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

[Kit.]

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.

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?

 

[Kane Clements]

SPOTTED TODAY:

My local camera store is listing (awaiting stock) a Sigma USB Dock for Canon EF-M mount. Since they only produce 3 EF-M lenses at the moment this suggests that more are in the pipeline. Probably going to port over their Sony lenses. (I see they also listing, same status) a dock for Sony L mount.

My bet is all the crying on here about a lack of M mount glass could well have been wasted energy.

Bring on the M7 to compete with the A6600.

 

[Bob Howland]

SPOTTED TODAY:

My local camera store is listing (awaiting stock) a Sigma USB Dock for Canon EF-M mount. Since they only produce 3 EF-M lenses at the moment this suggests that more are in the pipeline. Probably going to port over their Sony lenses. (I see they also listing, same status) a dock for Sony L mount.

My bet is all the crying on here about a lack of M mount glass could well have been wasted energy.

Bring on the M7 to compete with the A6600.

When Sigma entered the L-mount coalition, they announced that they intended to make APS-C L-mount cameras. My guess is that they intended to make an interchangeable lens version of their DP0 thru DP3 but are having more problems with the Foveon sensors. Anyway, they would likely have to make wide and normal zoom lenses for it and also could make M-mount and Sony versions of those lenses.

 

[ctk]

Exactly where did I use the word formally?

Project much?

I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?

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."

Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.

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.

An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?

 

[unfocused]

...From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?

Nicely done. Succinct and to the point. I tip my hat to you sir!

 

[Bob Howland]

An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?

The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.

FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.

 

[nchoh]

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 didn't read anyone on this forum thread saying that you had to study marketing to discuss it. But it certainly helps understand some of the decisions that Canon makes.

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.

EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system might incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. If Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, if Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many?

 

[SteveC]

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?

That's the exact sense I got when I first joined this forum...there were a lot of 7D users pining after that super expensive RF glass.

Now that the R5 is out, which could be used in crop mode for 17 megapickles, that's unsuitable because IT is expensive. Of course the people who I described in the previous paragraph might be a different group than the people who complain the R5 is too expensive to substitute for a 7D, but if THAT is the case Canon can only serve them all be introducing both a high-end EF-M mount camera (note I don't call it an "M") with a robust/weathersealed adapter, AND a crop RF--not necessarily with line of crop R lenses.

 

[Fris]

If the 85 equivalent is usable at f/1.8, unlike the EF 50mm STM on an APS-C camera, I would totally be on board.

 

[ashmadux]

I'm curious why that is. I'm admittedly a novice, but if I take a few hundred shots only maybe a dozen come out blurry. What scenarios are you having issues with? The only stuff I'm finding challenging is low light.

That's the thing, ive never been able to pinpoint the problem.

It's just been a bizarre experience. I am very much used to testing bodies ( i have 5) and can usually pinpoint the issue in 2 weeks or less...not so with this camera. I chalk it up to the heavy shutter slap, which was an issue with the M3 i bought years before. The camera is very light, + shutter slap + high density sensor = trouble in sharpness land.

These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.

 

[Rocky]

That's the thing, ive never been able to pinpoint the problem.

It's just been a bizarre experience. I am very much used to testing bodies ( i have 5) and can usually pinpoint the issue in 2 weeks or less...not so with this camera. I chalk it up to the heavy shutter slap, which was an issue with the M3 i bought years before. The camera is very light, + shutter slap + high density sensor = trouble in sharpness land.

These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.

Old trick from good old film days to combat mirrow slap and shutter shock: Put a lead plate ( about 500g) at the bottom of the camera.

 

[ctk]

The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.

FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.

I don't really see how owning a FF R body changes the equation. If someone can afford a bag of big RF whites they can probably afford an R5 too. If they can afford a FF R body and a hypothetical R7 they could just replace both with an R5. I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body. Etc. etc. So I just can't piece together a scenario where an R7 is better than a reach focused kit built around EF glass for someone on a budget, or an R5 with long RF glass for someone with deep pockets.

 

[ctk]

I didn't read anyone on this forum thread saying that you had to study marketing to discuss it. But it certainly helps understand some of the decisions that Canon makes.

So again, what constitutes "studying" marketing? It just seems like Michael threw that line out to discredit anyone who disagreed with him.

EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system might incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. If Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, if Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many?

You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.

 

[SteveC]

You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.

A fictitious dialogue but based on stuff I've read here:

R7 monger: I want to put all that awesome, expensive RF glass to use on a crop body! I don't want to have to process huge files!
Me: Well now you have an R5 which will give you access to that RF glass and has a crop mode that gives you 17 MP. It's just as good as a hypothetical R7, maybe even better
R7 monger: Oh, but that's too expensive!
Me: So you can afford all that $2000+ fancy glass, but you cant afford an extra $2000 for the body!

Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.

 

[hamish]

Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.

7DII and if you substitute EF-S glass, then I'm pretty much the person you're talking about. Earlier this year I upgraded 200D -> 2nd hand 7DII, and will sell this gear to upgrade to M7 if/when it comes out. I'll never be able to afford R5 + RF. I'll continue to use my EF-S glass until I can afford to upgrade to native M, or better EF using the M-EF/S adapter.

So yeah, it seems I'm pretty much THE target shooter for this rumoured M7. AMA!

 

[ashmadux]

Old trick from good old film days to combat mirrow slap and shutter shock: Put a lead plate ( about 500g) at the bottom of the camera.

That's exactly what i did for the M1, and it has been my sidekick for years (fotodiox meta grip). Ive been disappointed that the old Korean and chinese cheap manufacturers haven't bothered creating these for the M for the last several years. I would purchase immediately. There was a youtuber (or he marketing on youtube) who created a very odd looking grip/case thing for the m50, but unfortunately it looked fairly bootleg.

 

[Stu_bert]

These M bodies desperately need IBIS. Canon is going to charge at least another 100 for the pleasure, but hey...ibis + more advanced eye AF and these are nothing but winners.

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.

 

[Stu_bert]

I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?




Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.




An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?

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.

 

[nchoh]

[EFS is on the way out, so in a few years time, there won't be 3 crop systems. But, furthermore, you are thinking in terms of the old DSLR days. In today's evnironment, Canon has purposely or inadvertently created 2 lines of mirror less camera systems. One is a small compact cheap system (M) and one which is to be a full fledged system. That full fledged system might incorporate APS-C cameras and lenses. If Canon continues making good sales on the M system, why would they stop selling M cameras. For that matter, if Canon had 10 different systems and they all sold well, then why should they only sell one line? So how many is too many? ]

You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.

Did I? How did I contradict myself? For starters, did I state that the camera industry is not in free fall? Did I say that everything is selling well?

I believe that EF-S is on it's way out because due to falling camera sales, Canon will have to consolidate and the most likely path is to deprecate the EF-S line.

Also because the M line is selling well and that Canon is introducing better M bodies and lenses, the EF-S system will soon be bested in most way by the M cameras. As well, being mirrorless, the M cameras are generally cheaper to manufacture. Canon released a new EF_S body with minor incremental improvements. Yes, Canon can and will do that as long as North America does not embrace the M, but I am pretty sure that if the Rebel sales start to fall off, Canon will happily stop producing them.

 

[ctk]

Did I? How did I contradict myself? For starters, did I state that the camera industry is not in free fall? Did I say that everything is selling well?

I believe that EF-S is on it's way out because due to falling camera sales, Canon will have to consolidate and the most likely path is to deprecate the EF-S line.

Also because the M line is selling well and that Canon is introducing better M bodies and lenses, the EF-S system will soon be bested in most way by the M cameras. As well, being mirrorless, the M cameras are generally cheaper to manufacture. Canon released a new EF_S body with minor incremental improvements. Yes, Canon can and will do that as long as North America does not embrace the M, but I am pretty sure that if the Rebel sales start to fall off, Canon will happily stop producing them.

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.