Opinion: EOS-M transition that never was
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I have my M50 which I recently reaquired. I'm thankful to it for getting me into photography but using it now feels very dated comparably. I have several EF-M lenses but the 32mm pretty much lives on it now. To my mind the mythical M7 pretty much was the Fuji X-S10, a small camera with much more advanced controls and a robust lens ecosystem. The X-S20 competes with top end systems today in the same form factor as my M50.
To those complaining about the larger primes on Fuji these days, this is an issue for every manufacturer. Compare the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and you'll see a significant size and weight increase. This is true of the 85mm f/1.2L as well for both mounts and most other cross mount comparisons. Nikon also shows this trend of increasing size and weight from their older lenses to their newer ones. When you compare newer Fuji lenses to newer Canon/Nikon lenses, the gap between crop and FF options only grows compared to the previous generation. If you want higher quality you can't escape the physics involved. Fortunately Fuji has left many of their older options on the market for those who prioritize size/weight over the best possible image quality.
To those complaining about the larger primes on Fuji these days, this is an issue for every manufacturer. Compare the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and you'll see a significant size and weight increase. This is true of the 85mm f/1.2L as well for both mounts and most other cross mount comparisons. Nikon also shows this trend of increasing size and weight from their older lenses to their newer ones. When you compare newer Fuji lenses to newer Canon/Nikon lenses, the gap between crop and FF options only grows compared to the previous generation. If you want higher quality you can't escape the physics involved. Fortunately Fuji has left many of their older options on the market for those who prioritize size/weight over the best possible image quality.
Upvote
0
Yes you hit the nail on the head. The huge R mount means the cameras are always going to be huge. I'll never buy an APS-C R mount camera for that reason. I don't see why they couldn't just make newer M cameras given that they'd already built all the lenses.
Upvote
0
the throat diameter is only 7mm larger with the RF mount (47mm to 54mm). It's larger, but not enough to dramatically change what they could do if they wanted to on the camera body.
it's also 2mm deeper - so there's more volume that has to be taken up for the mount, which affects the shutter assembly, sensor mechanical mounting, etc.
Nikon made the Z30 - and concentrated a lot still on ergonomics and it's probably a better feeling camera, but still 12mm smaller in height than the R100.
Side note anyone else looking at the ergonomic consistency of the Nikon Z cameras and wonder what Canon is smoking lately?
If Canon gets to the point of global shutter, there's nothing stopping them from making a camera literally the size of the back LCD panel.
Upvote
0
Waitin
Sigma has the lenses. And Fuji has no 32.5mp compact interchageable lens camera without and EVF hump. The M6mk2 is in a class of its own with exception of the Sony compact. The M6mk2 has a detachable EVF. Allowing it to be functional on a compact gimbal without the EVF slamming into the gimbal. If there's another 32mp compact interchangeable lens camera without an EVF hump other than the m6mk2 or the Sony let me know.
People who currently have EOS M cameras and lenses can continue to use them for years to come. The vast majority will not know that the M system is discontinued for quite a while, maybe years. The only reason you think that Canon has erroneously ended the M too soon, is that you are a panicky internet influencer who thinks people have to decide on a camera and a camera system today. Canon, I'm sure, wishes the internet influencers would just shut up and stop trying to panic people and make them feel like they need to do something NOW! They don't, not for YEARS in most cases. And, guess what...there will be more RF-S lenses by then.
Upvote
0
I was referring to the M mount as not being a success.
As far as the RF system, it's going to be a success for sure, but not for the reasons many people were expecting. Specifically, the size and weight advantages that never materialized, or at least not to the extent that it makes a significant difference in how we shoot.
Upvote
0
R50 and R8 is so light when paired with right lenses. If people are patience enough for 3rd party AF lenses arrive RF. It'll be perfect.
Upvote
0
I suppose our definition of success varies.At it's peak, ≥17% of every interchangeable lens camera sold in a given year had an M mount. That is not a success? Oki-dokie...
The M mount had a lifespan of about 10yrs while the EF is around maybe 35yrs old and still not completely discontinued.
I have a hard time believing Canon thought the EF system would last that long when it launched. Similarly, I have a hard time believing Canon thought the M mount would be gone in 10yrs.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Fair enough.
Perhaps. But Canon could have made the RF flange a few mm longer, enabling an RF-to-M adapter. It surprised me that they didn’t, thus eliminating the APS-C to FF ‘upgrade path’ possible with EF-S/EF. So I now think Canon knew well in advance they were going to kill off EF-M.
Given the sales data in Japan (APS-C R bodies consistently holding three slots among the top 10 best sellers), it appears that camera buyers have embraced RF-S as a replacement for EF-M, even if some folks on this forum can’t accept it.
Upvote
0
Technically speaking, there's enough mm to make slim adapters like ETZ adapters. However no one seems to be interested to make one...probably Canon is scaring those small CN companies off
Upvote
0
I bought the original M early on, thinking it could be a second body to eliminate the need to change lenses in the field. I found the user interface terrible, not at all as easy to use as either the EF or Powershot cameras I was used to. And focusing was glacial, both in picking the subject and racking the lens. But with the 22/2 pancake lens, it was a nice enough landscape camera for my motorcycle bag, with good image quality, so long as I took my time.
I then bought an M50 to be a potential replacement for my Rebel, for times I didn’t want to carry the larger/heavier 5D3. The menus were better than the M’s, but the viewfinder was too bright and too blue, and was extremely slow to react when I raised the camera to my eye. And the kit lenses, 15-45 and 18-55, were much inferior to the EF-S lenses I had. I finally put my 17-40 on it with the adapter, giving good image quality while losing any size/weight advantage. So I kept my old SL1.
At its 10th birthday, I traded my 5D3 on an R6, and took the M and M50 along to trade in as well. They didn’t want the M, so I kept it and the 22/2 for my leave-in-the-car-in-case-the-aliens-land camera.
This year I added an R10 with the 18-150 as a Rebel replacement. I alternate taking it and the SL1 out with me. Objectively, the R10 should be the better camera, but I still like the SL1 with the 15-85.
Upvote
0
R100 was never intend a product for sensible photographer. R50 is the minimum. R100 is like those x000D DSLR that will be found in passport/ID photo booths.I find it quite funny that people in this forum keep saying that "Canon dominates the camera market", when it is a shrinking business. Thats like saying that company XY dominates the horse carriage market while the car is around. The camera market is at around 15% of what it once was and it keeps bleeding users daily. The true dominators of the camera market are Apple, Samsung etc.
IMO the M-line was an usable alternative for someone who wanted a true ILC while not going overboard on prize and size. Now we have RF-S and Canon produces stuff like the laugingly bad R100 - trying to win over smartphone users with a camera lacking a touchscreen.
Try explaining to a new user, lets say a fifteen year old buyer of a R100 with a kit lens, why his dedicated camera will not be able to produce a portrait with bokeh (unlike his friends shitty 200 bucks android phone), unless he forks out another couple hundred bucks for a portrait lens at which point he could have bought an iPhone Pro (which can also edit and upload the picture in seconds).
Canon had an established user base, a selection of nice and beloved lenses and a good reputation. They threw it all away to force users into the FF "upgrade path" while obviously missing that these users will upgrade to something else entirely.
/rant over - I really only wanted a M5 II with IBIS, 32mp, eye af and the new 2.8 Sigma lenses
The camera market is shrinking because smartphones are so convenient, but with smartphones getting super expensive. I can see cameras with respectable connectivity can take back some of the market, especially with prosumers.
Upvote
0
I thought for instance of the Fuji X-E4, same compact shape, no EVF "hump", but (important for me...) an EVF, 26 MP (not a huge difference), and a wide choice of lenses.
Could it be an alternative for you?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is a great example of what has been mentioned regarding size reduction, or lack thereof. I specifically remember being excited when the M line was announced, but then being disappointed when I saw the first product photos and dimension specs. Maybe I was expecting a miracle that wasn't possible, but I feel like that was the expectation I was sold.
Upvote
0
The innocent 22f2, 11-22 the workhorse, the flimsy underrated 55-200 and ofcourse the surprising finale 32f1.4! I loved how M6 & M6ii offered a modern and somewhat minimalist take on the rangefinder style. It's quite hard to find a similar body for hip, touch, and screen shooters. I always loved having a full frame version but yet to see a camera other than Leica. Even all the retro Nikons have been DSLR like with a viewfinder, rotating screen, and unnecessary dials with questionable functionality. I may still go for a Zf!
Upvote
0
