That’s why there is an EOS R in the picture. Regardless, adding a point and shoot camera into the mix is seriously moving the goalposts for the comparison.
EOS M related camera bodies coming in late August 2019 [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
But isn't it "moving the goalposts" in the same way as adding another crop-sensor camera with the same PowerShot user interface and an even slower (absolute aperture wise) lens?
I mean, really. I see no use for M-series that I couldn't cover with G-series (if I own a full frame body anyway), but G-series is actually pocketable and has much cheaper underwater cases.
Life is full of compromises. I own a G7x and seriously looked at an M5 before I bought it. The M5 isn't small enough to fit into my pocket but the G7x is.
I don’t know at times why you get you knickers in a twist so easily to prove you are right. You seem to have a low tolerance threshold to other people’s ways of thinking. I think it detracts from your often insightful comments. You are totally entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t make other people stupid if they have a different opinion or a personal viewpoint. There is nothing guaranteed in business. Canon will act in accordance to the bottom line. They are happy to bring a new M now but it all depends if the success continues. They are limited in the M series to innovate on the camera or the lenses. Anyway maybe you are having a bad day and I hope it improvesPerhaps they could...but they haven’t. But let me get this straight, you are basing your lack of understanding of the M system’s appeal on the current lack of some hypothetical future lenses Canon may or may not produce? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Even if Canon does come out with small lenses for the RF mount (slow, variable aperture zooms that have just decent optical quality), the system will still be substantially larger than the M line
More importantly, smaller RF lenses won’t detract from the other major reason for the appeal of the M system:
Next you’ll probably claim that Canon could make RF lenses and a FF MILC cheaper. Before doing so, you should consider the fact that the for the same price of the slow variable aperture, medium image quality EF 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM, I can buy an M6 + M15-45 kit.
But it’s ok if you don’t understand the appeal, enough people do to make it one of the most popular MILC lines in the world, and the most popular mirrorless line in Japan.
I'm sad if Canon are dropping the M3/6 form factor. I absolutely love my M6 & EVF-DC1 combo, a light flippable EVF I can take off when I want a truly tiny but still capable camera.
esp. paired with the 22/2.
esp. paired with the 22/2.
I agree! This is the only modern body with somewhat retro-rangefinder styling. I don't like the upper cuves of R and RP either. Fuji and Nikon have done a better job in the styling department. I wish RP is offered in M6 format!
Of course you're welcome to your opinion. I guess my expectation that you could understand the fact a smaller system size would have appeal was simply too high. Apologies for that. Incidentally, I had a great day personally and professionally...but that doesn't give me the patience to suffer foolish comments.
Given that the initial response was to someone who fails to see the appeal of the M series, how is discussing the M6 'moving the goalposts'? It's the whole point! I mean, really.
Personally, I see ample use for the M-series that I couldn't cover with the G-series. How ample? The M11-22 is my most-used EF-M lens, and across the M, M2 and M6 about 60% of my total images taken are in the 11-14mm focal length range, which is wider than the G-series' widest 24mm FFeq.
And since I've only had one coffee this morning, I had to break out the calculator: 11-14mm on the M is about 18-22mm FFeq.
This year my most used lenses on the M are:
- 32mm f/1.4
- 22mm f/2
- 28mm f/3.5
The 32mm + eye AF + 10fps gets me an acceptable success rate when trying to take pictures of my 3 year old. Even better, it has a success rate when the 3 year old takes pictures of me
How much wider are you looking for? 18, 15 or 11mm like the Canon zoom lenses or even wider like the 9mm zero-D Laowa lens?
Neuro, I am just curious about one thing and though we have two observatories and colleagues build own scopes, I am an IT guy, hence not able to think it thru properly - let's say Canon have DSLRs of various size, including the possibly smallest SL line. So let's suppose Canon can make even an RF cameras of various sizes. How big would be your mentioned 11-22 RF equivalent, given the mount size compared to M? Thanks ....
Canon has patents for RF 16-35 and 15-35 f/4 lenses that are ~4“ long (not too much smaller than the EF version). If they went with a slow/variable aperture (e.g. f/3.5-6.3), I suspect it could be a bit smaller but not much, and the size savings would be primarily in diameter, not length.
For ultra/wide lenses, the size benefit of a smaller image circle (e.g. APS-C) substantially outweighs the benefit of a shorter flange distance.
Something like a compact 14mm f/2.8 APS-C lens (so nothing like the full-frame versions) would be good. The 11-18 is a great lens to be fair, but it would be good to have something at least a tiny bit faster.
In exactly the same way. It's a crop sensor "P&S" interface camera with (as shown) a lens slower than a G7X has.
I'm afraid I couldn't cover it with M-series as well. M11 (unshifted) is usually just not wide enough for me if I want to go wider than the 24 equivalent.
Rokinon has made such lenses for efm mount e.g. 12f2. Being manual is not a big deal for such wide lenses as often focusing to infinity is all you need.
Being said, I still mostly go with 11-22 as a versatile, cost effective, and extremely valuable lens.
Your statement is inane. One is an interchangeable lens camera, the other is a fixed lens camera. It’s a fundamental difference, ignoring that difference is asinine.
There’s a 9mm f/2.8 lens for EF-M. That’s the point of an interchangeable lens camera. So you have a 11/12-24? I do enjoy my 11-24/4L on FF.
Regardless, you stated the M doesn’t give you anything the G can’t, I disagreed because I use the 11-14mm range a lot. Your reply is that 11mm on APS-C isn’t wide enough for you...this, after (incorrectly) accusing me of moving the goalposts.
Clear to me that you’re trolling here. No more food from me, I’m out.
Your statement is inane. Saying that I ignore that difference (exactly the difference that makes G-series preferable to me) is asinine.
G-series is pocketable, while M-series is not? Thanks to the fixed-lens design.
G-series has cheap underwater housings, while M-series doesn't? Thanks to the fixed-lens design.
That's my point. If you already have an interchangeable FF lens camera, what a M-series adds to that and G-series doesn't?
Actually, it were you who (incorrectly) accused me of moving the goalposts, while in fact it were you who was looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
What G-series gives me that my FF system cannot? Pocketability and the ability to use cheap underwater housing for the camera that I'm not afraid to ruin by putting it into a saltwater.
What M-series gives me that my FF system cannot? None of the above.
Were M your only ILC system, you would have had a point.
Similar threads
