EOS-M is Dead. So where’s my RF Equivalents?

[nickorando]

The R50V doesn't have active cooling (the Powershot V1 introduced at the same time does) and it's actually thinner than the M6 II.
It's a pretty good alternative, especially if you do video. If only thr screen were more visible in bright light.
Im still a big M fan, mostly using the M6 II and 22 as a compact.
I miss the 22 for sure, but I've never used the 32 much because the 50mm full frame equivalent just doesn't do much for me.
I bought into M during the original Fire Sale, and have owned most of the bodies since. I still have various original Ms, one full spectrum, and 3 others with various IR conversions. I've all the Canon EF-.lenses, and various others. I don't see myself abandoning it completely for some years, if at all
But these days, my favourite travel kit is R8, R50V, 10-20 f4L, 18-150, 24-240 and either 28mm f2.8 pancake or 24mm f1.8 - double the value on two formats.
If just using the R50V, the tiny RF-S 10-18 is great. I actually prefer it to the 11-22.
In all honesty, with my usage, the RF/RF-S lens range actually works perfectly fine for me.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Amusingly, I used the 18-150mm for those same use cases as you mention. have you tried it? I would use it with DLO though, as it needs to clean up it's mess in the corners and whatnot.

No, I have not tried it. The 18mm in the wide end just sounds a bit boring to me...

The Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 is pretty much a perfect travel, all around compact and sharp lens. It's my main lens for my aps-c setup. Not sure Canon even needs to make anything to match it unless they add IS.

And pairing it with 50mm in the long end doesn't make it any more interesting - at least not as a replacement for the 15-85mm.
As I said, I already have the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 and Sigma RF-S 17-40/1.8 to cover fast zooms - and btw also Sigma 10-18/2.8, 12/1.4 and 56/1.4. But for me, neither of those offers the everyday versatility of the 15-85mm zoom.

On paper, the closest thing I have seen looking like an alternative, must be the Sigma RF-S 16-300mm. I have always considered the 15-85mm to be of very high optical quality. But there's no denying that it is a 16 years old optical design. A superzoom always have some optical compromises, but considering the age difference, maybe the practical difference isn't so big afterall? I hear the biggest comprimise is in the long half of the 16-300mm range, and that is what matters least to me as a replacement for the 15-85mm. Anybody got any experience with the 16-300mm? It is probably difficult to find reviews of those two lenses head to head? (But I guess, after having found a very nice new (old) 15-85mm, changes are very little to switch unless Canon/Sigma comes up with a direct replacement for my favorite lens)

 

[DhlcadR6]

Tbh the only thing I missed from EFM is the EOS M/M2/M100/M200 size body, 22mm pancake and 32mm f1.4. The later got a equivalent with Yongnuo's 33mm f1.4. So there's not much Canon needs to do but I wish they put more effort in RF-S. Semi-open RF-S lens ecosystem is good but the bodies needs update.

 

[Skux]

I don't see RF-S primes happening, Canon has treated APS-C with decreasing importance now that FF mirrorless cameras and lenses can be made small and cheap, and left it to Sigma to fill in the gaps.

The 16mm/28mm/50mm are quite nice on APS-C too.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

Yuge EOS-M fan here, Yuge! My M6ll is my most used camera, despite OM-1 for birds and bugs, R8 for full frame / night shooting. I keep thinking the R8 plus 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 could substitute for the m6 ll plus the 32/1.4, but it doesn’t, even though the R8 plus the 50 is lighter, and probably just as good at 2.5 or 2.2 vs the M6 ll at 1.4, and even though on the M6ll I am switching between electronic shutter and mechanical frequently, depending on the shutter shock likelihood, and even though I now only charge through USB so I don’t have to reset the date and time, because the inner battery died. I like using, and like the shots I take with the M6 more. Could be real if subjective, or imaginary and arbitrary based on how the camera looks and feels. I had an M2, the M6ll, and now I have a backup M200 for when the 6ll really dies. The M’s replaced the powershots, s90, s95 and s100. So the M6ll is a lot heavier and larger than those, and I’d want an RM to be not much above a 400g body and carry over all the M lenses. Until then I will use this camera until it breaks down, and then the M200 after, so maybe another 10 years. My use of lenses has changed a lot though. In the past I’d take just the 22mm for a weekend trip, or maybe the 22 and a long zoom. Now I will bring the 18-150, and /or just decide today is a 32 1.4 day or a 56 1.4 day, and I use the phone for 24 or 15 equivalents. I don’t use the 22 or 11-22 much at all any more. I still like what I take with the m6 more than most phone shots, but it’s as much because those shots are more intentional.

 

[masterpix]

Big bulky EF lenses never felt right on my R5 (correction: M5). I bought them to work on a 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D. They feel right at home on an R7 and R6-2. Canon could have kept the M series and also introduced the RF series. But they didn't. Why? The EF SL1, SL2 and SL3 were also tiny, slightly larger than the M5, and they were popular. Maybe Canon decided that having a large lens mount on a small body was acceptable.

Yet again, I present the same argument as before: When having the same lens bionet, the "M" is just a name, call it R100 or R50 and you have the same "M" concept, having no EVF, allowing it to mount RFs lenses to the same 2/3 sized sensors. So why keep the "M" with separate line of lenses? It is much more economical to have one line of lenses (bionet) than keep two lines, the developmet of two lines of lenses is not the right commercial way, cause you spend double the reseouces, while the difference between the M5 and the R100 is negligible.

 

[bf]

As someone who used and still has 3 working M bodies (M, M6, M6ii), I share my perspective on what Richard said about the inner politics of Canon with respect to the M line: I feel that Canon never realized the significance of the M line; it never showed full commitment either. I describe the M line as a somewhat more down-to-earth, more value-forward approach to the Fuji X series, with a more traditional sensor and arguably a much better touchscreen user experience. I've never owned a Fuji body, but the LCD worked great for me in EOS-M families; so much so that I rarely used either of the external EVF, which I had.

In developing RF lineup: I also think Canon started by releasing comparable full-frame R lenses; they were not the same but designed with a similar mindset: offering value, compactness, and good performance at relatively slower apertures: think of RF 28 F2.8 or RF 100-400, and even fixed aperture 600&800 f11. Such lenses are great entry points for someone looking to pick up a new system on a budget, but they're not what photographers dream of. Such lenses don't encourage you to change mounts or brands. That's what I think Nikon did well with super-teles: think of Z180-600 and Z800 f6.3 pf for a wildlife photographer. In the Canon world, I can think of the recent release of RF 45 f1.2 in that category! Offering such a fast aperture at a sub $500 price, although the stakes are much lower in that focal length (ie $500 vs $2K for fast 50mm compared to ~5-6K to ~15-18K for 800mm).

Back to M story: what is missing, in agreement with the discussion and adding my personal perspective:

• Body design and ergonomics- IMHO the canon sculpture design doesn't transform well to smaller bodies, and the minimal and sleek range-finder-style M-designs are rather preferred for compact cameras.
• As said several times in years: Ef-m 22, Ef-m 11-22, and Ef-m 32 f1.4 were all great glass and one of a kind.
• EF-M 55-200 allowed you to expand the focal length within the mount, but with compromises and durability issues.

What is not missed:

• I had a great experience with the earlier glass I purchased, but I had my EF-M 32 and EF-M 55-200 fail with almost no reason (sudden error codes). It didn't make sense to spend $300 for repairs, and I'd already moved on to a new platform. This was an indication of low QC - type of error resonates with electronics part and assembly issues.
• The limitation beyond that diameter, specifically for having more reach, EOS-M was great for wildlife videography, but never offered a native glass for that need; something like Fuji XF 100-400.

 

[Blorp]

R50 V might have the right size and formfactor, but is useless with missing features the M6 II provided (and not adding to it: EVF in body like Sony A6700 or Fuji E5). So I ended up using Fuji..thats desperation..

Yongnuo's 33mm f1.4

I doubt that can compete in any way with the optically strong M 32mm f1.4

It is much more economical to have one line of lenses

Sure but we still lack a decent compact camera on the same feature level the M had, and given how old it is...it should actually be superior..

 

[illadvisedhammer]

Thank you Richard for the history, it was great. You mostly describe the shift from eos to powershot development teams as positive because they had a better handle on AF, which is interesting. I remember being grumpy about some powershot controls, or at least what I interpreted as powershot relics, mostly that if you let the camera merge HDR, you were stuck with only the merged jpeg, and lost the raw and jpg bracketed images. Now someone will explain that I could have had both all along, but I remember having to use the 80d or 6d ii to get both when shooting HDR

 

[LDS]

Meanwhile, Fujy sells a lot of compatcs with buttons and dials. And probably those looking again for compact cameras and using old models are not exactly looing for touch screens, Since a camera unlike a smartphone is designed for a single task, it's bette driven by a specific interface. Sure, the smartphone crowd has to learn something new - if this is a real barrier... mankind is doomed.

 

[John Wilde]

R50 V might have the right size and formfactor, but is useless with missing features the M6 II provided (and not adding to it: EVF in body like Sony A6700 or Fuji E5). So I ended up using Fuji..thats desperation..

The camera industry decided that video-centric consumer cameras don't get EVFs. Neither the Sony ZV-E10 II nor the Nikon Z 30 have an EVF. The R50/R50V were designed to be entry-level cameras, so it's not surprising that they don't have the same features as the M6 II. Canon wants enthusiasts to buy FF cameras. Fujifilm puts more effort/features into APS-C cameras, because they don't make FF cameras.

 

[LDS]

Fujifilm puts more effort/features into APS-C cameras, because they don't make FF cameras.

Fuji just makes the GFX.... they might think the FF sector is already too crowded, so aim at a different range of users.

 

[Blorp]

were designed to be entry-level cameras

Sadly, it's fine if they have better options available..but they don't..this is the only compact RF camera.

And FF cameras have nothing to do with that. I have one of theirs, but I also want something competent and small.

Fujifilm puts more effort/features

They can't even get face tracking AF right and their lenses perform poorly wide open, especially for the money they take for them.

 

[SDFilmFan]

I know it is not related to the EOS-M system discussion, but an RF-S lens I wish more than anything else that Canon would make, is a modern mirrorless replacement of the "prosumer quality" RF-S 15-85mm.

I second the request for an RF-S 15-85. Mine is the equivalent of my 24-105L in terms of quality. I keep my SL1 to use it. The 18-150 on my R10 is not a match.

 

[Bob Howland]

Hi - I can not restrain myself from bringing this one up again

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/wow-ef-m-to-rf-mount-conversion.4754317/

I tried to get this done, but so early in the process that Sigma Japan had not yet sent the necessary parts to Sigma USA. Sigma sent me replacement lenses instead. I hope that Sigma didn't just throw away the lenses that I sent them. They were good lenses, just in the wrong mount.

 

[slclickr8]

Meanwhile, Fujy sells a lot of compatcs with buttons and dials. And probably those looking again for compact cameras and using old models are not exactly looing for touch screens, Since a camera unlike a smartphone is designed for a single task, it's bette driven by a specific interface. Sure, the smartphone crowd has to learn something new - if this is a real barrier... mankind is doomed.

I just returned to Canon after 25+ years with EOS and a switch to Fuji for the past 4. I thought the switchback through carefully and slept on it for the past year.
Since I liked the Fuji color science, 40MP crop friendly + IBIS it really came down to ergonomics and my constant fight with the unintuitive menu system (BSNYC would kill me for that term). I was bumping dials and buttons left and right...it's a pretty crowded machine.
My macro suffered, there was too much to toy with and the subpar AF after being spoiled by Canon 3, 5 & 6 series bodies from the EOS 3 to the R6 was really the final straw.
I had no flow.

Canon in hand, flow returned

 

[ashmadux]

Canons lazy, 'were not trying' direction with RFS is super unfortunate. My m5/m62 + 22f2 and 11-20 is still in service, and was hoping to replace them. both lenses simply DELIVER. So I agree with everything in this writeup. Somebody high up at canon really came to hate the M series, IMHO.

To this day I'm still amazed at the output from the 22f2 especially. The 22 is not super wide, but f2 flexibility, great build, and no hood needed. Superb iq. The 11-22 was used for my widescapes any chance i got. Too convinent, and 32p, sharp corners on the m62. Pure win.

The m1 served me well for years -I bought the m50 in 2019 and didn't like it much. But the build is phenomenal..compact, angular, solid. It went back in the box for 2 years. I bought the m62 to replace that (FOUR versions from canon refurb, 2 was DOA) , and learned about the shutter shock phenomenon that pretty much all reviewers skipped over. Totally random AF misses. And the bad internal battery issue, that the con tech told me they dont fix. The m50 came back otu of the box, and history was made .

That said, the s9 has otherwise ended my crop camera career. Don't need an evf, Im well trained on the original m1 bac screen only use case. It's small compared to the r5. It's fantastic.

I waiting for canon...and I'm glad thats over. Cheers to the EFM - good stuff.

 

[slclickr8]

The M5 with the 22 was a great 2nd camera for me for a few years. It rarely gets a mention but I was impressed from the first look and feel. Even for larger hands it just worked.