that is APS-C. This seems to be the way they have been going with mirrorless and I think the handwriting on the wall is that they will continue down that road. As I've said before, given the average 7D user, they would only need to produce one or two lenses in the M mount for most buyers and I can't see them repeating the EF EF-S mess with different lenses for different size sensors in the RF system.
You keep hanging on to this idea that the "M" system is small and pocketable as somehow meaning they can not produce a larger body. That seems like a much smaller distinction than the one between APS-C and Full Frame sensors.
Only time will tell though and I really don't care from a personal standpoint.
Why does one have to formally study marketing/branding to be able to discuss it? There are plenty of obviously bad marketing campaigns that were designed by experts.... you don't have to be in the industry to have a valid opinion.Have you ever studied marketing and branding?
Firstly, I am not saying that Canon will not add more lenses or more capable cameras to the M series. What I believe is that Canon currently is following a certain market and thus a certain design language for the M series, so no large lenses [60 mm rule]. More EFM lenses yes, bigger ones? No.
It is also apparent that within the small form factor of the M cameras, Canon is playing around a lot with different body styles. M6 = premium with no built-in EVF, M5 = premium with built-in EVF with more buttons, M200= small form factor. A higher end body is in the works as per this article. But I believe that it will still be roughly around the small body size of its siblings.
But what is a higher end body? Better video capabilities? More buttons, wheels or thumbstick? Better sensor? IBIS? According to this article, IBIS is in the works for the next M camera. The sensor is already great. Video capabilities and more buttons is probably out as the size of the M body is pretty much full as per the M5.
I don't see that Canon would move out of their M market at the moment... as long as it sells well. Personally, I would bet that Canon will eventually come out with a smaller APS-C R body to fulfill a market segment. An APS-C R body would be able to take the EFS lenses, giving Canon impetus to update the EFS lenses line up, making them more money. Then they will come out with an R-S(?) lens line and fill out that lens line as well... making them more money.
How are EF lenses "old and outdated"? The majority of them are excellent and work great adapted to Canon's mirrorless bodies. Plus someone looking for a crop body is probably budget constrained and won't be able to afford the latest and greatest in the first place. Canon EF tele glass probably gives 90% of the performance for a much smaller fraction of the cost.I agree for the most part. However, the main target of a 7D type of camera would be wildlife and sport shooters. Will Canon create pro quality telephoto lenses for the M system. Highly unlikely. So your only option will be to use "old and outdated" adapted EF lenses. That's why compatibility between RF and M mounts would be good and that's why "EF EF-S mess" made lots of sense.
You can use the same EF 100-400 on your 7D and 5D, whichever you wanted to shoot with on that particular day. Now with RF and M you cannot do that.
So the M will either will remain a "cheap" consumer line with $1000 cameras paired with $100 all-plastic lenses (m6II + 15-45) or with some decent lenses like a
lower grade 100-400/100-500 F8-11.
I think Sony's E mount and Nikons Z are much better solutions. Buy the Sony 200-600 and pick up a $300 A6000 and you have a killer APS-C wildlife kit.
Later add a A7R4 and now you have a 61MP full frame body compatible with the same 200-600 lens.
How are EF lenses "old and outdated"? The majority of them are excellent and work great adapted to Canon's mirrorless bodies. Plus someone looking for a crop body is probably budget constrained and won't be able to afford the latest and greatest in the first place. Canon EF tele glass probably gives 90% of the performance for a much smaller fraction of the cost.
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.Old and outdated was in quotes for that reason. It's still amazing of course but not native EF-M lens and won't be as future proof as RF lenses are for example.
Plus needs an adaptor which adds length, bulk and additional failure points. Apart from that they are great, sure. Will there be updates tho, cause in 3 years even the amazing 100-400 will be 10 year old.
I love the M system for what is it and it's great for small travel kit and everyday shooting. I just don't think a high-end expensive M body makes much sense unless Canon will invest heavily in M lenses. And i have little hope for that from what happened so far and seeing some M lens patents (telephoto lenses with F8 apertures, etc).
In my opinion, keep the M mount for small and affordable cameras and add few higher quality zooms and primes to complete the lineup.
And make an RF mount APS-C as 7D replacement.
I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going...
RP is only 0.6 in longer than M5, 0.2 in taller than M5. If the top of the linw M get slightly bigger, then the size difference between the RP and the upcoming "Top M" will be minimal. RP is already selling for $1000 at B & H. The upcoming "Top M" may not be far behind. The better faster EF-M lenses that a lot of people have asked in this forum will be comparable in size and price of the RF lenses. Under simliar condition, would you buy a FF or APS-C? Then the only people that will consider the "Top M" will be the birders. Most people will get the RP instead the "Top M"
The M5 is significantly smaller in all but one dimension, around 15% lighter, and has 7 lenses below $500 (vs 2 for the RF mount, all of which are larger and heavier). Canon would have to bring the price down considerably on RF lenses to be competitive with a hypothetical "Top M" camera. And even there the result would be a significant size/weight tradeoff when you consider the whole package, including lenses.RP is only 0.6 in longer than M5, 0.2 in taller than M5. If the top of the linw M get slightly bigger, then the size difference between the RP and the upcoming "Top M" will be minimal. RP is already selling for $1000 at B & H. The upcoming "Top M" may not be far behind. The better faster EF-M lenses that a lot of people have asked in this forum will be comparable in size and price of the RF lenses. Under simliar condition, would you buy a FF or APS-C? Then the only people that will consider the "Top M" will be the birders. Most people will get the RP instead the "Top M"
Continue to enhance the 90D until it reaches feature parity with the 7DII but with new sensors.
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.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.
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).The 32 MP sensor in the 90 D is already pretty damned good. I don't know if it's possible to do everything an R5 does with its sensor, with the 32MP sensor, but there shouldn't be that much of a gap if there is one.
You'd also be competing with the bottom end of the R system, maybe not even the bottom. Consider an M7 that is basically an R6 with a 24 or 32MP APS-C sensor and an M mount, selling for $1600. R system sales would likely decrease and Canon would have raised its engineering, production and marketing costs. The sales of the M system would almost certainly increase but Canon would make less money because of increased costs.
Got that Michael???
Why does one have to formally study marketing/branding to be able to discuss it? There are plenty of obviously bad marketing campaigns that were designed by experts.... you don't have to be in the industry to have a valid opinion.
I've heard the APS-C R body suggestion over and over at DPR and I don't understand it. Why would Canon make a 3rd crop system in a rapidly shrinking market? They arguably already have too many systems going.
What would a higher end M body look like? IBIS, weather sealing, more controls, better EVF. A high end standard zoom lens and a weathersealed EF adapter. No need for an APS-C RF body, this would basically fit that role. This wouldn't be Canon "moving out" of the M's market, it would expand it. I use myself as an example. I have an R and wanted to get an R6 to complement it for video and low light work. With all the issues of the R6.... no sale. New crop sensor has proven itself as reliable, so a higher end M body with corresponding glass will net Canon a sale from me and keep me in their system. Otherwise I can easily leave Canon altogether. Better to cannibalize yourself than lose marketshare.
I think Sony's E mount and Nikons Z are much better solutions. Buy the Sony 200-600 and pick up a $300 A6000 and you have a killer APS-C wildlife kit.
Later add a A7R4 and now you have a 61MP full frame body compatible with the same 200-600 lens.