Opinion: EOS-M transition that never was

[Loswr]

View attachment 212356
M6II vs equivalent R8 setup

How about the equivalent R8 setup to an M6II + M11-22 and M18-150? But at least the R50 setup would be nearly the same. To me, that's the real size benefit of APS-C over FF – the lens kit, not the body.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

The Z mount is bigger that the RF mount but the flange distance is shorter

 

[Blorp]

M6II vs equivalent R8 setup

Picture is missing that the R8 is so much higher.

 

[koenkooi]

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.

The M6II is huge compared to the original M, which is why the step from M6II to R8 isn’t as big as the step from M to M6II.
I do want an original M sized R camera, but till that happens, the R8 and M6II work for me.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

It does not surprise me.
It would have made for a smooth transition but it would have compromised the RF mount.
Canon held similar considerations when moving from FD to EF.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Technically speaking, there's enough mm to make slim adapters like ETZ adapters.

I thought that at first but then someone measured it.
The size of the flange on the RF mount is larger than the difference in flange distance.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But isn't that precisely the issue? The sensible photographer is a breed which is maybe not dying out, but there will be a lot fewer around

That is not necessarily the case.
People are taking more photos than ever.
Canon just needs to attract a small percentage.
Having the cheapest entry-level cameras on the market seems to be part of that strategy.

 

[koenkooi]

How about the equivalent R8 setup to an M6II + M11-22 and M18-150? But at least the R50 setup would be nearly the same. To me, that's the real size benefit of APS-C over FF – the lens kit, not the body.

Personally, I’d pick the R8+16mm over the M6II+11-22mm. The R8 is much better at focusing on my kids, which I appreciate more than the extra megapixels. I don’t
have the M18–150

But I agree that for the situation with zoom lenses, you can’t really beat the M series.

I’m still using the M6II as much as the R8 at home, it’s still a small powerhouse.

 

[koenkooi]

Picture is missing that the R8 is so much higher.

Yes, which is why I would very much like an EVF-less R camera. It being crop or FF wouldn’t make much difference to me. Lacking an RC port or not supporting USB-C PD charging would make a difference.

 

[gregedwards69]

there was so many things wrong with the M3 if you came from the M or M2. The AF was as bad even though Canon said it was going to be better. The sensor was okay. it was the sensor gen before DPAF, and used phased detection rows that could show up. The AEB took 1-2 second in between photos meaning no matter your AF, it took 3+ seconds, the sensor was completely unable to be IR converted (which for me was a $1000 mistake), the UI experience was very clunky coming from the M / M2. There were shutter timer features missing. There were color cast issues in the corners with fast lenses. Coming from the M or M2 it felt like Canon got out the cripple hammer, dialed it up to 11 and beat the damned thing to death.

We were all waiting for it, it wasn't released in the USA (obviously the one time you can state Canon USA was smart), so we all had to order it via Japan, we had online tutorials rolling on dpreview on how to navigate third party shippers to ship to USA / Canada / etc.

and that's what I can remember off the top of my head something like 10 years after the fact.
Canon could have corrected most of that via firmware but instead they did the M6 and M5 cameras that fixed all those problems and delivered a far superior camera(s)

The main problem I (and many others) had with the M3 was the colour rendition. It was wildly different to its predecessors and deviated from the “famed canon colours”. I remember being disappointed in the SOOC jpeg colours compared to my previous G12, but the rest of the package convinced me to persevere. And hey, I worked for Canon Business Services at the time so I got a healthy discount when I bought it along with a couple of lenses and the evf attachement.

The M5 that came along a little later fixed most of the issues I had with the M3 (including that stupid EVF attachment) and remains my main camera to this day. I do wish canon had created an M5mk2 when they released the M6mk2. I think it would have been the perfect camera for me.

I’m hoping a few lenses will come up cheap on the used market so I can round out my collection, but I fear that’s not going to happen as I’ve mentioned on the other thread.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yes, which is why I would very much like an EVF-less R camera. It being crop or FF wouldn’t make much difference to me. Lacking an RC port or not supporting USB-C PD charging would make a difference.

The reason that I would like to see that is no EVF is one less thing to get scratched or damaged.
Although, I would also like the screen to flip sideways in order to protect it.
That is a combination that Canon never does.

 

[Loswr]

The reason that I would like to see that is no EVF is one less thing to get scratched or damaged.
Although, I would also like the screen to flip sideways in order to protect it.
That is a combination that Canon never does.

There's a reason for that. I suppose Canon feels it is a good idea to have a way to use a camera right when you power it on. With no EVF and the ability to reverse the screen, there's a chance that's not possible. If your goal is protection over accessibility, there are obvious options.

 

[Blorp]

reverse the screen

That's an optional choice against quick readiness..optional and therefore no justification for anything. EVF is juts another screen and no reason it takes longer to be ready without one.

 

[Loswr]

That's an optional choice against quick readiness..optional and therefore no justification for anything. EVF is juts another screen and no reason it takes longer to be ready without one.

Canon doesn't need to justify anything. I am merely suggesting a rationale for why they don't have an EVF-less MILC on which the main LCD can be reversed.

 

[EricN]

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.

Someone who truly loves EF-M can buy used items or even new old stock for the next ten or twenty years if they want a replacement or one of the products they don't already have.

 

[EricN]

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

Canon can't stop 3-d printing. I think it can't be great quality, but if it's possible, I think a manufacturer would be able to produce an adapter no different than a Nikon to RF adaptor - if it's possible and worth the cost...

 

[Loswr]

I mean that's totally true (and I think I will try and grab a M6-2). But when I see other systems getting cool new features at some point I feel left out of the party.

The party has just moved next door, all you need to do is walk over (and pay the new cover charge). Compared to the M50 II, the R50 has a faster frame rate, much better AF, anti-flicker, focus stacking, etc.

OTOH, there's nothing in R-series APS-C to match the M6II (yet...and maybe never). Good thing my M6 and M6II still work fine, and should I need to, I expect that I can buy a replacement M6II for quite some time.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Canon doesn't need to justify anything. I am merely suggesting a rationale for why they don't have an EVF-less MILC on which the main LCD can be reversed.

Curious phrasing. Canon surely needs to provide reasons for why they do something, internally for sure, and some things externally as well if they want their customer base to understand why they made a particular decision. But sure, no business needs to justify anything if they don't care about perception or marketing. They don't owe anyone anything! lol

 

[EricN]

Picture is missing that the R8 is so much higher.

"much" is subjective

 

[Loswr]

Curious phrasing. Canon surely needs to provide reasons for why they do something, internally for sure, and some things externally as well if they want their customer base to understand why they made a particular decision. But sure, no business needs to justify anything if they don't care about perception or marketing. They don't owe anyone anything! lol

I was replying in kind to the statement that I quoted, “...optional and therefore no justification for anything.”

As always, context is important. You can take something out of context and rail against it if you don’t care how you’re perceived. You don’t owe anyone anything! lol

See what I did, there?