Rumored Canon EOS M6 Mark II specifications [CR1]

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
772
1,000
www.instagram.com
Time for some wild speculation!

Again, with these specs I find myself scratching my head - it just seems out of place to jump that far forward - not that I'm complaining! I just feel like there is something I'm missing here.

I wonder if they'd move the M mount down to M43 and really focus on compact size cameras? Crazy suspicion, I know, but we were told that there's a real head scratcher coming (I know it was linked to the R mount and everyone guessed astrophotograhy, but that could have been communicated as mirrorless head scratcher and interpreted as R-mount), and CanonNews noted that Canon patented a number of M43 lenses recently as well. That would get me scratching my head, but it would clear the way to start making APS-C R series cameras, and let the EF-M mount really focus on compact size using M43 sensors. If they moved their APS-C mirrorless offering to the R mount, they'd regain their upgrade pathway from APS-C to FF, and let the EF-M really show how tiny you can make a great camera. It seems nuts, but it would fix a number of question marks for Canon.

That's the end of my wild speculation - this rumour definitely has me in a fever dream.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
603
364
The internets will still explode, even if all these specs are true. No IBIS!
Ibis soesnt fit to same equation with cheap price ,small size and light weight.
I believe R and RP are bit outsiders ,they not on canon 5 year plan . They used to have new sensors when presenting new generation . Now they getting to right track again i guess :)
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,696
4,257
True, but 16 fps burst rate would be leading for Canon as a company - I have a hard time seeing it jump ahead of the 1Dxii. The other point which caught my attention is I had thought the digital stabilizer for movies only worked if a crop was in place - how can it use a digital stabilizer without a crop? That seems off to me as well.
It’s comparatively easy for a small sensored mirrorless camera to beat the FPS of the top end EF DSLR, P&S’s have been besting them for years.

They record the full sensor (format aspect ratio and sensor dimensions permitting) and then throw away the outer edge after software stabilization.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: criscokkat

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
772
1,000
www.instagram.com
It’s comparatively easy for a small sensored mirrorless camera to beat the FPS of the top end RF DSLR, P&S’s have been besting them for years.

They record the full sensor (format aspect ratio and sensor dimensions permitting) and then throw away the outer edge after software stabilization.
Also true, but one could argue that an APS-C camera is much more competitive with a FF DLSR than a point and shoot. It's been a long time since I've used any of Canon's powershot cameras - do they use a mechanical shutter for those high-speed burst rates (though I guess no-one said the M6 would use a mechanical shutter for 16 fps)? Canon hasn't had any APS-C or FF cameras challenge the 1Dxii for burst rate - even the release of the 7D II didn't challenge the 1Dx I despite being 2 years newer. But yes, I agree that it should be expected that any new release can get a hand full of class leading specs within Canon's stable, but becoming the highest resolution sensor (besides the 5DS), the fastest frame rate of any Canon ILC, the only Canon non-cinema camera with full sensor 4k readout, the only camera with 180 fps video, etc. all seems like quite a splash and frankly out of character.

Also, with respect to sensor size and high burst rates - what about data transfer rates? 16 fps at 32.5 MP and a raw burst rate of 30 FPS seems like it must be chugging data. The point and shoot cameras which move a lot of frames seem to do that in JPG and with lower resolution (I think?). This looks like it would be moving a whole lot more data, and on a single Digic 8+ : how much advancement is reasonable from a Digic 8 to a Digic 8+? Again, I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems off to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

Eersel

EOS M50
Apr 4, 2016
36
48
This would be huge if true. The is very little competition in the A6500 market space (other than Fuji).

If it's priced competitively, and we can get a few more EF-M lenses, I could see this being a popular choice.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
There are not really. Can adapt a 70-200 and i would but there is no high quality normal zoom which is not as big and heavy as a brick.
How about the EF-S 17-55? Not exactly small and light, but it might pair up nicely with the 70-200.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
Time for some wild speculation!

Again, with these specs I find myself scratching my head - it just seems out of place to jump that far forward - not that I'm complaining! I just feel like there is something I'm missing here.

I wonder if they'd move the M mount down to M43 and really focus on compact size cameras? Crazy suspicion, I know, but we were told that there's a real head scratcher coming (I know it was linked to the R mount and everyone guessed astrophotograhy, but that could have been communicated as mirrorless head scratcher and interpreted as R-mount), and CanonNews noted that Canon patented a number of M43 lenses recently as well. That would get me scratching my head, but it would clear the way to start making APS-C R series cameras, and let the EF-M mount really focus on compact size using M43 sensors. If they moved their APS-C mirrorless offering to the R mount, they'd regain their upgrade pathway from APS-C to FF, and let the EF-M really show how tiny you can make a great camera. It seems nuts, but it would fix a number of question marks for Canon.

That's the end of my wild speculation - this rumour definitely has me in a fever dream.
I think the head scratcher might be a camera with an aps-c sensor with high end autofocus and an RF mount, filling the 7DII niche and permitting the use of RF lenses. I don't see Canon going with anything other than their new 32ish aps-c sensor in any new M cameras, especially if the rumored specs are anywhere near true.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,340
3,668
Irving, Texas
If this is true Canon is going to grab more market share.

Somebody mentioned that Canon may one day make an M43 camera with the M mount. I doubt that. M43 has been losing popularity and doesn't seem to fit the current strategy. There just isn't enough low hanging fruit in the M43 category to make it worth the effort or use of R&D $, in my opinion.

Wouldn't M mount mean a thicker camera for M43 to get the flange distance right and take care of the image circle size difference between M43 and APS-C? I don't know, but there are smarter guys here who could intelligently speculate on that. I just don't see how moving into the M43 market would be beneficial to Canon. I think cameras like the Canon M series will help kill off M43... especially the one rumored here. The small sensor camera market is getting especially squeezed between smartphones and FF. Even some of the M43 mfgs. are coming out with FF. They desperately need market share to survive in this shrinking market for ILCs.

I have an Olympus M43, and it cost more than any M. The pro lenses are not inexpensive either. Canon's M looks like it would be far nicer to hold. I'd bet on more lenses for the M rather than entering the tiny market of M43. Had I to do over again, I'd get an M6 series instead of the Olympus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape and LSXPhotog

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
772
1,000
www.instagram.com
If this is true Canon is going to grab more market share.

Somebody mentioned that Canon may one day make an M43 camera with the M mount. I doubt that. M43 has been losing popularity and doesn't seem to fit the current strategy. There just isn't enough low hanging fruit in the M43 category to make it worth the effort or use of R&D $, in my opinion.

Wouldn't M mount mean a thicker camera for M43 to get the flange distance right and take care of the image circle size difference between M43 and APS-C? I don't know, but there are smarter guys here who could intelligently speculate on that. I just don't see how moving into the M43 market would be beneficial to Canon. I think cameras like the Canon M series will help kill off M43... especially the one rumored here. The small sensor camera market is getting especially squeezed between smartphones and FF. Even some of the M43 mfgs. are coming out with FF. They desperately need market share to survive in this shrinking market for ILCs.

I have an Olympus M43, and it cost more than any M. The pro lenses are not inexpensive either. Canon's M looks like it would be far nicer to hold. I'd bet on more lenses for the M rather than entering the tiny market of M43. Had I to do over again, I'd get an M6 series instead of the Olympus.
Oh it was crazy speculation from me to be sure - but it was fueled by the fact that Canon recently patented what seem to be m43 lens designs: https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-various-lenses-for-micro-four-thirds-sensor-size
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
370
329
I keep seeing comments about video crops that are looking for integer (i.e. 1:1 or 2:1) relationships in the crop. Remember that in order to do electronic image stabilization, the processor has to be able to do sub-pixel interpolation in small increments. That is the same math that is required for a non-integer related image shrinker, so in the end, it is all about how fast the imager can read out pixels and not about the processor. Also, note that for stacked sensors, the non-sensor part (i.e. memory and initial processing) is actually a different piece of silicon bonded to the imager so all the fuss about canon process geometry is a red herring because the memory and processing chip can be made at any foundry and is likely farmed out by both Canon and Sony. The trickery is in the imager chemistry (metallurgy if you will) for low noise, micro lenses, and in the lapping (for BSI) and bonding processes. Sony has had a lead in the lapping and bonding bit for a while, but that is about it. Their lead in low ISO dynamic range has nothing do with the imager, but rather reflects a somewhat better A/D converter. When you look at the underlying issues, there are really only a couple of things Canon needs to "catch up" on and actual imager chemistry is not one of them.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
119
Williamsport, PA
As an M6 owner, I'm pretty stoked!

Why the M6 over the M5? Wouldn't having a real viewfinder be preferred for most situations? I can't see squat when outside in the daytime.
Just curios as to the appeal for a finderless camera.
PS don't give me crap you can get a finder for the M6 as that comes with the M5 at no extra cost or effort and keeps the accessory shoe free for other things like a flash.
 

LSXPhotog

Motorsports, Automotive, Commerical, & Real Estate
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
471
400
www.diossiphotography.com
True, but 16 fps burst rate would be leading for Canon as a company - I have a hard time seeing it jump ahead of the 1Dxii. The other point which caught my attention is I had thought the digital stabilizer for movies only worked if a crop was in place - how can it use a digital stabilizer without a crop? That seems off to me as well.
I too am incredibly skeptical of these specs, but would like to point out that the 1DX Mark II shoots 14fps with AF and 16fps in Liveview and mirror lock up. I don't for a second believe this camera will shoot 16fps with autofocus. I could see 10 or maybe 12fps tops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armnd and amorse

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
119
Williamsport, PA
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan and amorse

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
370
329
Why the M6 over the M5? Wouldn't having a real viewfinder be preferred for most situations? I can't see squat when outside in the daytime.
Just curios as to the appeal for a finderless camera.
PS don't give me crap you can get a finder for the M6 as that comes with the M5 at no extra cost or effort and keeps the accessory shoe free for other things like a flash.
I have an M3 (pretty much the same size as an M6) and an M5. I love the VF in the M5, but the M3 is definitely more portable (particularly with the 22mm prime). I have the external VF for the M3 and it works, but doesn't compare to the M5 VF with the one exception that it tilts up so you can look down into it which is occasionally handy. Bottom line, if you feel the need to put you camera in your pocket, the M6 is a better fit. Otherwise, the M5 is the better choice. OTOH, if you are really looking for portable, the M100 smaller yet.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
119
Williamsport, PA
I have an M3 (pretty much the same size as an M6) and an M5. I love the VF in the M5, but the M3 is definitely more portable (particularly with the 22mm prime). I have the external VF for the M3 and it works, but doesn't compare to the M5 VF with the one exception that it tilts up so you can look down into it which is occasionally handy. Bottom line, if you feel the need to put you camera in your pocket, the M6 is a better fit. Otherwise, the M5 is the better choice. OTOH, if you are really looking for portable, the M100 smaller yet.

I I am going really portable is using my cell phone. :D
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
597
579
119
Williamsport, PA
It's not weird if their goal is small, light lenses for casual/amateur use. Not every system needs to address every need.

Agree,
If you want f2.8 etc. there is that option and it is called the 7D, XXd, 5D, 6D or 1D series cameras.
For me the appeal of the M is that the lenses are small and don't need to be fast. That is what I have the 7D for.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
329
300
Madison, WI
Would canon use that sensor size for some of their P&S cameras and give them an option of being ILC's?
Just a far out in left field thought.
The patent is for lens elements, not the lens housing. It could be the lenses in a PS camera with a sony 4/3 sensor. They've already used smaller sony sensors for other PowerShots.
 
<-- start Taboola -->