Hopefully one of these will be the long awaited replacement for my M3. And wouldn't mind another f1.X lens.
EOS M related camera bodies coming in late August 2019 [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That’s like saying that because Canon doesn’t have production sensors larger than 35mm, thet can’t make a medium format camera. There aren’t currently EF-M lenses with a front element anywhere close to the 61mm diameter of the barrel because there large front elements aren’t needed based on current lens specs. Look at EF telephoto lenses, the front element is often only slightly smaller than the barrel (the extreme case of the 300/4 with a 75mm front element and a 77mm filter thread). An EF-M front element could easily be 55-58mm, so while that rules out a 400mm lens, there could be an EF-M 350mm f/6.3 or 300/5.6.
There won’t be, at least as long as EF lenses are produced, because such lenses would be effectively the same size as EF versions. But in some future hypothetical world where there are only EF-M and RF lenses, since the latter can’t be practically adapted to the former mount, I could see an EF-M telephoto lens of 300mm or longer.
Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?
If microfourthirds can make 300mm f4 why canon cant ? :O
Middle lenses can be more back on modern lens designs and peoples can put lead weight to body if they feel they front weighted.
Back lenses would be smaller cause smaller picture needed right? and thats why lighter than EF ,+it can be made from plastic.
Last edited:
How. Does reality factor in to Canon’s plans? If we’re talking about worldwide sales Canon was proud to concede FF mirrorlesss to Sony and anyone else. It was an unexpected shift in plans that brought about their FF mirrorless cameras, neither of which are truly competitive nor selling well. The RF mount coupled with the RP is considered by most (including Canon) to be a massive push from APS-C to FF, taking a vast majority of internals from their EF-M cameras to piece together the RP. I don’t know how you definen arbitrary, but if I was a Canon APS-C shooter (DSLR or mirrorless) that move would feel rather arbitrary to me, especially Canon being the only company that isn’t rumored to be developing an APS-C model with their latest and greatest mirrorless mount and lenses.
I’m just curious how you arrived at your conclusions?
If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII).
M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove that yet imo.
On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....
If there is still a place for an APS-C on the market (and there is), and we would like to see the MILC 7DIII version, they definitely need to introduce APS-C in an R body, not M one, just from the ergonomics sake (at least to those already owning a 7DII).
M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove the dedication to the M yet imo.
On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....
M, with its zero upgrade lens path towards the R, feels like an initial overthought on Canon's part, but surely Canon will not admit that, and will talk about the small form factor. I don't believe that and the M lens lineup does not fully prove the dedication to the M yet imo.
On the other hand I wonder, how small Canon could get with an R/RF body. Sure, it would be somehow bigger than an M equivalent, but at least with an unified mount concept and the advantage of the third ring on an RF lens. I know that M still can get smaller, but the missing upgrade path for lens feels strange anyway. At least we used that logic with an EF lens upgrade path in the past. But maybe it's just a wrong perception on my side ....
Last edited:
Canon Can make wider front barrels - but they decided not to do so up to now. Olympus has to do that because they have no FF alternative in their current lens lineup.
As neuro said: The size advantage of EF-M for longer focal lengths is next to zero at the moment. And if you go solely M and use e.g. 1.4 35 + 2.8 100 macro + 5.6 400 just buy three EF2EF-M adaptors third party or original to combine these lenses e.g. with EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 32. The price of the adaptor is neglegible compared to the adaptors price.
With future lens or better glass type/glass manufacturing tech/diffractive optics there is a chance that we will see a 100mm long high IQ EF-M f/4 200 lens which would be a great thing but I am not shure that enough EF-M users are willing to pay 800 $ / EUR for such a lens.
For the moment I am really loving the M50 with the EF-M 32 welded on it. Depending on the real advantages (for my photographic style/applications) I will buy a 2nd body of one of the new M cameras or buy a 2nd M50 (maybe at 450 EUR after new bodies are released). This camera will take the EF 4.0 70-200 IS mk i which is a gorgous lens on APS-C or the 100mm f/2.0 / 100mm macro / 5.6 400 depending on my needs. One body for "standard" + one body for EF lenses.
People like me who positively hate having to look at the little screen
at the back of a camera, especially in sunshine.I'll never understand how one can buy a camera without a viewfinder (like I bought that cute little Olympus Pen
).Maybe I'm stupid (I certainly am), but I'm also unable to use live-view...in daylight.
beats me but as others have commented on, every single EF-M lens is exactly the same barrel diameter. it stands to reason this is some internal design consideration that Canon has imposed on the lenses for the mount.
So while it would be nice to assume that they aren't self-constrained, it certainly feels like they are.
It would be an interesting question to ask Canon!
I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.
I will probably buy the M5 mark II no matter what improvements it has or lacks because I like these lenses so much:
EF-M 11-22 IS
EF-M 22 f/2
EF-M 32 f/1.4
But I do hope they add the following:
IBIS
A top rate viewfinder
Fully articulated LCD
Good usable 4K 24p and 30p
1080p 120p
But as I said, I'll buy it as soon as its available anyway.
I really liked the M system but my fear is that with M there and so popular, they may way under-prioritize the cheap/portable lenses for the RF system. I don't want two complete camera systems though; my life is already complicated enough.
I've said it too many times already so I'll say it again: I want my R in my backpack at all times and the 35/1.8ISMac is just a little too big for that. I don't need a pancake given that the grip already sticks out so far, but give us something that sticks out no farther than the grip: 50/1.8 or 35/2 or 24/2.4. It doesn't need IS, Mac, or to be the last word in sharpness. I just want an aperture bigger than 2.8 so that there might be a reason to use it even when you have your trinity zooms with you.
I've said it too many times already so I'll say it again: I want my R in my backpack at all times and the 35/1.8ISMac is just a little too big for that. I don't need a pancake given that the grip already sticks out so far, but give us something that sticks out no farther than the grip: 50/1.8 or 35/2 or 24/2.4. It doesn't need IS, Mac, or to be the last word in sharpness. I just want an aperture bigger than 2.8 so that there might be a reason to use it even when you have your trinity zooms with you.
You can buy an external viewfinder to the M6, though then you lose a hotshoe. There might be an advantage there - you might eventually use the new one with older camera. Well, in theory anyway ....
I never understood the appeal of the M series. It's far more successful that I expected.
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced
I'm not sure how small the L can be but it can be close to the size of an M.
I just find the thought of another set of lens, incompatible with R too much to be dealing with.
It make take years but it feels to me a system that will die out
Still in the short term it seems to be very successful for Canon.
It shows they can make nice small lens for mirrorless which I think would do well for the R when they are produced
Damn shame, I sold everything but 7 LP-E12 batteries from my old M50 setup. I do wish I still had it every now and then because of the mic input, but the RX100 VI has done a great job replacing it for the most part.
The size cost and performance packages in the M system seem to have worked for a lot of people, either as a main system or as a lightweight travel option. It will only die out if the size cost and performances packages that the M system offers stop working for people.
Notice that you specifically choose to talk about the FF mirrorless sector, not mirrorless cameras as a whole. Guess you must have already figured out that Canon is doing very well in the APS-C mirrorless sector even though they launched into it much later than Olympus and Sony.
Allow me to repeat this for the umpteenth time:
"Canon — Initially a follower in film SLR, eventually a leader in autofocus SLR; then a follower in DSLR that again flipped to leader; then a follower in mirrorless which may be flipping to leader. Sense a pattern there? Canon isn't generally the first mover, but when they move they move. I think that anyone who underestimates the EOS M and whatever full frame mirrorless Canon decides to produce needs to rethink their position. I'd call Canon opportunistic and well managed. I wouldn't call them the innovator that's going to trigger the next changeover in camera designs by leading the way, but they are quick to understand when that changeover is occurring. Follower that becomes a Winner."
- http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/who-leads-who-follows-who.html
small size, light weight, and reasonable price with good to excellent performance. That is the appeal of M. I move from 40D/20D combo to M and M2 combo a few years back. I have never looked back. Now I am using M50 and M2 combo, that is even better. My camera bag weighs about half as much as before. That alone is a big plus on a month long trip
Similar threads
