Canon is gearing up for a big 2020 [CR2]

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
It is possible to make fast lenses with a small diameter--if they are short focal length as well! And the EF-M 32 is f/1.4 (not earthshatteringly fast, but fast). But any sort of long zoom (or long prime) is going to be slow--very slow--if they insist on making it skinny in outside diameter. I own EF primes that are reasonably fast, but they are ALL fatter than the EF-M lenses.

The point I'm trying to make is not completely incompatible with yours--yours is correct and prior to mine. Canon COULD make fatter lenses, that would be faster (or longer). But they'd have to want to make a new M lens in the first place and don't see a market for it (or enough of one to justify moving people off RF development) (your point, I believe).

But what would happen if they DID decide to throw some love in the EF-M direction? Would they finally break down and decide--"let's make a fatter lens so it doesn't have to be so slow"? Or would they stick with a restriction that has no <I>engineering</I> (or even marketing) reason that I can see?

The Canon rep I spoke to a few weeks ago was visibly annoyed by my Tamron 18-200, but if he doesn't like it--Canon can damned well give me an alternative (if they get over their skinny fetish). If Canon doesn't, he's got no real right to complain.
Steve I am really trying to understand what you are saying. f/1.4 is very fast. The Tamron you mention is anything but fast and is fat compared to the M line. So I don't see how that is any different than using a "fat" Canon lens. In fact, at 300mm the Tamron is very slow. You could always get a Canon 400mm f/5.6L. ;)

Anyway, I suspect most people don't want a big lens on the M. Tamron or an adapted EF or EF-s) must fill the niche for those that do. So I don't think Canon cares about the niche... or feels the EF, EFs lines fill it.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
595
362
Some of us save the raw and the jpg. I do. I shouldn’t assume anyone else does. I might be wrong, but I read that every time a jpeg gets saved it loses some information. So for archiving I save both.
Just trying say storaging problems stupid excuse not to like high megapixel camera :)
Not sure if jpgs losing anymore much information if at all when saved many times. and you can turn original to tiff or something when editing.
 
Last edited:

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
Steve I am really trying to understand what you are saying. f/1.4 is very fast. The Tamron you mention is anything but fast and is fat compared to the M line. So I don't see how that is any different than using a "fat" Canon lens. In fact, at 300mm the Tamron is very slow. You could always get a Canon 400mm f/5.6L. ;)

Anyway, I suspect most people don't want a big lens on the M. Tamron or an adapted EF or EF-s) must fill the niche for those that do. So I don't think Canon cares about the niche... or feels the EF, EFs lines fill it.
OK...I'll try to lay it out a different way.

Canon has put out a bunch of different EF-M lenses. For whatever reason, they decided they must all be the same rather skinny diameter. That limits their options. Sure it's possible to do a 32mm f1.4 lens (and it's a good one), but they wouldn't be able to do an 85mm f1.4 (and likely, not even an 85 f/1.8). They COULD make such a lens...if they were willing to make it physically wider. There's no physical reason they couldn't do that--they just don't want to.

I brought up the Tamron not because it's fast (it's not), but because it is almost certainly faster than anything that could be done by Canon, making an 18-200 (not 300) zoom in the diameter they have imposed on themselves. It's a native EF-M mount lens. But it's wider than Canon's lenses are. It works, so there's no engineering reason for Canon to make only skinny lenses.

Of course all of that only matters if Canon discerns a market for more EF-M lenses in the first place. But if and when they do, I hope they're willing to make them fatter to give us a better selection. Not doing so means they are forcing themselves to only make short and fast, or long and slow, or zooms that are slow, lenses.

The good news is, one can simply adapt EF and EF-S lenses that aren't artificially restricted in girth, so that's what I'm going to do for cases where my 18-200 and 32 (and other EF-M native lenses) won't do the job.
 

HikeBike

R6 / R / T3i
CR Pro
Feb 6, 2019
116
132
Maryland, USA
I agree. I have a 5DIV and like it a lot. I will not be buying a 5DV. The next Canon I plan I buying is looking like the second iteration of the first R. I think the second model will likely have IBIS and an upgraded sensor within the 36-45 MP range. I really do not even want that high a MP. It would be great if they kept it in the 30-36 MP range. I think this model will probably show up in 2021 is my guess.
I'll go with 2022...new processor, new sensor (but keeping it around 30 MP), IBIS, no touch bar, still a single card slot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpb001

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
OK...I'll try to lay it out a different way.

Canon has put out a bunch of different EF-M lenses. For whatever reason, they decided they must all be the same rather skinny diameter. That limits their options. Sure it's possible to do a 32mm f1.4 lens (and it's a good one), but they wouldn't be able to do an 85mm f1.4 (and likely, not even an 85 f/1.8). They COULD make such a lens...if they were willing to make it physically wider. There's no physical reason they couldn't do that--they just don't want to.

I brought up the Tamron not because it's fast (it's not), but because it is almost certainly faster than anything that could be done by Canon, making an 18-200 (not 300) zoom in the diameter they have imposed on themselves. It's a native EF-M mount lens. But it's wider than Canon's lenses are. It works, so there's no engineering reason for Canon to make only skinny lenses.

Of course all of that only matters if Canon discerns a market for more EF-M lenses in the first place. But if and when they do, I hope they're willing to make them fatter to give us a better selection. Not doing so means they are forcing themselves to only make short and fast, or long and slow, or zooms that are slow, lenses.

The good news is, one can simply adapt EF and EF-S lenses that aren't artificially restricted in girth, so that's what I'm going to do for cases where my 18-200 and 32 (and other EF-M native lenses) won't do the job.
I guess my issue is with you using words like "forcing" and such. They are not "forcing" themselves to do anything. Market forces.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
I guess my issue is with you using words like "forcing" and such. They are not "forcing" themselves to do anything. Market forces.
How does the market explain their decision to make all EF-M lenses the same outside diameter?

I can understand how the market dictates they shouldn't develop more such lenses. (I regret that fact, but I understand that it is a fact.) But how did it cause them to make the ones they have developed...the same outside diameter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

JohnC

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 22, 2019
68
67
Gainesville,GA
It seems to me the eos m series is all about size and weight. Call it the “ultralight ilc system”. Canon seems to bringing the body performance up enough to at least “approach” DSLR crop camera performance. That is great news.

In keeping with the original intent of the product line however, keeping the lens offerings physically small helps complete the product line.

I also think you might see larger and faster lenses if they didn’t have compatibility with an extensive array of just those properties through a well performing adapter.

Yes those options are not native mount, but the desire for some to have that isn’t really in step with the intent of the product line anyway.

“Here is our product line that fulfills x need”. Should you want to expand its capability to address other needs here we have provided the following options for doing so.”

“If you want that expanded capability in native mount we have this really nice line of crop DSLR bodies to choose from”

Etc etc
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
How does the market explain their decision to make all EF-M lenses the same outside diameter?

I can understand how the market dictates they shouldn't develop more such lenses. (I regret that fact, but I understand that it is a fact.) But how did it cause them to make the ones they have developed...the same outside diameter?
Good question. My answer would be that the typical M buyer, the driver of that market, doesn't want big lenses. Those that do can adapt or buy something else. So that's the market. Like I said before, if Canon thought there to be significant profit in bigger lenses for the M, then Canon would go for it. With that end of the market precipitously shrinking, Canon has decided to put the main focus elsewhere. They aren't forcing themselves to not do anything, the market is. Just like Canon isn't forcing itself to not make TS-E lenses for the M. The market for the M is not the same as the market for ASPC or full frame. Each are a separate market . Exactly like Canon making both regular EF lenses as well as the L line. Separate markets.

Personally, I would really, really, really like to see a RF 70-135 f/2 zoom for my personal needs and to match the 28-70. Will it happen? Who knows? Will I be disappointed if it doesn't happen? Sure, but I can't blame Canon for that.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,708
2,696
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I'm not quite sure I buy into that, and I say that not as a lamentation of the R (it's the most interesting mirrorless on the market for me at the moment), but rather as a reflection on what buyers of the 5D series are willing to pay versus what the R retails for. If the R was indeed a full replacement for the 5D series, I would have expected Canon to price it more comparably to the 5D IV. Then again, Canon may be changing their segmentation, moving the 5D equivalent down market a bit, and adding something above it. Either way, I really think that if consumers show they'll pay $3500 for a body of 5D stature, Canon will ensure they have a product priced in that realm, if not higher.
I actually agree with your logic. Many of the people on this forum focus on specifications and subtle differences between DSLR and Mirrorless models, but I expect that Canon does focus more on market segmentation. While with only two models currently available, it's hard to say anything with certainty, it does seem that so far, Canon has priced their R models in empty slots rather than directly against existing DSLRs. The RP below the 6D and the R below the 5D.

If this pattern holds true, they may be looking at the price points of the 5D and 1D and deciding what they can slot in there as well. You are correct, they have a lot of room to play with between the R and the 5D and even more room to play with between the R and the 1D.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
I actually agree with your logic. Many of the people on this forum focus on specifications and subtle differences between DSLR and Mirrorless models, but I expect that Canon does focus more on market segmentation. While with only two models currently available, it's hard to say anything with certainty, it does seem that so far, Canon has priced their R models in empty slots rather than directly against existing DSLRs. The RP below the 6D and the R below the 5D.

If this pattern holds true, they may be looking at the price points of the 5D and 1D and deciding what they can slot in there as well. You are correct, they have a lot of room to play with between the R and the 5D and even more room to play with between the R and the 1D.
The great thing is that if a 5D V comes out, the price of the 5D Mark IV may drop to $2k... what I paid for my 5D Mark III + plus a free printer and a 1 year subscription to KelbyOne, and a bunch of other stuff. Sold the printer without the UPC for $300. So my 5D Mark III was very inexpensive compared to the initial release price. So one could say I got the 5D mark III for less than the R. :) Unfortunately, I had 5 big surgeries that year and never took advantage of Kelby after signing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,195
Just trying say storaging problems stupid excuse not to like high megapixel camera :)
Not sure if jpgs losing anymore much information if at all when saved many times. and you can turn original to tiff or something when editing.
What JPEGSs do is utilize an algorithm for color space, tone, sharpness and white balance that may or may not be what your intentions were lined up with. Shooting RAW allows you greater latitude to make those changes and not be limited. It's like shooting Tri-X and being able to dodge and burn to your hearts content or shooting TMax 100 and truly needing to get it right in camera.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
Good stuff!

Perhaps I've been approaching this from the wrong POV. I've been assuming that the EF-M series is supposed to (eventually) replace/displace the entire DSLR APS-C lineup--including even the 7D, perhaps! (Certainly the M6 II is a step in that direction!) And that they'd eventually replace their EF-S lineup with EF-M lenses too, and create EF-M versions of many of their EF lenses. (In parallel with this, working on RF lenses for full frame, eventually simply discontinuing EF and EF-S lenses entirely.)

Well, maybe that's the plan. But it's not going to happen with the EF-M lenses they have now, and can't do so without (future, hypothetical) EF-M lenses fatter than what they're doing now. So, IF that is their goal, their size restriction is going to get in their way.

But what if their goal is slightly different...to replace the bodies but not the lenses? What if they intend to keep EF and EF-S around indefinitely?

So perhaps the M series is really a two-pronged strategy: Lower grade EF-M lenses at the introductory level, then if someone graduates from that (or starts out above that), then...hand them an adapter and say "Look at these 60 odd lenses you can use with your camera. Yes, it will be bulky but there's no way around that; you're asking for something that cannot be done in a small package."

That, of course, would depend on them NOT discontinuing EF and EF-S lenses en masse at some point in the future, otherwise they strand the APS-C enthusiasts/semi pros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,715
1,586
Good question. My answer would be that the typical M buyer, the driver of that market, doesn't want big lenses. Those that do can adapt or buy something else. So that's the market. Like I said before, if Canon thought there to be significant profit in bigger lenses for the M, then Canon would go for it. With that end of the market precipitously shrinking, Canon has decided to put the main focus elsewhere. They aren't forcing themselves to not do anything, the market is. Just like Canon isn't forcing itself to not make TS-E lenses for the M. The market for the M is not the same as the market for ASPC or full frame. Each are a separate market . Exactly like Canon making both regular EF lenses as well as the L line. Separate markets.

Personally, I would really, really, really like to see a RF 70-135 f/2 zoom for my personal needs and to match the 28-70. Will it happen? Who knows? Will I be disappointed if it doesn't happen? Sure, but I can't blame Canon for that.
Please see my response to JohnC.
 

cayenne

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,368
352
The vast majority of the stuff where I don't find the jpeg satisfactory is because I bunged up the focus somehow. Of course that can't be fixed with a raw file.

Of the remainder, it's basically going to be white balance, or something that can be fixed with crop. The latter can be done with JPEG...the former requires that I reboot my machine into Windows (normally in Linux) because DPP doesn't have a Linux version.
Why not just run a windows VM in your linux box to do what you need?
I love linux too, but any tool for the job you know.

I tend to use my Mac for my photo/video needs....and tools like Affinity Photo and On1 RAW for my photos....they have Windows versions too and are very reasonable price, work well with RAW and aren't on the Adobe *rental* model.

I'd suggest looking into it.....play with the RAW workflow, it really does offer a LOT, especially with these tools.

C
 

JohnC

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 22, 2019
68
67
Gainesville,GA
Good stuff!

Perhaps I've been approaching this from the wrong POV. I've been assuming that the EF-M series is supposed to (eventually) replace/displace the entire DSLR APS-C lineup--including even the 7D, perhaps! (Certainly the M6 II is a step in that direction!) And that they'd eventually replace their EF-S lineup with EF-M lenses too, and create EF-M versions of many of their EF lenses. (In parallel with this, working on RF lenses for full frame, eventually simply discontinuing EF and EF-S lenses entirely.)

Well, maybe that's the plan. But it's not going to happen with the EF-M lenses they have now, and can't do so without (future, hypothetical) EF-M lenses fatter than what they're doing now. So, IF that is their goal, their size restriction is going to get in their way.

But what if their goal is slightly different...to replace the bodies but not the lenses? What if they intend to keep EF and EF-S around indefinitely?

So perhaps the M series is really a two-pronged strategy: Lower grade EF-M lenses at the introductory level, then if someone graduates from that (or starts out above that), then...hand them an adapter and say "Look at these 60 odd lenses you can use with your camera. Yes, it will be bulky but there's no way around that; you're asking for something that cannot be done in a small package."

That, of course, would depend on them NOT discontinuing EF and EF-S lenses en masse at some point in the future, otherwise they strand the APS-C enthusiasts/semi pros.
I actually do think that ultimately the efs and EF lenses will go away. I don’t think we are extremely close to it yet, primarily because I think Canon is smart enough to let it happen organically. They HAVE to think long term.

As it happen I suspect we will see really nice adaption between the r series and the m series regarding lenses.

I do think that at some point you will either see crop sensor R models OR, they will refine the technology to enable a crop mode that gives you all the advantages of the smaller sensor (FPS, reach, etc) in the same body with a high resolution full frame. The electronics might be complicated but the exterior and most physical parts of the body are exactly the same. Helps spread out that r&d cost and also ergonomics to remain the same.
 

CanonFanBoy

Real men single speed.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,164
3,338
Irving, Texas
So, IF that is their goal, their size restriction is going to get in their way.
I've read it. I won't comment on this anymore after this: There is no self imposed "size restriction". There is a market restriction being imposed by the market. This has become a circular argument. ;) I get that you don't like the Canon M offerings. You are obviously not the target market.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,708
2,696
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
How does the market explain their decision to make all EF-M lenses the same outside diameter?
There was a time when Canon and Nikon both made almost all their lenses the same outside diameter in order to simplify filter interchangeability. They even marketed it as a selling point. The exceptions were telephotos that could not retain the same outside diameter. If you look at Canon EF lenses, you will see that they still try to maintain some consistency with filter sizes. My 16-35 f4, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 all take the same filter size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and BillB

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
Good question. My answer would be that the typical M buyer, the driver of that market, doesn't want big lenses. Those that do can adapt or buy something else. So that's the market. Like I said before, if Canon thought there to be significant profit in bigger lenses for the M, then Canon would go for it. With that end of the market precipitously shrinking, Canon has decided to put the main focus elsewhere. They aren't forcing themselves to not do anything, the market is. Just like Canon isn't forcing itself to not make TS-E lenses for the M. The market for the M is not the same as the market for ASPC or full frame. Each are a separate market . Exactly like Canon making both regular EF lenses as well as the L line. Separate markets.
It is about cost as well as size, especially for zooms. And the tradeoff is that smaller and cheaper zooms have smaller, variable max apertures and very good, but not necessarily eye-popping IQ.