Canon has discontinued the Canon EOS M6 Mark II

[stevelee]

TS-E lenses are great for architecture, although mostly that's shift. If you're close to a tall building, pointing a regular lens up causes keystoning (the building looks trapezoidal), but keeping the camera level and using shift keeps the vertical lines vertical. Here's an example of the exterior of the Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours, the image on the left is not mine but was clearly taken with a standard lens pointed up, the one on the right is mine with the TS-E 17 and shift. Software correction for keystoning has gotten pretty good, but since I have TS-E lenses I'll stick with the optical correction.

Yes, I use ACR corrections to make vertical lines vertical. Most of the time it does great, and for the most part I am posting my travel pictures on my web site, so the loss of resolution is not a problem.

I rented the 24mm TS-E first and did well with it. I found that the 17mm was harder for me to learn to use, and I didn't get very good in the short time I had it. Interiors in my house looked almost like something out of Escher. I realize that there are real estate photographers who use it all the time, so with a lot of practice I might get good at it. If I purchased one of them, it would definitely be the 24mm. The 17mm for me did a great job for stitching. I couldn't have got the whole building in the picture below with just one 17mm shot. If I moved back, trees would have been in the way:


There is a bit of distortion on the right I could spiff up in Photoshop and maybe touch up verticals on the left, but for a quick experiment, it is not bad. The reduction for the web seems to have lost a lot of sharpness, too, but you get the idea.

I used the tilt more with the 24mm. I made pseudo-Ansel Adams shots such as one with everything from a rock near a leg of the tripod to a waterfall fountain in that park all in focus. I then converted it to black and white and printed it on my printer that has black, "light-black," and "light-light-black" ink cartridges. A park in my neighborhood was as close as I came to Yosemite during our COVID lock down.

 

[Sporgon]

I have both the M5 and an RP. Sitting them side by side, the m5 is actually taller than the RP. The RP is a little wider, and deeper, but not by much, and even more interestingly, the RP with the RF 50 STM lens weighs a whopping 5 ounces more than the M5 with the 21 STM lens. The RP is already very close to flagship M size and could pretty easily get a slight shave here and there to get it even more svelte.
View attachment 203409
View attachment 203410
View attachment 203411

I would agree with your assessment between the relative sizes when you have a small prime lens mounted on the RP. The trouble is the relationship soon changes when you start putting zooms on the RP compared with the equivalent zooms on the M5; that’s when the RP becomes much bigger, heavier and bulkier than the APS M5. This is where the difference in what you can do regarding small and light with APS compared with FF begins to hit home. If I want to have a small, lightweight camera then the RP with the RF 50/1.8 or EF 40/2.8 is great, but why not carry my G1XIII instead, offering even less bulk and weight but more flexibility and IQ that is virtually indistinguishable most of the time, excluding shallow DOF ? In fact it’s the latter I mostly do. I do like the RP, but find it is difficult to exploit its small sized body to the full.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But

Nah，In store page all M6II model marked [Sell ended]，cannot add to cart.
btw，canon japan website camera lineup page marked M6II [few stock left] from february

 

[Otara]

If Japan has, perhaps thats a fairly significant second country?

 

[David - Sydney]

Yes, the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is being discontinued, and it's not in Russia!

So which countries has the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is being discontinued in? Searching though Canon US, CAN, UK, AU, and their retailers we find:
US - available
CAN - available
UK - available
AU - discontinued

It looks like Canon Australia has definitely discontinued the M6 Mark II. If anyone can find the second country, that would be great!

I concur. Although Canon Australia still lists the M6ii on their website with "buy", there is no list of retailers in the Where To Buy section
https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-m6-mark-ii

All the retailers don't list it at all except for DCW that has the kits as Not Available or another on "Back Order"
https://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/?rf=kw&kw=canon+m6

It may be that it wasn't selling well in the Australian market but generally Australia has the full range of Canon products.
Unless.... Canon Australia has sold out of their local stock and are waiting for a replacement M6iii !!

 

[OneSnark]

I hear the argument for Tilt-Shift lenses. I run into the architecture problem ALL the time when travelling. A 24mm Tilt on a FF body. . .yeah. . that's the stuff.
I hear the case for wide angles.

The use case here is for travel which for me means that I am likely 5 to 10 time zones from home and hoofing it 5-10 hours a day.
What I have on me; that's it. And I will have it on me. . . for 10+ hours a day walking everywhere. . . even when not shooting.
My nightmare scenario was when I brought a camera bag with a dSLR and 3 lenses. The other half brought a dSLR and 3 lenses. When not in use. . . .I was carrying both bodies and all six lenses.
Not doing THAT again.

So a great T/S is a nice dream. But effectively. . .when traveling. . .I need to cover the ~10 to 100 range (APS-C) with the minimum kit and weight while still getting the best quality. So. . . .my dSLR with a bunch of fast primes and tilt-shifts. . . .is not gonna cut it.
The Phones are ok. . .better all the time. . .but still fall apart in low light.

So that was my use case for the "M" line. Top notch APS-C sensor. . . and hopefully reasonable glass I could carry around all day.
The M 11-24 did have good reviews. . . .I remember that now. . . .but there was no decent lens that got me to the 100ish range. Short of bringing a EF converter and my trusty 24-105/4L. . . .which was exactly the lens I was hoping to leave home.

Hencs. . the G5x. A compromise.

 

[adrian_bacon]

I would agree with your assessment between the relative sizes when you have a small prime lens mounted on the RP. The trouble is the relationship soon changes when you start putting zooms on the RP compared with the equivalent zooms on the M5; that’s when the RP becomes much bigger, heavier and bulkier than the APS M5. This is where the difference in what you can do regarding small and light with APS compared with FF begins to hit home. If I want to have a small, lightweight camera then the RP with the RF 50/1.8 or EF 40/2.8 is great, but why not carry my G1XIII instead, offering even less bulk and weight but more flexibility and IQ that is virtually indistinguishable most of the time, excluding shallow DOF ? In fact it’s the latter I mostly do. I do like the RP, but find it is difficult to exploit its small sized body to the full.

No disagreement from me there, other than if I really want small and light, zooms aren't generally the way to go. Yes, the M series zooms are tiny compared to RF zooms, comically so, but I've never been happy with them and prefer to carry one or two appropriate primes for what I think I'm going to be shooting. It's all compromise at the end of the day.

 

[adrian_bacon]

Thanks for showing the actual comparison.
I can only tell based on what I can remember.
So the Rp is the answer for M5ii.
If Canon rollout a series of pancake lenses would be awesome!

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it the answer. They desperately need smaller lenses, especially in the zoom range, and I'd love to see a line of compact pancake primes, but the RP isn't that far off from the M5 at least. The M6II would be smaller by a bunch as it has no viewfinder, and the grip isn't nearly as nice as the RP.

 

[unfocused]

Just to recap. It looks like in Australia and Japan there are indications that the M6 is being discontinued. Is that correct?

 

[eosuser1234]

i got tired of waiting for a M5 Mark2 replacement so I sold my EOS-M cameras, and EF mounts and went straight to RF line. I think a lot of others here in Japan followed. EF cameras are available now for super super cheap.

 

[stevelee]

Hencs. . the G5x. A compromise.

I reached the same conclusion. Everything is a compromise, size, weight, quality, complexity, convenience, vertical convergence, etc., etc. I have the additional psychological factors. Is the trip the point of the trip, or is photography the point of the trip? It is likely that with a lot of gear that photography becomes the point of the trip, whatever was my original intent. In 2000 I allowed myself to take a small camera with me for the first time in years. I mostly did OK until I got to Prague. Luckily (?), I found a shop beside the Charles Bridge that still sold slide film. It became a frequent stop for me. I still don't completely trust myself, though I am not as serious about photography as I once was. But if I ever go back to Prague, photography will likely be the point of the trip there, well, and probably sampling different beers, and I'm not that much of a beer drinker. I'll take along many gigabytes of SD cards.

 

[adrian_bacon]

i got tired of waiting for a M5 Mark2 replacement so I sold my EOS-M cameras, and EF mounts and went straight to RF line. I think a lot of others here in Japan followed. EF cameras are available now for super super cheap.

Same here. I haven't gotten rid of the M5 just yet, and do still occasionally use it when I know ~35mm FOV is all I'll need and I want as small and light as possible, but after trying out the RP, my EF DSLRs and EF glass disappeared and I cycled in all RF bodies and glass. All my EF-M glass except the 22 prime on the M5 also went away. Had Canon actually released an M5II, I'd still probably be fully into the M system, but, they didn't, and the M50II, while nice, just isn't the same.

 

[lote82]

Read the news (CR3) ... goodbye M6, hello R7!

 

[OneSnark]

Read the news (CR3) ... goodbye M6, hello R7!

Yeah. . . .15 fps with IBS. . .I suspect this camera may cost more than you are thinking.

But THAT is not the issue.

The issue will be: What lenses do you put on this body?
* I bet we will see some "meh" EF-S glass (18-55 and 55-200)
* At 3x the ef-s cost
* without image stabilization. . .because you already paid for it in the body

. . . which pushes you right back to the RF 4L glass. . . .which is as heavy as the EF equivalents at a notably higher price.

Sorry. Need to take a happy pill

 

[lote82]

Yeah. . . .15 fps with IBS. . .I suspect this camera may cost more than you are thinking.

But THAT is not the issue.

The issue will be: What lenses do you put on this body?
* I bet we will see some "meh" EF-S glass (18-55 and 55-200)
* At 3x the ef-s cost
* without image stabilization. . .because you already paid for it in the body

. . . which pushes you right back to the RF 4L glass. . . .which is as heavy as the EF equivalents at a notably higher price.

Sorry. Need to take a happy pill

1. I own a 7D II and regarding the specs I don't think the price of the R7 will surprise me or any other seriously interested person.

2. For the beginning I will adapt some lenses like 15-85mm, 16-300mm and (most important) 150-600mm on it. All these lenses you can't (or will ever) find in "meh" M-system. Nobody knows how the future RF-S lenses will be, but I think they will be more impressive than anything M had to offer!

3. "3x the ef-s cost" and "without image stabilization" come straight out of your pill spoiled imagination. Didn't you know that IBIS and lens stabilisation can work together? ... Not even a base for discussion ...

Sorry, but I think you should rename to ThreeSnark!

 

[lustyd]

2. For the beginning I will adapt some lenses like 15-85mm, 16-300mm and (most important) 150-600mm on it. All these lenses you can't (or will ever) find in "meh" M-system. Nobody knows how the future RF-S lenses will be, but I think they will be more impressive than anything M had to offer!

So you’re clearly not the target market for M then, why comment about M? You immediately think the M lenses are worse than others but ignore their value prop entirely. The reason those lenses aren’t on M mount is because they can’t be made small enough to meet the requirements. The entire value of M is size, at the cost of some speed or whatever. For a huge number of us that’s a good thing. Modern cameras make up for the speed quite well anyway so it’s not the issue it used to be, we don’t all need perfection some of us need a compact capture device.

I had no choice at all but to buy the M body to get small lenses, you have the option of M, R, EF because your chosen (massive) lenses work with all of them albeit with adapters. For me, the main thing holding me back from buying an R body is the large lenses and bodies. If they introduce a smaller body I would still have to buy an M until they release the smaller lenses.

 

[pashevich]

It would have been relatively simple for them to make the RF flange distance sightly longer to accommodate an RF-M adapter.

But you may be correct that even a few millimeters would have meant more design compromises than they were willing to make.

Still, optically it would certainly have been possible for them to make an RF mount compatible with M cameras, If that was the most important consideration involved in the decision. The fact remains that they chose not to do so.

L

 

[lote82]

So you’re clearly not the target market for M then, why comment about M? You immediately think the M lenses are worse than others but ignore their value prop entirely. The reason those lenses aren’t on M mount is because they can’t be made small enough to meet the requirements. The entire value of M is size, at the cost of some speed or whatever. For a huge number of us that’s a good thing. Modern cameras make up for the speed quite well anyway so it’s not the issue it used to be, we don’t all need perfection some of us need a compact capture device.

I had no choice at all but to buy the M body to get small lenses, you have the option of M, R, EF because your chosen (massive) lenses work with all of them albeit with adapters. For me, the main thing holding me back from buying an R body is the large lenses and bodies. If they introduce a smaller body I would still have to buy an M until they release the smaller lenses.

1. Of course I'm "not the target market for M"! I never pretended to be!

2. Someone was trash-talking about EF-S (and assumed RF-S) lenses. I answered him with the hint that M is lacking a lot what EF-S is offering. Just to give an example: I think it's a shame that M never offered (or ever will) zooms like 15-85mm or 16-300mm!

3. M was build around small/light/cheap and therefore limited. Not giving upgrade path to FF and (even more important) to modern RF tele-lenses made the system a dead end street. Not giving lenses above 200mm (while not giving battery grip which would be very useful for adapting EF teles) is RIDICULOUS.
If APS-C wants to survive it has to offer more!

M users tend to think that APS-C should be only about small/light/cheap. You seem to miss the fact that a "huge number" use smartphones exactly therefore. To nearly every subject in photography you already find good examples of pictures made with smartphone ... Except wildlife (or long tele photography in general)!

This doesn't mean there is no market for small/cheap/light. But you alone are not a "huge number" anymore.

R7 will offer what smartphones can't offer, M doesn't want to offer and FF could offer (while therefore being too heavy and expensive!). R7 is finally closing the gap between two extremes. Next step will be small/light/cheap RF APS-C cameras.
Will they be bigger and heavier than M cameras? Probably ... but I think not as much as you should worry about!

Giving more options (in one mount) is a good thing ... for both sides!
The small/light/cheap fraction will get upgrade path to bigger (tele-)lenses and/or cameras (with bigger sensors).
The big/heavy/expensive fraction will get "downgrade" path to smaller cameras (with smaller sensors) and/or lenses.

Time has changed. I waited a very long time for a 7D successor to come. Now you have to wait for the successor of M50/M5/M6 ...
While waiting I hope you won't have to listen to the same amount of bulls*** I was forced to listen to!

 

[lote82]

I should have become prophet!

Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

It looks like we have a few surprises on our hands from Canon, as they gear up to announce new products this month, which is another pleasant surprise. Canon

www.canonrumors.com

 

[lustyd]

1. Of course I'm "not the target market for M"! I never pretended to be!

2. Someone was trash-talking about EF-S (and assumed RF-S) lenses. I answered him with the hint that M is lacking a lot what EF-S is offering. Just to give an example: I think it's a shame that M never offered (or ever will) zooms like 15-85mm or 16-300mm!

3. M was build around small/light/cheap and therefore limited. Not giving upgrade path to FF and (even more important) to modern RF tele-lenses made the system a dead end street. Not giving lenses above 200mm (while not giving battery grip which would be very useful for adapting EF teles) is RIDICULOUS.
If APS-C wants to survive it has to offer more!

M users tend to think that APS-C should be only about small/light/cheap. You seem to miss the fact that a "huge number" use smartphones exactly therefore. To nearly every subject in photography you already find good examples of pictures made with smartphone ... Except wildlife (or long tele photography in general)!

This doesn't mean there is no market for small/cheap/light. But you alone are not a "huge number" anymore.

R7 will offer what smartphones can't offer, M doesn't want to offer and FF could offer (while therefore being to heavy and expensive!). R7 is finally closing the gap between two extremes. Next step will be small/light/cheap RF APS-C cameras.
Will they be bigger and heavier than M cameras? Probably ... but I think not as much as you should worry about!

Giving more options (in one mount) is a good thing ... for both sides!
The small/light/cheap fraction will get upgrade path to bigger (tele-)lenses and/or cameras (with bigger sensors).
The big/heavy/expensive fraction will get "downgrade" path to smaller cameras (with smaller sensors) and/or lenses.

Time has changed. I waited a very long time for a 7D successor to come. Now you have to wait for the successor of M50/M5/M6 ...
While waiting I hope you won't have to listen to the same amount of bulls*** I was forced to listen to!

I think you misunderstood their post, to me it was clear that they were saying RF has large and expensive lenses, and that if they make RF-S those will be large and cheap, still leaving an M sized gap.

You're now saying FF is an upgrade, and that's true if your requirements match FF. Not everyone needs or wants FF, and for me it's a no-go because of the size/weight of the lenses. That makes FF a downgrade for me. Same for those wanting longer reach from their lenses, it's not a good thing to make lenses wider in all circumstances.

M Users can think what we like. APS-C isn't the point of M, there are EF-S cameras with APS-C too. M is very specifically about size and portability, it's not even cheap in many instances, and neither does it need to be - I'd have bought the M6ii body at twice the price because it's what I needed.

I am a part of a huge number, just not photographers. Vlogging has different needs, and Canon are filling that need with M. Sony fill it with ZV-E10 (or did until they stopped making them due to lack of chips). Vloggers and streamers represent a much, much larger market than photographers in 2022 so if anything Canon would do better to improve M and drop the RF series - there is orders of magnitude more money to be made there.

Agree, options with a mount is a good thing. Unfortunately the FF support of RF means lenses can't ever be as small as M mount because the mount is physically bigger which would mean bodies have to be physically bigger. Adding that size goes against the design philosophy of small, light and convenient.

Yes, times have changed, the world has moved on from stills photography to content generation for Twitch/YouTube/Instagram/etc. and those need very different things. Manufacturers will go where the money is, and content creation is that place. Game streaming alone counts for more revenue opportunity than all of the major sports in the USA combined.