Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I wish Canon would drop the LP-E12 battery and just keep the LP-E17. The difference in size is minimal, only 1-2 mm.
In my opinion is pointless to have 2 separate battery types which are almost identical.
In my opinion is pointless to have 2 separate battery types which are almost identical.
Upvote
0
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 So your only option will be to use "old and outdated" adapted EF lenses.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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
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. Looking at all the possibilities they could:
Do nothing and expect APS-C birders and wildlife shooters to crop their images from the R5,
Release a 75+mp high resolution full frame R body that offers sufficiently fast autofocus and fps so that it can be cropped to equal the reach of the 90D,
Create a high-end APS-C body that is a one-off in the R system and leave it out there with no dedicated lenses (similar to what they did in the old days with APS-H),
Create a high-end APS-C body and create a few APS-C lenses that automatically crop on their full frame bodies,
Keep the M system as their APS-C line and create a high-end M7 and maybe add a couple of lenses, like a walk-around 15-85 and a long telephoto zoom,
Keep the M system as their APS-C line and create a high-end M7 but leave the lens lineup alone, expecting people to adapt EF lenses,
Shock everyone with a 7DIII,
Continue to enhance the 90D until it reaches feature parity with the 7DII but with new sensors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously no one except Canon knows for sure, but I agree with you that a third crop system seems unlikely.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
I think there is a lack of actual marketing knowledge and expertise in these discussion threads.
Upvote
0
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"
Upvote
0
Compact Camera Meter
Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.
j.mp
But it isn't all about the body.
Here are the two with equivalent 35/22mm prime lenses.
Upvote
0
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.
They really don't compete with each other and wouldn't even in the scenario described.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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...
Upvote
0
I own an M6 II and back in UK there are a couple of M5s gathering dust.. I also own the R, a 5D IV, a 1DX and imminently a R5 (I won't list the others - ha ha). Once upon a time, I owned APS C variants (cause that was all that Canon offered).... Certainly different batteries / chargers / mounts are a little more troublesome than I would prefer (although in my case I think my 1x series days are over, so 1 less)
Whether all the above makes me atypical for an M6 I don't know. I also don't know how many M6 users here cover the spectrum of M users.... The largest lens I want to put on the M6 II is the EF-S 55-250mm. I've not tried the 70-300mm L that others have mentioned, but I worry about the weight imbalance. Certainly if an average M user as suggested only has 1 lens, then I would guess most users here with an M don't fall into this category. Thus I wonder how significant we are in terms of Canon decisions as we will break most of their segment "rules".
All the options are valid in terms of keep it small, introduce a variant larger model but still using an EF-M mount, introduce an R with an APS-C. But none of them are the clear winner - they all have downsides. Canon definitely doesnt want to introduce another system or even a partial in a shrinking market. If they produce a bigger M body (for bigger lenses), would that not require larger batteries? Borrow them from the R line? Hmmm.... Stick with an M size, and try to introduce a longer reach lens (320mm f/4) - think they will need to be careful on the balance between lens and body, so that means less metal in the lens. And would that be good enough for a 7D II users? Dunno. Ditto 90d users. Introduce an APS sensor into an R body - dedicated APS C RF lenses when they haven't filled out the RF FF? Expect APS C users to bring their EF and adapt (weather sealing possibly an issue but easiest to solve). Will a R5S keep the 7D II brigade happy? I think the pricing would break this option for the moment (can't see a 60MP or above R series being at a price point much different from the current R5).
Shove an APS-C sensor into an R body but with an EF mount - ha ha. Better than an EF lens via an adapter (weather sealing). No conversion required, but no upsell to R lenses. Less costs for development vs another dSLR body. A new partial line.
Ultimately it depends on how large the APS C market is for Canon, and how much data Canon have to help guide them out of the pickle they have created with the M and R mounts which now means any solution now isn't going to be as clean as on the dSLR side. I honestly think at the moment, Canon are not entirely sure on how to make the best out of it.
I think they have focused on the more profitable R series and the M cause it is selling well, and then they will decide on how to address the APS C - presumably they will have some good data for the 90d, and maybe the problem will have diminished by the time they turn their attention to it and thus they won't worry.
We'll all just have to see what Canon announce towards the end of the year.
Whether all the above makes me atypical for an M6 I don't know. I also don't know how many M6 users here cover the spectrum of M users.... The largest lens I want to put on the M6 II is the EF-S 55-250mm. I've not tried the 70-300mm L that others have mentioned, but I worry about the weight imbalance. Certainly if an average M user as suggested only has 1 lens, then I would guess most users here with an M don't fall into this category. Thus I wonder how significant we are in terms of Canon decisions as we will break most of their segment "rules".
All the options are valid in terms of keep it small, introduce a variant larger model but still using an EF-M mount, introduce an R with an APS-C. But none of them are the clear winner - they all have downsides. Canon definitely doesnt want to introduce another system or even a partial in a shrinking market. If they produce a bigger M body (for bigger lenses), would that not require larger batteries? Borrow them from the R line? Hmmm.... Stick with an M size, and try to introduce a longer reach lens (320mm f/4) - think they will need to be careful on the balance between lens and body, so that means less metal in the lens. And would that be good enough for a 7D II users? Dunno. Ditto 90d users. Introduce an APS sensor into an R body - dedicated APS C RF lenses when they haven't filled out the RF FF? Expect APS C users to bring their EF and adapt (weather sealing possibly an issue but easiest to solve). Will a R5S keep the 7D II brigade happy? I think the pricing would break this option for the moment (can't see a 60MP or above R series being at a price point much different from the current R5).
Shove an APS-C sensor into an R body but with an EF mount - ha ha. Better than an EF lens via an adapter (weather sealing). No conversion required, but no upsell to R lenses. Less costs for development vs another dSLR body. A new partial line.
Ultimately it depends on how large the APS C market is for Canon, and how much data Canon have to help guide them out of the pickle they have created with the M and R mounts which now means any solution now isn't going to be as clean as on the dSLR side. I honestly think at the moment, Canon are not entirely sure on how to make the best out of it.
I think they have focused on the more profitable R series and the M cause it is selling well, and then they will decide on how to address the APS C - presumably they will have some good data for the 90d, and maybe the problem will have diminished by the time they turn their attention to it and thus they won't worry.
We'll all just have to see what Canon announce towards the end of the year.
Upvote
0
Exactly where did I use the word formally?
Project much?
Who says an APS-C RF body made for a highly specialized task requires an entire system of cameras and lenses at every price point?
Most 7D Mark II shooters used FF lenses with them, specifically telephoto lenses. Most of those were L lenses.
APS-C does not have to equate to "entry level general purpose camera."
It still seems to make more sense to make such an advanced APS-C camera in the RF mount, where the kinds of lenses it would need to attract buyers either already exist or will exist in the very near future. An M7 would cannibalize sales of RF lenses compared to an R7, which would cannibalize nothing from the EOS M system.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Knock yourself out, as long as you don't need the most advanced AF in the world to shoot sports/action/wildlife.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
