RF lenses would not be exactly useless. Of course, it's a bit pointless to mount a 24-70 RF on M body but a 100-400 would be nice to be used with APS-C sensors which are still a lot more pixel-dense and cheaper.
Sony done it much better in my opinion. Buy a 200-600 and use it on a cheap A6000 if you want or buy a more expensive full frame for it, or both.
I believe Canon filed a patent for a SoeedBooster-like adapter. It would be plausible for them to create an M to RF adapter to “bridge” the gap. This would enable M users to transition to RF bodies but also keep the M lenses at a disadvantage compared to a native RF lense. The similar approach could be seen with the EF to RF adapters. They had to be more creative with the EF to RF to compel users to make the switch. It worked on me; control ring.
No doubt the M6 II is a very decent camera and very compact. Sales seem to be pretty good. My doubts are with the sustainability of the M line longer term. Canon is in a much tougher situation now and will have to make some decisions on what it keeps investing in. Supporting three mounts is potentially not sustainable in a falling market. They are pining their future on the R mount and the EF has a large existing customer base. Close to the M size could be achieved with an R mount.Just like the 1DX III may the high point of EF the M 6 II might be the high point of the M series.
I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the M line is aimed at casual users who value small size more than anything else.
The size and power consumption of IBIS depends on the requirements. If it is 3 stops "only" it doesn't have to travel that far and IMO the size of APS-C makes it 2 times lighter at least (sensor area) and maybe 3 times lighter because things can made thinner. And this affects the size of the actors too because they have to move less mass compared to a FF sensor.Always great to dream, but I seriously doubt Canon would put IBIS in an M5ii body. Not only is the space too small, the LP-E17 would not be able to handle the power demands.
Having said that, I definitely would like an M5ii.
Thanks for your well considered comments. It’s really hard to be sure of anything without knowing the margins on the products. Canon can be more efficient at higher volumes but at this point their energies are split a number of ways. All we know is their profits are way down . I’m not sure which category is dragging down the most. Canon will sell more with more variety of cameras but it pushes up costs. There is an optimal trade off point. I’m sure Canon know what they are doing but it’s not been a good year financially. It’s hard to see where they can improve margins. Phones continue to bite into the market.I'm no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the M line is aimed at casual users who value small size more than anything else. They sell well, by all accounts, and we know that APS-C vastly outsells FF (mainly due to price?). They might be able to make an APS-C R-mount *body* smaller, but the lenses won't be as small. If they introduced APS-C R-mount lenses, that would be essentially a new line of lenses (like EF-S was), which isn't simplifying anything.
I think a lot of people on these forums make a couple of key mistakes when analysing all this - that offering fewer lines/having a simpler, more easy to understand lineup is better for business, and that an upgrade path from APS-C to FF is important to more than a small minority of customers. I don't think the evidence is there for either assertion, and judging by Canon's strategy so far, the opposite is probably true.
The ergonomics of the EOS M series is not designed for big lenses - I can't hand hold comfortably the 100-400mm on my M5 on a calm day, and I use my M with smaller lenses. The take home message is that if you want a 32 Mpx sensor, buy the M6II for more general photography if you want mirrorless or buy the 90D if you hand hold telephotos for nature photography (or buy both). A plus of the 90D is that you can use it as a larger mirrorless but without a viewfinder, not quite as good as the M6 II but still darn good.I am now quite certain the M6 II has the AF to be a great BIF camera - it tracks birds incredibly well from what I could manage last week.
Two issues - I'm absolute garbage at BIF. And there's no denying you need to change your panning technique to adjust for the M6's light weight - smeone better than me will get results
Actually three issues. It was damn near impossible to hold the camera while it had a big lens in the face of 90+kph winds due to it's weight balance being so forward. So add to that and the BIF's became more either barely hovering or feathered missiles.
Edit : Honestly the more I use my M6 II the more I wonder what that sensor would be like in a 7D II style bomb proof body, dual cards slots, dual DIGIC 9's etc. Kinda feel like now people have seen that the M6 is right up there and it's "just" an enthusists camera, it's got Canon shooters excited for the future.
Canon may be on the better path. Sony reminded me of taking a shortcut that's the shortest distance between two points, but no necessarily the best route. Canon seems to be knitting quite a few innovations together at the same time, included a great RF mount, and interesting tools like the AI flash unit they developed.
you mis interpreted what I stated. It's the pixel density aka pixel pitch equivalent of 83MP on a full frame sensor if you are viewing at 100%. so if you are looking at pixel AF accuracy, then it's equivalent of 83MP. Of course, the burst MP/sec rate is less, because it's only 18MP but that's not important to the AF accuracy when viewing at 100%.The 30 fps burst mode is for the 32.5 Mpx sensor cropped to 18 Mpx. So, it isn't done with the pixel equivalent of an 83 Mpx sensor. If the burst was done at the same data transfer rate for the 32.5 Mpx, it would drop to 16.6/s. The Gordon Laing review of the AF of M6 II of seagulls at Brighton is not a good test of AF for BIF - the seagulls there virtually hover along the seafront when I have seen them.
the design criteria for EF-M and RF lenses is not that different with the exception that the EF-M lenses are smaller, and have a diameter restriction.No doubt the M6 II is a very decent camera and very compact. Sales seem to be pretty good. My doubts are with the sustainability of the M line longer term. Canon is in a much tougher situation now and will have to make some decisions on what it keeps investing in. Supporting three mounts is potentially not sustainable in a falling market. They are pining their future on the R mount and the EF has a large existing customer base. Close to the M size could be achieved with an R mount.Just like the 1DX III may the high point of EF the M 6 II might be the high point of the M series.
If I have misinterpreted you it's because I don't understand what you are saying. What does "pixel AF accuracy" mean?you mis interpreted what I stated. It's the pixel density aka pixel pitch equivalent of 83MP on a full frame sensor if you are viewing at 100%. so if you are looking at pixel AF accuracy, then it's equivalent of 83MP. Of course, the burst MP/sec rate is less, because it's only 18MP but that's not important to the AF accuracy when viewing at 100%.
I currently have a rental M6 II that I rented because I was curious to see if it was worth upgrading from my original M6, which I think is excellent. (I was actually renting / trying out a Canon 400mm F5.6L for my full-frame and when I saw they also rented the M6 II, I couldn't resist).
The M6 II is also an excellent camera and anyone who's looking to get into the M-series who doesn't already own one, would do very well with it. For me personally, I didn't see enough to go through the process of upgrading, but that's no knock on the M6 II. After using both side-by-side for several days (and I have the M6 II through tomorrow tonight), I'm perfectly happy with my original. One thing I was really anxious to try was the eye-detect autofocus because I use my 32mm 1.4 a lot wide open and with a moving subject, it's easy to focus on a nose or ear. While the eye-detect worked extremely well, I did need to be closer to the person I was photographing than I expected, for it to detect an eye. Otherwise it's defaults back to regular face detect. That's not a complaint or flaw, just my expectations were not in line with how it works. With the 32mm, you need to be just a couple of feet away filling a large part of the frame to detect an eye. Once you take a few steps back, it no longer tracks the eye. With a more telephoto lens, of course you could be farther away, but I love shooting with my 32mm.
Did it work with the 32mm 1.4 for standard headshots with eyeAF? or did it fall back to face detect even for a standard headshot distance?
consider if you view an image at 100%. is it in focus? viewing at 100% and determining focus is hugely dependant upon the pixel pitch.
The ergonomics of the EOS M series is not designed for big lenses
If you are happy hand holding a big lens on a tiny body with a small grip, then continue to enjoy it. It’s your choice. The big difference between the 7D and the 90D is a 32 Mpx sensor vs 20 Mpx, which is the same great plus of the M6 II vs the opposition. And it’s the sensor that sold me the latest camera. Saying that live view is a half-heated kludge in the 90D is to write off another real plus of the camera - it is a great implementation of live view which I am finding very useful for the portraiture I am now having to do.I very much disagree. Apart from the edge case of high winds, I've found the M6II to be actually quite good with big lenses - It just needs a different technique that I am coming round to. The same can be said for Sony or other small MILC's of course.
My other Canon camera are 7D's and a 1D. And to be honest, I also did try the 90D but there is nothing there that appealed to me over and above the existing cameras. The M6 II did, plus I prefer to use a DSLR as a DLSR - live view really is a bit of kludge that comes off half heated.