Hopefully one of these will be the long awaited replacement for my M3. And wouldn't mind another f1.X lens.
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.As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.
Uh what is this 60mm barrel talk ,why barrel cantt be wider from front?As long as Canon sticks to the current EF-M lens format with a 60mm barrel I believe lenses beyond 200 are unlikely. The largest entrance pupils so far are around 35mm - I don't think they can grow too much beyond that. At 35mm, a 300 would have an f-stop around 8.5 and a 400 would be around 11.4. Even at 40mm, the numbers are 7.5 and 10.0. Don't think there will be much of a market for slow lenses like that. As others have already stated, a 400mm f/5.6 is going to be about the same size in EF-M format.
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 get the sense that Canon is sending a message that whether it is full-frame or aps-c, or whether it is mirrorless or DSLR, they intend to be the dominant player in the market. Not conceding any territory to any competitor and not trying to arbitrarily shit customers to one format over another.
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).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?
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.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.
As long as you can adapt EF teles...Yes. Canon has never seen the need to offer EF-S lenses in local focal lengths. No reason why they would do so with EF-M.
People like me who positively hate having to look at the little screenGood that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.
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.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.
I have the M6, and I like it. But I increasingly wish it had a viewfinder, especially now that viewfinders are becoming quite good.Good that M stays alive and there will be 2 new lenses! Bad if M6 is not updated. Range finder format makes much more sense to me. I guess just because people are used to look at the viewfinder.
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 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.
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.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
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.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.
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 tripI 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