Opinion: EOS-M transition that never was

[LensSodomist]

No, size savings. Try reading. The phrase ‘fit in a carryon’ was a clue. Weight doesn’t bother me, I routinely shoot my R3 + 600/4 II handheld.


No, the point is to be able to get good quality images with a small kit for a short trip. By that I mean one or at most two days, anything longer and I’m checking a bag anyway.

This was from an overnight trip to London, taken with the M2 + M11-22. It’s a 2.5 s exposure at ISO 400 (camera on an GorillaPod wrapped around the railing of one of the Jubilee Bridges) and a FF camera would not have given better results.

View attachment 212368


Spent two weeks in Italy this summer, took my R8, RF 14-35/4L, RF 24-105/4L, RF 100-400, RF 24/1.4, RF 28/2.8, and TS-E 17/4L. All in my carryon, along with an extra 1 kg of batteries for scuba dive lights, a Mac laptop, change of clothes and some other small items.

Cameras are tools, and APS-C is capable of creating images as good as FF in some, but not all, conditions.


Oh, ok. Best you go back to playing with your lenses in your own, special way.

Your image is nice. But it could have been created by almost any camera, especially with a stopped-down aperture for fat DoF. It's pedestrian. Let's see some portraits with fast glass and interesting bokeh! Lets move on to the kind of pictures made by one who is mature in their skills. Your travel photo does not prove out your opinions.

Are you a seasoned traveler? You can take TWO bags in the cabin...plenty of room for all your clothes, toothpaste, and a few choice RF L lenses and a body. No need to bring your consumer kit...let grandma use it.

 

[Loswr]

Let's see some portraits with fast glass and interesting bokeh! Lets move on to the kind of pictures made by one who is mature in their skills.

We’re waiting.

Are you a seasoned traveler? You can take TWO bags in the cabin...plenty of room for all your clothes, toothpaste, and a few choice RF L lenses and a body. No need to bring your consumer kit...let grandma use it.

Lol. Not when one must pack two suits, dress shoes, and warm casual clothing. I guess you don’t have to dress well when traveling on business, and have plenty of extra room.

 

[EricN]

We’re waiting.


Lol. Not when one must pack two suits, dress shoes, and warm casual clothing. I guess you don’t have to dress well when traveling on business, and have plenty of extra room.

Some people aren't capable of establishing the kind of career or social standing to require traveling in more formal clothes than jeans and t-shirts. Maybe think they are superior because they aren't obliged to meet various responsibilities, but they might also realize they are missing out on the benefits obtained after fulfillment of mundane demands are met. Posting or viewing unusual things on the internet is entertaining to me regardless compensation for some failure or boredom. What am I saying? I certainly wouldn't know about any of these dualities because I can't handle alternative views

 

[SnowMiku]

I don't have an M6 II or R7 so what were the extra features that the M6 II had over the R7?

 

[Deleted member 386702]

...What do you suggest we consumers can do, other than just ‘deal with it’?

Well, let me see... Not to deal with it ! ? As it seems many have already done...

 

[Richard CN]

y'all are slowing down, we should be hitting page 15 by now

I may have looked quick but I didn't see one Canon is Doomed™

 

[Richard CN]

Are you a seasoned traveler? You can take TWO bags in the cabin...plenty of room for all your clothes, toothpaste, and a few choice RF L lenses and a body. No need to bring your consumer kit...let grandma use it.

Oh, the airlines must love you.

But you're wrong though. Who needs clothes? seasoned travelers just wear one. Grandma can ship the clothes later.

 

[Richard CN]

If what you're suggesting is correct, and people 'gave up on Canon' then sales would reflect that

I clearly stated "or did people finally give up on Canon and the EOS-M?" and when on to explain that clearly, Canon gave up on the EOS-M 3-5 years ago and that sooner or later an M50 Mark II that doesn't even have R100 tech is not going to sell well. Also alot of various kits, etc are sold out, and if they are sold out during the periods of ticket gathering that obviously taints your sales comparison.

Now if Canon was continuing development on the EOS-M and the RF-S, and people slid well over to the RF-S side you'd really have a point I can look up BCN data just as well, which is why I said the RF had a lead over the EF-M only this year. The R10 and the R7 certainly didn't cause a switch.

For instance; the far superior R50 to M50 double lens kits (only the numbers are the same) are only 20,000 yen difference in Japan or around $130. ~140k yen to ~120k yen.

People started buying the RF-S most likely because it was "new" and "newer" and priced nearly the same, and the current RF-S cameras seriously outclass the M50 and in reality, Canon didn't give them much of a choice in the matter. that was the point.

Knowing what triggers the BCN market - if it came down to the EF-M and RF-S on competing products where Canon actually tried on both? Japan would have sided more with the EF-M. They have always favored smaller kits and bargains.

 

[Loswr]

I clearly stated "or did people finally give up on Canon and the EOS-M?" and when on to explain that clearly, Canon gave up on the EOS-M 3-5 years ago and that sooner or later an M50 Mark II that doesn't even have R100 tech is not going to sell well.

Sorry, I misinterpreted. Still, it seems the M50 II continued selling very well until the R50 came out. Canon abandoned the M line, but buyers didn’t…until something came along to replace it – a small enough, lighter APS-C R.

Now if Canon was continuing development on the EOS-M and the RF-S, and people slid well over to the RF-S side you'd really have a point but they didn't, so you have no relevant point. everything you pointed it was irrelevant. I can look up BCN data just as well, if not better, which is why I said the RF had a lead over the EF-M only this year. The R10 and the R7 certainly didn't cause a switch either.

I guess we’ll have to disagree. By the end of 2022 (Nov/Dec), R10 kits were in the top 3 on BCN, but it wasn’t until after the R50 that the M50 II kits fell out of the top 10.

It’s irrelevant what could have happened if Canon had continued developing the M system. They didn’t. You have stated that’s a problem for Canon, I disagree – APS-C R sales are simply taking the place of M sales.

People started buying the RF-S most likely because it was "new" and "newer" and priced nearly the same, and in reality, Canon didn't give them much of a choice in the matter.

Agreed. So again, how is this a problem for Canon. If they dropped the M line and had no best-sellers in the top 10 (except the cheap DSLR kit that occasionally shows up), you might have a relevant point. But that didn’t happen.

Knowing what triggers the BCN market - if it came down to the EF-M and RF-S on competing products where Canon actually tried on both? Japan would have sided more with the EF-M. They have always favored smaller kits and bargains.

Also irrelevant. As you say, Canon didn’t give buyers a choice. Even so, the R50 is barely larger than the M50 II, and it’s lighter.

Some time back I posted a list of reasons I didn’t believe Canon would release APS-C R bodies, the popularity of the M line being the primary rationale. Clearly I was wrong. But once they did put out APS-C R bodies, the writing was on the wall for the M system. As Canon no doubt intended, APS-C R sales are simply replacing M sales.

Sure, the demise of the M system is a problem for those of us invested in it. But seriously, new lenses and bodies will be available for a long time. The M6II was discontinued ‘officially’ nearly 1.5 years ago (May 2022), and I can still buy one new on Amazon, in multiple colors and various bundles. Used M lenses and bodies will be available for much longer. Granted, that may not be true everywhere.

You still have not shown how this is a problem for Canon in any meaningful way, much less that because of it Canon is doomed. (I put that last bit in just for you .)

 

[Quackator]

Bought the original M also because it was ridiculously cheap and with
the thought of at least getting another HDMI video source, or maybe
a photobooth camera. Bought it because I wanted mirrorless, not for
the size of it.

I was shocked to say the least to learn that it didn't work tethered with EOS utility.
Never occured to me to think a Canon camera would not.
Also the LCD was unusable in bright sunlight, but the 22mm was a great lens.

I was pretty sluggish, though. Next up the M3. Still no EVF, but there was that
add-on EVF. Bummer in that was that it blocked the accessory shoe, so I couldn't
use it as second in the studio with radio flash triggers.

Last was the M5. Still no tethering, but at least onboard EVF and accessory shoe.
Biggest problem is that it takes ages in low light to fire, even with AF turned
off and everything in manual. Canon never fixed that.

Lenses? 11-22mm, 15-45mm, 22mm, 18-55mm, 3x EF->EF-M Mount Converter
and the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM that I never use with anything else.

Mused about getting the M50 II, but without migration path to RF rather
bought the RP, which didn't have any of the M Problems.
Main camera now is the R5C.

Rest in peace, M-system. Still use the M5 occasionally, my daughter got the M3.
The original M gathers dust.

 

[riker]

Two opinions.

1) Although I like your logic and would love to think the same way but I believe we are pretty wrong. Most people buying M gear and probably RF-S in the future are not photographers, they are not thinking and planning the way you/we do, there's no such logic and consideration prior to purchase. Most of the M gear I've seen in my life was in the hands of young Asian girls, absolute amatures, probably using the camera in full auto mode, not even really understanding what a crop sensor is, or anything about the whole system.

2) Strongly connected to 1), being the reason why we never had the chance to see proper lens selection for the M system and we never will for RF-S. We could have excellent lightweight lenses for the RF-S system, such as 70-200/4, 100-300/4 (or actually anything that has already been developed for full frame), to make it a dream enthusiast travel system. But it's a dream, never to come true. At least not in the Canon ecosystem.

 

[Dragon]

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.

Yes, the Japanese market likes change. You only have to spend a few days in Aki Habra to realize how many things sell there that will obviously have a short lifetime.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, it's sooooooo much higher. Just so high. Well, something is.

View attachment 212363

When you add the EVF to the M and a leather half-case so you have enough grip to hold onto, then the difference is minimal and even favors the R8 in some ways.

 

[Dragon]

@Richard. When you say the R transition from M is too soon, you are overlooking both business concerns and user opportunity. From a business perspective, it is not smart to keep something you are going to replace in the market too long or you will wind up needing to have a fire sale to get rid of the remainder (The 5DS(r) comes to mind). From a user perspective, you are overlooking the usability of some of the FF RF lenses on RFs bodies. The 16mm, 28mm pancake, and 50mm f/1.8 jump to the top of the list and they are all priced below where most of the EF-M lenses sat. The crop area of the 16mm is excellent resulting in a very fine standard-wide lens. The 28 pancake is very small and very good and the 50 f/1.8 serves as a portrait prime for crop frame. When you add in the RF-s zooms that are available, the lens selection is not that bad for a typical consumer and I have no doubt that a few more options will come along. I have an M3 and and M6 II (I gave my M5 to a granddaughter) as well as all the M series lenses and I will continue to use the M6 II for portable situations. That said, the M6 II does have some odd limitations. The complete lack of EFCS along with the weird limitations on the e-shutter can create problems. You, yourself, have written extensively about the shutter shock issues with some of the M-series zooms and a very slow single frame e-shutter is an annoyance when silence is golden and the subject is moving.

I suspect that If I need to replace the M6 II down the road, there will be an RF-s body that looks a lot like an M-200, but only time will tell.

For those specifically wishing for an enthusiast APS-c system, then Fuji is the only sensible choice and some of those might want to consider M4/3. Canon has made it clear since the 5D II that FF was going to be their format of choice for Enthusiast and Pro applications.

As to the M3 being "terrible", I have not seen that to be the case, but I always shoot raw, so the weird steep default contrast curve is irrelevant. The sensor is essentially the same as Canon SLRs of the same era. Mirrorless AF just wasn't very sophisticated at that point, but if you have a little patience, it works.

Sorry about being so late to the party, but I was on the road (with my M6 II) .

 

[AlanF]

For those specifically wishing for an enthusiast APS-c system, then Fuji is the only sensible choice and some of those might want to consider M4/3. Canon has made it clear since the 5D II that FF was going to be their format of choice for Enthusiast and Pro applications.

The 7DII was released after the 5DII, two years after the 5DIII in fact, and the 7DII was aimed at and still used by enthusiasts. We live in hope.

 

[John Wilde]

Canon's mistake was not releasing the RF mount in 2012. If they would have done that, there would have been no mount discontinuation.

 

[Dragon]

The 7DII was released after the 5DII, two years after the 5DIII in fact, and the 7DII was aimed at and still used by enthusiasts. We live in hope.

Not sure exactly what Canon's motivation for the 7DII was, but in practice, it seems to have been mostly used to extend long FF lenses. The R7 does much the same today, but at 80+ MP equivalent FF resolution, there are relatively few lenses that have enough resolution to realize much benefit and those are mostly L lenses, so not really an "APS-c enthusiast" niche, but rather a tool for pros or well-heeled enthusiasts to use when trying to extract the last bit from their lenses. Like you, I favor birds and particularly hummingbirds, so I understand the quest for maximum magnification and "pixels on the bird" quite well. I do use the R7 with the RF 800 f/11 and that combo does provide some useful benefit, but the old EF 800 f/5.6 is still better and at 10 lbs. that is not an "APS-c enthusiast" lens in normal parlance. For those wanting a smaller, lighter system for all around use, the 7D II was not the answer since it was a whole 1.4 ounces lighter than the 5D III, and the 90D and R7 are not particularly small either. What they all have in common is the ability to enhance the reach of big, long, expensive lenses, albeit less so as the pixel density of FF rises. If an 80 MP R5 IIs had been released, I would have skipped the R7 altogether. The catch with APS-c for long reach is that a dedicated APS-c long telephoto is going to be essentially the same size as a FF version unless the lens is very slow and I know you understand why (and just look at the Fuji 150-600 and compare to the Tamron FF). I stand by my comment re Fuji with the clarification of "all around" or "general purpose" APS-c. If you need max reach with top IQ (as both you and I strive for), then Canon is the better choice and the R7 is the camera of the moment, but a high res R5 would be an even better choice because of the wider field of view.

 

[Dragon]

Canon's mistake was not releasing the RF mount in 2012. If they would have done that, there would have been no mount discontinuation.

Releasing the RF mount in 2012 would have been a huge mistake as it would have signaled the end of FF SLRs long before the technology was in place to make a remotely competitive mirrorless body. The small M mount was not threatening to the FF SLR lineup and it gave Canon a platform to experiment with mirrorless. Yes, there are a few folks upset with their M lens investment, but the number is small and if they really need the money, eBay is there to help and M lens values have not materially dropped.

 

[AlanF]

Not sure exactly what Canon's motivation for the 7DII was, but in practice, it seems to have been mostly used to extend long FF lenses. The R7 does much the same today, but at 80+ MP equivalent FF resolution, there are relatively few lenses that have enough resolution to realize much benefit and those are mostly L lenses, so not really an "APS-c enthusiast" niche, but rather a tool for pros or well-heeled enthusiasts to use when trying to extract the last bit from their lenses. Like you, I favor birds and particularly hummingbirds, so I understand the quest for maximum magnification and "pixels on the bird" quite well. I do use the R7 with the RF 800 f/11 and that combo does provide some useful benefit, but the old EF 800 f/5.6 is still better and at 10 lbs. that is not an "APS-c enthusiast" lens in normal parlance. For those wanting a smaller, lighter system for all around use, the 7D II was not the answer since it was a whole 1.4 ounces lighter than the 5D III, and the 90D and R7 are not particularly small either. What they all have in common is the ability to enhance the reach of big, long, expensive lenses, albeit less so as the pixel density of FF rises. If an 80 MP R5 IIs had been released, I would have skipped the R7 altogether. The catch with APS-c for long reach is that a dedicated APS-c long telephoto is going to be essentially the same size as a FF version unless the lens is very slow and I know you understand why (and just look at the Fuji 150-600 and compare to the Tamron FF). I stand by my comment re Fuji with the clarification of "all around" or "general purpose" APS-c. If you need max reach with top IQ (as both you and I strive for), then Canon is the better choice and the R7 is the camera of the moment, but a high res R5 would be an even better choice because of the wider field of view.

The 7DII had the 5-series quality build and ergonomics and a faster fps and much more pixel dense sensor than the then latest 5DIII. It was used by pros like Glen Bartley on CR as well as enthusiasts. The Nikon D500 APS-C is one of the best birding DSLRs made with similar build quality. Anything that an APS-C can do can be done by an FF with 2.56x the pixels and a crop mode. The main difference is that the APS-C is cheaper. It would seem that both Canon and Nikon have decided to concentrate more on the cheapness of APS-C than having them of the highest quality. By the way, the RF 100-500mm on my R7 gives the resolution of that lens plus a 1.4x TC on my R5.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Yes, there are a few folks upset with their M lens investment, but the number is small and if they really need the money, eBay is there to help and M lens values have not materially dropped.

Instead of getting rid of my M equipment, I'm actually doubling down and picking up more M stuff. As other posters already said, the RF-S system isn't anywhere near as compact and therefore for my needs, it's not an adequate substitute. As long as the equipment works, I'll continue to use it.