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

[Michael Clark]

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?

Yes, one can spend more money in the RF system buying the most expensive RF products than one can spend in the EOS M system. But one does not have to buy the most expensive RF cameras and lenses to be in the RF system. By the time the RF system is eight years old, as the EOS M system now is, there will almost certainly be many more affordable options in the RF system than there currently are. In fact, in terms of RF lenses, by the end of this year there will be far more options that are considered "affordable" by those with limited budgets than there were at the beginning of this year.

Even so, right now an RP + RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro compares fairly well in terms of cost to a camera in the EOS M system with features comparable to the RP's features, combined with the cost of needing to buy both the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (for comparable maximum aperture) plus EF-M 28mm f/2.8 IS Macro (for comparable macro capabilities).

The cameras and lenses currently offered in the EOS-M system, which has been around for eight years, are aimed at more limited capabilities in exchange for size/weight/cost considerations that are more heavily favored by many more casual camera buyers.

The cameras and lenses currently offered in the EOS R system already, less than two years in, offer a far wider breadth of use cases, features, and price points for the specific needs of those who take time to determine exactly what they need for a particular niche of photography. That breadth of choice will be even much wider in the year 2026 by the time the EOS R system has been on the market for eight years.

 

[photonius]

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.



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.


I can't follow you here. You suggest a crop RF mount with crop only RF lenses? I don't think it will happen.


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]

Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF

 

[stevelee]

I considered getting the M50 when I was looking at alternatives to my G7X II. I chose to stick with something that would fit in my pocket, so I got the G5X II instead. (I also looked at Sony’s camera, but they made it slower and zoom farther, so not a good fit for me for travel.) I came away with a positive impression of the M series, so if there were some use situation for me when I wanted something in between pocketable and FF, I would definitely buy an M of some sort. So far I haven’t thought of a scenario for me where that fits. Right now, I don’t have occasion to use the Aps-c cameras I already have.

 

[blackcoffee17]

M5

IBIS

Same sensor as my M6ii

Better battery life

Day 1 purchase.

Maybe make the EVF to sit a bit lower like on the RP and don't add a huge bump on the top of the camera.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF
[/QUOTE]

Comparing M6 Mark 2 and 15-45 to the RP with the 24-105, the M is significantly smaller.
Same with the M6+22mm compared to RP with 35mm 1.8. The M is a dwarf compared to the RF.
The 22mm F2 is 101g vs 305g for the 35mm 1.8. Instant 200g saving.

That's the main advantage in my opinion. Canon just needs a better kit lens, something like a 15-60 F2.8-5.6 maybe with better built and sharpness.

 

[Rocky]

M system do need better lenses.15-45 is a very versatile lens. Canon just need to make it better opically. If they make it as 15-60 2.8-5.6, it will be much bigger than its present form.

 

[ReflexVE]

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.

You are adding judgement to what I am simply describing. That's on you.

 

[jolyonralph]

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.

You really don't understand who EF-M is aimed at. It's the market for compact, inexpensive APS-C lenses. There's no way Canon will replace it with RF. No way at all.

 

[stevelee]

I really don’t understand the RF Über Alles cult, as if everything else has to be assimilated or eliminated.

 

[photonius]

Yes, that was my suggestion, that instead of EOS-M, canon could make an RF-S system. Take the current EF-M lenses, make them RF-M, make a few small APS-C R bodies. You wouldn't t need the EOS M line anymore, and you can put all RF lenses on it for the full line-up, no more two systems. If it will happen or not, Canon will decide.
As far as I can see, there will always be a big difference in price between APS-C and FF, because of the waver size issue (info on this can be found elsewhere). As to the weight, the difference accumulates when one takes the whole range from 10mm to 250mm along. (10-18, 18-55, 55-250). That will be bigger and heavier on FF, and equivalent don't even exist yet on RF

Comparing M6 Mark 2 and 15-45 to the RP with the 24-105, the M is significantly smaller.
Same with the M6+22mm compared to RP with 35mm 1.8. The M is a dwarf compared to the RF.
The 22mm F2 is 101g vs 305g for the 35mm 1.8. Instant 200g saving.

That's the main advantage in my opinion. Canon just needs a better kit lens, something like a 15-60 F2.8-5.6 maybe with better built and sharpness.
[/QUOTE]
The m6 lacks a viewfinder! Take away the viewfinder bump on the top of the RP, reduce the big grip to m6 size, and you are very close. And with an APS-C sensor in such a body, and an RF mount on the 15-45 and 22 f2 lenses, they will work just as on the m6. The lenses will be a little bigger at the back due to the larger mount diameter.