IBIS is likely coming to the EOS M lineup [CR2]

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
149
178
You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.
It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
149
178
The only mount that is dead is EF (and EF-S). If the announcement about the 5D range being canned is true you can be pretty sure Canon won't launch any new EF or EF-S lenses in the future.

EF-M is far from a dead mount, it's Canon's highest-selling mount.
You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet. People watching from the sidelines might be cheering it on, hoping it'll survive for just a few more painful years so that they can hope (in vain) that Canon will give them (1) the mythical adapter which will let them use their old EF-M lenses on new bodies or (2) the (frankly delusional) premium lenses which perform on the same level as the newer RF lenses but costing only a mere fraction of the price. Truth is, it is the inconvenient truth that Canon will find it more financially and technically plausible to consolidate all of the mounts, and that the EF-M mount will go the way of its older brothers, the EF and the EF-S. And those cheerleaders on the sidelines will have to go through the inevitable five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).
Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!

Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,599
459
S Florida
It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).
You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet. People watching from the sidelines might be cheering it on, hoping it'll survive for just a few more painful years so that they can hope (in vain) that Canon will give them (1) the mythical adapter which will let them use their old EF-M lenses on new bodies or (2) the (frankly delusional) premium lenses which perform on the same level as the newer RF lenses but costing only a mere fraction of the price. Truth is, it is the inconvenient truth that Canon will find it more financially and technically plausible to consolidate all of the mounts, and that the EF-M mount will go the way of its older brothers, the EF and the EF-S. And those cheerleaders on the sidelines will have to go through the inevitable five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...
 

derpderp

Pixel Peeper
Jan 31, 2020
149
178
Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!

Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.
They're big, heavy and expensive because they're currently catering to the professional and advanced amateur users. But as you rightly pointed out, it's past due for Canon to introduce a smaller body (with the RF mount) and the relevant lenses to cater to other users beyond the above two.
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
They're big, heavy and expensive because they're currently catering to the professional and advanced amateur users. But as you rightly pointed out, it's past due for Canon to introduce a smaller body (with the RF mount) and the relevant lenses to cater to other users beyond the above two.
I don't really have a ton of brand loyalty. If they bring RF to the price/size/weight/quality level of the M mount, I'm there because why the hell not? If they don't and they end the M line, I'll do one of the following:

1) Sell everything while I can still get back most of what I spent and go buy into another system that delivers similar to M (probably Sony)
2) Just hang on to everything because it already has most of what I need and use it for years because it does not need Canon support to still produce great photos

Either would be fine for me. With EF and an adapter it's not like I can't get a lens for every possible use I could have as-is. But sure, if Canon wants to put RF in this space I'd be fine with that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derpderp

SteB1

EOS M50
Feb 22, 2019
34
45
That was true at a time where you had computational limits. Now that the camera can use full time tracking, the image quality is vastly improved with IBIS. Early versions mostly induced unacceptable levels of warping. The examples on Canon’s iteration looks really good.




Canon camera’s current cash cow is the EOS-M. Killing it off would be disastrous. There will be plenty of consumer need for a sub professional lineup of camera.
Yes, I agree it's going to be difficult for Canon to kill of the M mount. But I think it is going to be inevitable, because it's going to become very cumbersome having two incompatible mirrorless systems. In fact, I'd say Canon's reluctance to expand the M lens system is a sign that they've always been aware that at some point they'll probably have to kill it off, and it'd be embarrassing if they did this after getting people to buy into a more comprehensive range of lenses.
 

photonius

EOS RP
Jul 13, 2013
236
16
Well, if you are interested in a 17-55 2.8 on crop, what you really want is a lens to get blurry backgrounds and decent low light performance, right? An equivalent lens on FF will do that for you. And you are fine with paying the money and weight associated with that. So what is the point of using such a lens on the M system, that is explicitly about small, lightweight and affordable lenses? Why pollute a clean system with compromised options?

It makes perfect sense to me to separate the shrinking market into the size and weight enthusiasts and the picture quality and ergonomics enthusiasts. There may be an overlap there, but as I said: the market is shrinking. Only the users who are numerous enough will get what they want without paying more than they might like.
You seem to know better than the actual user what he/she wants... No, I am not fine with paying extra money and extra weight for a FF solution, when APS-C is fine. I like the smallness of lighter weight of Rebel bodies coupled with the decent trio of EF-S kit lenses. But that hasn't stopped me from buying an EF 100-400 tele, which I can't do with the EOS-M. I have money to buy what I think I need, but I don't need a FF system, and I don't buy a system that has only a few lenses. Buying two systems just to solve this, is a no-go.

It seems to make perfect sense to focus on one mount, which uses less resources, in a shrinking market.
Indeed EOS-M is best selling, but because Canon painted themselves into a corner, the question is how to they get out of it without loosing that.
If the EOS-M line is so great according to you, Canon just can keep it as is, and do nothing. No new lenses, maybe a new body once in a while, not much investment basically.
Only invest in RF.
How does Canon catch the people who still want to be small and compact, but want more? The Canon 600 and 800 lenses are clearly something that a lot of people could afford, even I'm tempted. But are they all supposed to buy expensive FF bodies, to enjoy them? Not me. So I keep using my EF-100-400.
 

Joules

EOS R
Jul 16, 2017
919
1,011
Hamburg, Germany
You seem to know better than the actual user what he/she wants... No, I am not fine with paying extra money and extra weight for a FF solution, when APS-C is fine. I like the smallness of lighter weight of Rebel bodies coupled with the decent trio of EF-S kit lenses.
Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:

At Amazon Germany, I can pay 1950 € for an RP with the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS. Or buy them separately at 1265 + 1065 = 2330 €.

I can also get a 90D for 1265 as well, and the Canon EF-S 17-55 mm 2.8 for 675 € (1940 € total) or Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 for 460 € (1525 € total).

Total weight of the RP combo is 480 g + 700 g = 1180 g

For the Crop DSLR:
700 g + 645 g = 1345 g (With Canon lens)
700 g + 570 g =1270 g (With Tamron lens)

They are all roughly the same length (if you account for the flange distance, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is the longest one).

It is not a complete apple's to apples comparison, of course. The 24-105 mm is a straight upgrade over the other options, but the RP and 90D are build for very different purposes.

But the point I was trying to make is this: If you want a 2.8 Zoom on crop, not just because you do, but because you want to get the associated results (Low light performance, background blur), there's nothing really favoring APS-C. You'll get those results and more going for an FF option, while paying a similar price for the total system and carrying less weight.

Sure, this matters not at all, if you don't look at the whole system. But Canon has to look into the future, where buying a new body and lens becomes more likely for most users.

It seems to make perfect sense to focus on one mount, which uses less resources, in a shrinking market.
Don't forget why it is shrinking: many people simply aren't willing to carry or pay as much as they used to. In that environment, having a system that prioritizes size above all else, for those who want to go further than smartphone quality while keeping size and weight reasonable, makes a lot of sense to me. And a system for the enthusiats that chase quality and are ready to compromise on size, weight and cost.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.

Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.
On the other hand, lens based IS works by intentionally misaligning the lens just a tiny bit. Wide angle lenses are more susceptible to minor misalignments than longer lenses are, so there's that too. Both sacrifice image quality in exchange for reducing blur caused by camera movement. Each just does it in a different way.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
You are welcome to your opinion.


You are the one putting the moral statement on this. I don't look down on him. I am describing him. There is a difference. I didn't make a value judgement, that was you. I also didn't say I was a better photographer, only that I understood the equipment better.

That said, yes I am also a better photographer.
Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?
 

nchoh

EOS RP
Apr 3, 2018
255
154
Calgary
Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?
There is a very prevalent idea on this forum that enthusiasts only buy expensive cameras and lenses. I say an enthusiast is anyone who spends a lot of effort learning about photography and cameras. Some enthusiasts have a budget of$10K, some have a budget of less than $3K.

The reality is that if you are an enthusiast who has only budgeted less than $3K, you have to work a lot harder, spending a lot more time choosing the right equipment for the type of photography you want to do. It is difficult to find good combinations of lenses to achieve the same when you have a minimal amount to spend. With a budget of $10K (5DX+ L lenses), most of the work is already done for you. So who is the real enthusiast?
 

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?
That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.
 

photonius

EOS RP
Jul 13, 2013
236
16
Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!

Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.
Actually, if you look at the Canon EOS SL cameras, e.g. the Rebel SL1 with 407 g, versus the M50 with 387 g, you can see it's possible to make a rather compact camera with a mount (EF/EF-S) that has the SAME diameter as the RF mount. Now you take out the mirror box etc., and only leave the RF mount, and you can make a lightweight rather compact APS-C RF mirrorless camera. And because it;'s mirrorless, you can now make all the EF-M lenses as RF APS-C lenses. They will be a bit heavier, due to larger mount diameter. So, it should be possible to make an APS-C RF mount system, that comes rather close to the EOS-M system.
 

photonius

EOS RP
Jul 13, 2013
236
16
Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:

At Amazon Germany, I can pay 1950 € for an RP with the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS. Or buy them separately at 1265 + 1065 = 2330 €.

I can also get a 90D for 1265 as well, and the Canon EF-S 17-55 mm 2.8 for 675 € (1940 € total) or Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 for 460 € (1525 € total).

Total weight of the RP combo is 480 g + 700 g = 1180 g

For the Crop DSLR:
700 g + 645 g = 1345 g (With Canon lens)
700 g + 570 g =1270 g (With Tamron lens)

They are all roughly the same length (if you account for the flange distance, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is the longest one).

It is not a complete apple's to apples comparison, of course. The 24-105 mm is a straight upgrade over the other options, but the RP and 90D are build for very different purposes.

But the point I was trying to make is this: If you want a 2.8 Zoom on crop, not just because you do, but because you want to get the associated results (Low light performance, background blur), there's nothing really favoring APS-C. You'll get those results and more going for an FF option, while paying a similar price for the total system and carrying less weight.

Sure, this matters not at all, if you don't look at the whole system. But Canon has to look into the future, where buying a new body and lens becomes more likely for most users.


Don't forget why it is shrinking: many people simply aren't willing to carry or pay as much as they used to. In that environment, having a system that prioritizes size above all else, for those who want to go further than smartphone quality while keeping size and weight reasonable, makes a lot of sense to me. And a system for the enthusiats that chase quality and are ready to compromise on size, weight and cost.
Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges.
But that's the point of the APS-C line. You can get lighter and cheaper. Look at the SL line, which I was always contemplating, though in the end I stuck with the Rebel line for weight and price reasons.
Since you compare a lowest priced FF system (the RP) with a standard kit zoom, you should do the same comparison at APS-C level,
so, take a Rebel and the 18-55 lens, (similar to the EOS-M kit lenses) and calculate price and weight. Price will be 560 Euro for the 250d at Amazon.de. And the weight is ~ 750g, almost half of the FF system. The 250D has a mirror box, but a mount with the same diameter as RF. Take away the mirror box, and you can make an APS-C RF body that can be very lightweight, that can use EF-M / EF-S style compact lightweight APS-C lenses. But it will be able to take advantage of the whole RF lens line-up that will come along eventually. (Basically replicating the EF-S/EF situation, i.e. small, inexpensive APS-C bodies that can take all lenses, but also a small selection of APS-C only lenses.
As to the 2.8 zoom, indeed it's quite heavy. That's why I actually don't have it. I mentioned that only because so many people seem to crave it for APS-C. Me, for bokeh, I just stick the EF 50mm f1.8 lens on the rebel body - again, a simple basic lens that Canon has not replicated for EOS-M.
I totally agree that size/weight is important for people. But those people still buying camera system can probably be considered more enthusiastic. The Polaroid/Instamatic crowd are all using their smartphones nowadays. And for enthusiasts, the EOS-M system is limited. I'd rather go with another system like Fuji or MFT then. Now, the EOS-M crowd can still be kept happy with EF/EF-S lenes and adapters if EF-M doesn't cover it, but eventually that is going to disappear.
 

Joules

EOS R
Jul 16, 2017
919
1,011
Hamburg, Germany
Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges.
But that's the point of the APS-C line. You can get lighter and cheaper.
Well, that's exactly the point: The RP is only 30 g heavier than the 200D. That's so close, it's almost negligible.

In absolute terms, FF is currently more expensive. But you are also getting higher quality lenses, usually. And more importantly, the RP is the only entry level FF Canon has on offer currently. From the current line up, I get the impression that Canon will try to push down the price of FF further down.

Since you compare a lowest priced FF system (the RP) with a standard kit zoom, you should do the same comparison at APS-C level,
so, take a Rebel and the 18-55 lens, (similar to the EOS-M kit lenses) and calculate price and weight. Price will be 560 Euro for the 250d at Amazon.de. And the weight is ~ 750g, almost half of the FF system.
Well, I have only chosen the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS, because it is a superset of the 17-55 mm 2.8 in terms of equivalency. Everything you can shoot with the 17-55 mm 2.8 in crop you can do better with the 24-105 4.0.

Compared to an 18-55 mm 3.5 - 5.6 Kit Zoom, you'd have to go with the RF 24-105 mm 4-7.1 as the closest equivalent. Although still a lens with greater range and better total light gathering when compared to the crop system, it is at least very comparable in terms of weight:

RP + 24-105 mm 4.0-7.1 = 485 g + 395 g = 880 g
SL3 + 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6 = + 450 g + 205 g = 655 g

So you end up carrying 225 g more and pay 1460 € / 580 € = 2.5 times as much, for a more capable setup. Still no apples to apples comparison.

But I am not arguing that you can or will ever get FF at the same price as a crop system. Just that if you go up, you can still get a lightweight system and that the price for entry to FF will likely come down further as the RF system evolves. So not having an APS-C system to use with higher end lenses may become less problematic as time goes on.

The 250D has a mirror box, but a mount with the same diameter as RF. Take away the mirror box, and you can make an APS-C RF body that can be very lightweight, that can use EF-M / EF-S style compact lightweight APS-C lenses.
I can't follow you here. You suggest a crop RF mount with crop only RF lenses? I don't think it will happen.

And for enthusiasts, the EOS-M system is limited. I'd rather go with another system like Fuji or MFT then. Now, the EOS-M crowd can still be kept happy with EF/EF-S lenes and adapters if EF-M doesn't cover it, but eventually that is going to disappear.
EF-M only has small and inexpensive lenses. It is an ideal, clean ecosystem for the people who are just enthusiastic enough to carry a little gear and spent a little time researching what lenses they should buy. As you go to more enthusiastic customers, EF-M certainly doesn't cut it as a main system. But MFT, Fuji and EF-S come with their own restrictions. What suits you best depends on a lot of variables. But in the end, you and me don't matter, the market as a whole does. From my perspective it looks like Canon believes having EF-M (APS-C) for the low end and RF (FF) for the rest is the way to go, to capture enough casual users and photo enthusiasts. RF Yan offer decently inexpensive and very light lenses as well, and body costs will come down eventually. Sure, an EF-S style system could be even lighter and less expensive, but at that point you're compromising in quality anyway, so why not go all the way to EF-M? It may just be that in the long term, there is not enough market for the type of camera and lenses in the middle of the inexpensive, light and compact - expensive, heavy, high performance spectrum.[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.
Imagine I said the same kind of things about EOS M buyers that you said about your boss? Would you think I wasn't judging them? I think not.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.