Rumored Canon EOS M6 Mark II specifications [CR1]

[canonical]

Well, I actully think M is 44 mm, not 47 mm, but maybe just a typo. The thing is - I don't want to adapt an M lens to the RF mount, but vice-versa - adapt an RF lens, to M mount. I know about all those weight/size arguments, but why just remove something, which could an advantage to some. Making M mount 20mm from the start, it might mean a bit larger body, but not so much. Not so much like some of us envision and APS-C RF mount camera.

EF-M has absolutely perfect combo of mount parameters (18/47mm) for Canon APS-C (1.6x crop) image circle. Even Fuji confirmed this, lol. Canon never ever envisioned using EF-M for FF image circle. Only Sony was stupid enough to force their E-mount (18/46.1 mm) into FF service, severely limiting their lens design space. Sony users may well be waiting in vain for FE tilt-shift lenses ;-)

Canon RF mount has best possible combo of mount specs for FF image circle.

Canon EOS M / EF-M lineup is so dirt cheap (relatively speaking) it does not need to be mount compatible with EOS R. anybody able to afford RF glass can easily buy an M50 plus EF-M lens of choice as small&lite travel or backup kit if they want/need it.

"upgrade path" M-RF not needed, it is a totally delusional idea by now.

 

[canonical]

I don't like if options are removed with no purpose. Today my wife went to a wedding shoot. She took our 5DIV along with the 70D as a backup. But she has left our EF-S Tamron 17-50/2.8 at home with a remark, that while EF 24-70/2.8 II would be a bit long on the short end of the 70D, it would still save the day.

just take an M50 with 22/2.0 along. small, light, dirt cheap and while it won't zoom it will easily suffice as emergency backup kit.

And againg, Canon did NOT "remove interoperability without a reason". Canon did the only right thing here: "no IQ compromise"!

2 product lines, each optimized towards the essential goals:
1) decent IQ, small and cheap for APS-C: EF-M
plus 2) optimal IQ, but not small, and not inexpensive for FF: RF mount and lineup

take your choice based on needs, desires and budget.

 

[Joules]

Having identical flange distance does not solve the situation of a different 44 vs 54 mm diameter. There would still need to be a mechanical reduction.

That's what I was trying to say. There's no free lunch. You either use an FF mount for APS-C lenses and make them all larger than necessary, like Canon has done for ages with EF-S and EF. Since those mounts are constrained by their flange distance anyway, it may not have mattered much. Or you use an APS-C mount for your FF lenses like Sony does, likely limiting the flexibility of your designs or increasing the cost of the desing with some lenses.

Of those options, the first one sounds better to me. I don't care that much about size, I'd rather get great quality for my money. But I don't necessarily need FF. If there are enough people who think like that, Canon has a reason to offer APS-C RF cameras. And if such people are the minority - why didn't the M system already replace APS-C DSLR?

BTW I got my numbers from Wikipedia, might be the difference between inner and outer diameter...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Kudoz to what exactly? For making them incompatible? If Canon envisioned it like that, then they are pretty much idiots. Would it take so much to make both just 20mm, so that you could use RF on M body?

Flange focal distance isn’t the only relevant design parameter. It would take making the EF-M mount 32% larger, result in substantially larger EOS M cameras than necessary, for a market where small size is perceived as an advantage. Or the other way, it would take making the RF mount 24% smaller, likely compromising optical designs for a market where premium IQ and fast apertures are perceived as advantages. Both of those compromises sound pretty idiotic, which is probably Canon didn’t follow your ‘advice’.

For some realistic perspective on the problem of using an RF mount on an M body, here’s the RF body cap in front of my EOS M6.

 

[canonical]

result in substantially larger EOS M cameras than necessary, for a market where small size is perceived as an advantage.

it will be interesting to see how Nikon goes about this dilemma. current state of rumours and patents seem to indicate Nikon using their extra-large, FF-optimized Z- mount also for an upcoming line of mirrorfree APS-C cameras.

Is this the next Nikon Z APS-C based mirrorless camera? - Nikon Rumors

In the past few months I have been reporting rumors about a new Nikon Z APS-C based mirrorless camera potentially without an EVF (see this and this post). Sure enough, there is a new design patent filed in Japan for what appears to be a new Nikon Z APS-C mirrorless camera without an EVF (the EVF...

nikonrumors.com

this would be pretty much equal in size to FF-sensored Canon EOS RP.

hope the rumor is true, because then we can observe how the 3 different strategies work out over time for the 3 major players.

Sony: 1 mount (E), small size, for both APS-C and FF - compromise in terms of optical design possibilities for FF lenses

Nikon (rumored): 1 mount (Z), large size, compromise in terms of size of APS- C cameras and lenses

Canon: 2 mounts, no compromise except 2 separate, non-compatible product lines. ;-)

 

[-pekr-]

Flange focal distance isn’t the only relevant design parameter. It would take making the EF-M mount 32% larger, result in substantially larger EOS M cameras than necessary, for a market where small size is perceived as an advantage. Or the other way, it would take making the RF mount 24% smaller, likely compromising optical designs for a market where premium IQ and fast apertures are perceived as advantages. Both of those compromises sound pretty idiotic, which is probably Canon didn’t follow your ‘advice’.

For some realistic perspective on the problem of using an RF mount on an M body, here’s the RF body cap in front of my EOS M6.

View attachment 185893

Just a tad bigger, yes Now realistically - what is your answer towards the ones expecting 7D III. Just curious. Here are few options: 1) Stick with DSLR, maybe 90D will be your new 7D III 2) Accept the smaller size - ergonomy and weather sealing is not everything 3) Move to FF and forget crop factor for a good, buy longer lens for the better reach ....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just a tad bigger, yes Now realistically - what is your answer towards the ones expecting 7D III. Just curious. Here are few options: 1) Stick with DSLR, maybe 90D will be your new 7D III 2) Accept the smaller size - ergonomy and weather sealing is not everything 3) Move to FF and forget crop factor for a good, buy longer lens for the better reach ....

I can’t speak for everyone, I chose #3 seven years ago and have no regrets, although I do use the M line for portability.

 

[BillB]

[

Just a tad bigger, yes Now realistically - what is your answer towards the ones expecting 7D III. Just curious. Here are few options: 1) Stick with DSLR, maybe 90D will be your new 7D III 2) Accept the smaller size - ergonomy and weather sealing is not everything 3) Move to FF and forget crop factor for a good, buy longer lens for the better reach ....

Depending on the size of the market, the logical followon might be an aps-c camera with highend AF, lots of fps and an RF mount. A piece of the puzzle would be how many telephoto RF lenses Canon intends to make.

 

[canonical]

2) Accept the smaller size - ergonomy and weather sealing is not everything

in principle no problem to add excellent weather sealing and a beefier grip to an EOS M camera, along with better power pack and top-notch AF.

In practice Canon sees that market for crop sensor cameras over 1k is evaporating and therefore will rather offer EOS R FF cameras including model/s with high resolution = lots of crop potential. enough folks seem to be willing to shell out north of 3k for those.

Of course Canon will also be happy to sell big white super-teles - ideally in EF mount today and then again in RF mount in 3 years.

 

[xanbarksdale]

If these video specs are true I’ll def be picking one up with a sigma 18-35 as a backup/portable video option.

 

[flip314]

In practice Canon sees that market for crop sensor cameras over 1k is evaporating and therefore will rather offer EOS R FF cameras including model/s with high resolution = lots of crop potential. enough folks seem to be willing to shell out north of 3k for those.

I think the RP is pretty much the final nail in the coffin for >$1K prosumer crop cameras (from Canon, at least), I'm sure it will go on sale now and then for close to $1000. If Canon can hit 10fps with a "pro" body that doesn't cost as much as a 1DX, I'm sure that will be the death of the 7D series as well.

I think that Canon has been smart about not committing one way or another to crop RF bodies. I know some people here get irrationally angry at the mere suggestion, for some reason. I keep going back and forth as to whether I think it's possible, but I'll admit over time I keep thinking it's less likely.

 

[lawny13]

Fair enough. The missing piece of the puzzle is where Canon is on sensor and processor development. Are they about to pull another rabbit out of the hat? We shall see. Or not.

As the rumor goes now... canon claims to have caught up to Sony in their next sensor tech.

I am not sure we need a rabbit out of the hat sort of thing to be honest. Silicon based sensors are now reaching the point of saturation. As in you can’t squeeze much more DR out of them. Why do you think the new and improved DR is 15 stops vs 14.7 stops of the A7III. 0.x increase in DR becomes a little pointless.

Sensor read out/speeds and such is where the major gains are. It makes complete sense especially for canon and their DPAF system. That thing will shine as a mother if it had proper speed behind it. If they do that... they will be on top.... but of course there is a kicker.

When Sony has their AF tracking out where you just got a big box appear on the subject you didn’t really know where on the subject the camera was focusing. It also wondered. I had wished that they would go with a more refined representation and just have those little boxes cover the subject. They did implement it and it became more obvious to the user what was going on. They also refined the AF algorithm.

I find canon is now at that same big box stage. And I can see when the system gets confused the box would wonder and at times end up on a subject next to the one I had intended to. Like putting it on the head of someone only to see it end up on the body of the person next to the original person.

I describe it like this because everyone understands that visual feedback. But in essence it is clear that their tracking algorithm can also use some work.

A good tracking algorythm with a the AF tracking speed and responsiveness is the 1DXII BUT by means of the DPAF... Sony can’t touch that to be honest. Of course Sony is very very good at intellegent tracking. So my feeling is you will have blazing fast DPAF on one end, but a superior “intelligent” tracking capabilities from Sony.

Anyway. Canon is always looking at the system as a whole. If their DR is within a half stop of Sony the DR discussion is moot. If AF is faster and better (in low light) than Sony that is big, but sony’s software balances that out. So... it is in the other aspects of the system that canon will be better. Lenses will be a big one (Cheaper conventional glass, and exotic ones such as the f2 zooms and f1.2 primes). Of course you have the usual culprits from colors to reliability (support is in there too) ergonomics, menus etc.

Now... besides that we need to not forget that they will probably push the M line as well. They seem to have dropped the silly upgrade path idea. If the next M bodies are updated as the rumors say I believe they will beat Sony on the APS-C front. And that my friend is securing the future. Truely small, stellar performance, fast etc. From the rumored specs I can see people wanting one over their phones. I would hate not being able to use RF primes on one, but I would likely pick one up for walk around and travel. A single prime and zoom on a M5 mk2. I hate the feel and range finder style of the A6xxx, though I tried hard to like it. I get the feeling others will feel the same and rather go for an M

 

[Don Haines]

What about weather sealing?

I like the Oly’s because they are well sealed, but how good is the sealing on the M line?

 

[st jack photography]

30 FPS burst? If these specs are anything close to the truth, Canon just did this...

I remember my g5m2 had a supposedly "fast" burst too, but when I set mine on high speed continuous, RAW in full size, it took one shot, stopped, waited for the buffer. 1 shot! This is for a camera they still sell! Now jpeg, sure, it would have taken 25 or more at 5fps, or similar, but not RAW. Canon tends to pad their descriptions with fine print stuff like this, unfortunately.
My Sony rx1rm2 shoots TOO FAST in high speed, fastest camera I ever shot with, and it will do about 20 or so RAW faster than I need them, at the full RAW size of over 100mb. I have never went beyond that because I never needed it, and it may shoot even faster than that. I have no idea why Canon is so far behind, but I sure do have a lot of EF lenses, so I wish they would catch up to Sony, or at least get a few years closer to what Sony has. The reason I keep resisting Sony is because I don't think they can make a f1.2 lens in any focal length. That flange is too small, which is why Canon didn't put EF-M on mirrorless full frame, even though it would technically work, I suppose.
I am kind of bummed about 35mm sensors in general. I don't think any one company is nailing it.
I would like to see the whole industry rebuilt around an appx 40mm x 40mm BSI modular sensor with high-megapixel crop options, (or even a circular sensor, since a rectangle hardly uses the best parts of the optics), but ultimately it is what it is.
Just turns out I hate Canon the least.

 

[Deleted member 378664]

Nikon is unable to make and sell any mirrorfree APS-C ILC system at all and that's why they have fallen to #3 market position, ...

I wouldn't be sure about the Nikon part with reference to Nikon rumors -> Nikon Z3, Z5, Z9

kind regards
Frank

 

[canonical]

up

I wouldn't be sure about the Nikon part with reference to Nikon rumors -> Nikon Z3, Z5, Z9

kind regards
Frank

yes. but up to now Nikon has no mirrorfree APS-C system at all. if i were Canon i would exploit this window to the max by launching beastly good and ultracompact EOS M M100/50/5 Mk. II versions.

if Nikon really goes with Z-mount for a mirrorfree APS-C lineup, then Z3/5 will be comically big and bulky. And lenses too. And more expensive than Canon EF-M. Not good in the crop-sensor market segment where only 2 things count: low(er) price and small(er) size.

 

[jolyonralph]

Canon could design a TC that does not need to protrude into the lens.

But at a high enough level of quality? I think it's far more likely that the extenders will be designed for the RF big whites when they come, and the 70-200 will miss out - at least this generation of it.

 

[flip314]

But at a high enough level of quality? I think it's far more likely that the extenders will be designed for the RF big whites when they come, and the 70-200 will miss out - at least this generation of it.

Does anyone have any idea how many people use extenders with the 70-200 lenses? I can imagine that with the f2.8s, a ~100-280mm f4 or 140-400mm f5.6 would be a useful enough lens, but I really don't know if it's common.

Probably the TCs are less useful with the f4 variety, but that's just a guess.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Does anyone have any idea how many people use extenders with the 70-200 lenses? I can imagine that with the f2.8s, a ~100-280mm f4 or 140-400mm f5.6 would be a useful enough lens, but I really don't know if it's common.

Probably the TCs are less useful with the f4 variety, but that's just a guess.

I got a 2x converter to use with my 70-200 2.8. TBH it ain't that great. Slows the af too much and the sacrifice on image quality is normally too problematic. Will only use that combo in very good light.

 

[JohnyT]

Here it is! Interposed adaptor to allow EF-M To accept RF lenses as well as EF lenses!
Japan Patent Application 2019-133194

Canon Patent Application: New mount and lens adapters

In this patent application, Canon describes a camera mount and various adapters that can be used with it, that may or may not also provide electronic connection to the lenses. I suspect this level of research is dealing with Canon CINI cameras, as it may be advantageous going forward to easily...

www.canonnews.com

You saw it here first!